CH3 REVIEW OF INITIAL LANDSCAPE EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1.1 Para 6.6(1) of the brief requires that the Consultants carry out "a review of the initial landscape...evaluative criteria in the light of public comments/views received..."

3.1.2 This Chapter identifies key comments received on the Initial Evaluative Criteria (presented in TR2) during the First Stage Public Consultation and describes the Consultant's response to these comments and how they were incorporated (or otherwise) into the Revised Evaluation Criteria. (Please note that comments received are discussed more fully in the First Stage Public Consultation Report).

3.1.3 It also describes other changes, which have been made to the Initial Evaluative Criteria, as a result of comments received on TR2.

3.1.4 Finally, Revised Evaluative Criteria are set out, for use in production of the Draft Landscape Character Map.

3.2.1 During the First Stage Public Consultation, a number of consultees raised issues relevant to the initial Landscape Evaluation Criteria. The key comments made in this regard are summarised below and a commentary provided on them.

3.2.2 A general issue that was repeatedly raised was the extent to which subjectivity is involved in the judgement of landscape value generally and in particular, in the evaluation of specific features such as buildings or ‘eyesores? Some consultees further pointed to the need to define evaluation criteria clearly to minimise subjectivity and one consultee recommended setting up a special committee containing appropriately qualified professionals to provide input to the evaluation. Other consultees suggested that the evaluation should not simply reflect professional values but also public views. Some consultees suggested a public perception survey would be a good way of eliciting public values. One consultee also proposed measuring landscape value in monetary terms, i.e. the extent that people were willing to pay to keep the landscape intact.

3.2.3 The Study recommended four evaluation criteria, namely: landscape character; landscape condition; landscape sensitivity and landscape value. Technical guidelines on the application and interpretation of the criteria are contained in Technical Report No. 2, which is available for reference at Planning Department's website. There is inevitably a degree of subjectivity involved in the evaluation process of landscape. However, this is not to suggest that such judgements are in any way covert, arbitrary or irrational. Key to the evaluation process are the principles that value judgements will be made by trained professionals:

3.2.4 When the results are presented to the public, it is hoped that a consensus could be reached through extensive community discussion on the landscape value determined.

3.2.5 Public perception surveys on landscape value have been used occasionally in some landscape studies around the world. However, considerable doubt has been raised in academic literature as to whether meaningful measurements of public opinion can be obtained from such surveys.

3.2.6 There are insurmountable practical obstacles to using monetary value to assess landscape value. In particular, almost every landscape is unique (and therefore cannot meaningfully be compared with others). There are also other practical problems in separating the aesthetic value of land from other aspects affecting people's willingness to pay and therefore its value, such as location, permitted land use, natural resource value, etc.

3.2.7 Certain consultees questioned the relationships between different evaluation criteria and whether there would be any relative weighting among criteria.

3.2.8 Each evaluation criterion will contribute to the Study in a different way. The results of each evaluation cannot be compared with the results of other criteria and so cannot and will not be weighted.

3.2.9 Whilst the Study mainly deals with the appearance of landscape, a consultee suggested that consideration could also be given to evaluating the natural process of landscape such as the influence of terrestrial and aquatic systems. Another consultee went a step further and said that in the landscape evaluation, it was important to understand and include the forces which drive landscape change.

3.2.10 The importance of ecological and natural processes in the formation of landscape is acknowledged. As such processes are generally well captured in ecological and cultural/heritage studies, this Study will focus on the visual aspects of landscape but will include a broad overview of the processes which have helped to shape the landscape of Hong Kong. Future forces for change will be recognised by an analysis of major planned and committed developments and assessment of the condition and sensitivity of landscape to potential change during landscape evaluation. There is also opportunity to update periodically the completed Landscape Character Map over time to reflect change in the landscape.

3.2.11 A number of consultees enquired whether the Study would identify eyesores or areas of natural and cultural landscape for protection or enhancement (i.e. 'areas of landscape potential? One consultee cited the example of major drainage systems that could have potential for enhancement as wetland-like ecosystem.

3.2.12 The main objective of the Study is to provide baseline information on the landscape resource of Hong Kong. Identifying specific landscapes for designation will not be carried out in the Study. Nevertheless, the Landscape Character Map will evaluate for each landscape area its character, condition, sensitivity and value. This data could be used as the basis for designation of special areas if necessary. Also general management strategies for LCAs will be suggested as part of the Study's recommendations to maximise landscape potential, though specific projects or enhancements will not be mentioned.

3.2.13 One consultee suggested the issue of rarity as a potential criterion of value and wondered how rarity of landscapes could be judged.

3.2.14 Rarity is an issue which will be considered during the evaluation of landscape value as one of the attributes to appraise the strength of sense of place of a LCA. It can be assessed at a number of levels, e.g. locally, nationally or globally. It will be included in the assessment of landscape value of LCAs.

3.2.15 The sensitivity of landscape to development is one of the evaluation criteria proposed by the Study. Certain consultees suggested that landscape sensitivity depended on which scale one looked at the landscape.

3.2.16 The sensitivity of any landscape will be judged consistently for each LCA, which is the basic landscape unit in the Landscape Character Map.

3.2.17 A common issue raised by a number of consultees was the relevance of viewpoints and routes to the appreciation of landscape. These consultees wondered whether the Study would identify 'scenic viewpoints' 'strategic view corridors' or 'scenic routes'.

3.2.18 The comprehensive identification of specific scenic views or view corridors would require a further much more detailed study to establish criteria for viewpoint selection and strategic importance. However, where the availability of major strategic views materially influences landscape character (as on Victoria Peak or Sunset Peak for example), this will be noted in descriptions of LCAs in the Study.

3.2.19 Landscape is quite often associated with ecology and heritage issues. One consultee suggested including an assessment of ecological value in the Study. Similarly, other participants also wondered to what extent ecology and heritage values might be reflected in the evaluation of landscape in the Study.

3.2.20 There is definitely a relationship between landscape and the fields of ecology and heritage. The current Study focuses primarily on the appearance and visual characteristics of land. Ecological and heritage features will form part of the landscape character when they are visible in the landscape. (e.g. the visual effect of vernacular buildings on the rural landscape). Where features of ecological or heritage value do not have visual manifestations, they will not be considered as making a particular contribution to landscape character (e.g. buried prehistoric remains).

3.2.21 Certain consultees raised a variety of technical issues related to landscape evaluation. Some asked how the effect of the surroundings of a given LCA on the value of that LCA would be taken into account in landscape evaluation. Others pointed out that the character and value of certain landscapes in Hong Kong might change depending on whether they are seen during the day or at night (e.g. the northern Hong Kong Island shoreline). Yet others asked how buildings of architectural merit or other attractive built developments would be included in the evaluation.

3.2.22 Another point made was that remoteness and tranquillity are attributes of landscape that could be regarded as enhancing landscape value. At the same briefing, one participant made the point that a landscape might be more valuable because it is accessible.

3.2.23 Finally, one consultee asked if development currently planned would be taken into account as part of the Study.

3.2.24 The effects of surrounding LCAs visible from any given LCA will be one of the criteria used to establish landscape value. Also where buildings such as landmarks contribute to landscape value, they will be included in the evaluation of the LCA in which they lie. The night-time characteristics of landscape, for example the night scenery of the harbour, will be considered, as suggested, where they have a significant effect on the overall image or character of the landscape.

3.2.25 Remoteness and tranquillity are attributes that can enhance sense of place and will be taken into account during the evaluation of different landscapes. Accessibility on the other hand is an attribute which is somewhat extrinsic to landscape - that is, it is not necessarily related to the actual qualities of a landscape but rather to available modes of transport to the landscape. As an example, pristine wilderness and degraded industrial landscapes can both be equally accessible or inaccessible. In addition, accessibility may change over time, but this need not affect the value of the landscape, which is otherwise unchanged.

3.2.26 Finally, major developments which are planned or committed will be noted for relevant LCAs to indicate that the developments have potential to impact on recorded values of the landscapes. No attempt however will be made to evaluate the effect of such development on the landscape because it is not yet built, and thus it is impossible to accurately determine its effect on value, condition, sensitivity or character.

3.3.1 A number of comments were also received from Government on the Initial Evaluation Criteria set out in Technical Report No.2. As it was not possible to take all the comments into account at that time, they have been accounted for in the Revised Evaluation Criteria set out below.

3.3.2 The principal change has been to concentrate more fully on the evaluation of the visual and aesthetic characteristics of landscape, as opposed to issues of landscape process (e.g. ecology, history, etc). This is not to deny that ecological or cultural/historic processes cannot determine the visual character or value of a landscape. However, it does mean that the Study will recognise the value of these processes only in so far as they have a visual manifestation. As an example, if there are two areas of landscape which have to all intents and purposes the same character and visual characteristics although one contains for example a community of Romer's Tree Frog, those landscapes will be evaluated as having the same value in terms of landscape. (The same is true for e.g. buried prehistoric sites which have no visual manifestation in the landscape).

3.3.3 The rationale for this lies in the fact that CASET Indicators for the disciplines of Ecology and Culture/Heritage already exist and that to give value to these features in this Study would be in effect to 'double count' the value of these features. For the purposes of CASET, the differences between the two landscape above will be picked up under CASET's Ecology Indicator.

3.3.4 An issue much discussed at the Value Management Workshop and during the early stages of the Study was whether it is more appropriate to evaluate landscape features or areas of landscape as a whole.

3.3.5 Ultimately, the decision has been made to evaluate both landscape features and areas of landscape under two of the evaluation criteria (Character and Value: evaluation under the other two criteria will be on an area basis). This approach adheres to the general character (and therefore area) based orientation of the methodology as a whole, but also acknowledges the importance of particular key landscape components.

3.3.6 In response to comments raised during the public consultation, rarity has been included as one of the criteria by which landscape value can be assessed, under the aspect of 'Sense of Place' (see Table 3.2).

3.4.2 Each of these appraisals can be used in the production of a separate product, either as part of this Study, or at a future date: e.g. some for the Indicator, some for landscape designation, etc. as shown in Technical Report No.2.

3.4.3 The following section of the report sets out more fully the Revised Evaluation Criteria, which have been amended where necessary to take into account comments noted above.

3.5.1 The Revised Landscape Criteria are described below. Their use assumes that areas of homogenous landscape character at a local level have been classified according to the Revised Landscape Classification set out in Chapter 2. The level at which the appraisals are carried out (whether upon generic LCTs or upon specific LCAs) depends on what is being appraised, as described below. The following landscape appraisals are proposed:

3.5.2 Appraise Character and Identify Significant Landscape Features (SLF) - INPUT TO INDICATOR

3.5.3 Appraise Landscape Condition - INPUT TO INDICATOR. POTENTIAL FUTURE USE IN LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND VALUE DESIGNATIONS.

3.5.4 Appraise Sensitivity to Development - INPUT TO INDICATOR. POTENTIAL FUTURE USE IN DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY STUDIES.

3.5.5 The following stages in the value appraisal process are based on those suggested by the UK Countryside Agency (1993) - POTENTIAL FUTURE USE IN VALUE DESIGNATIONS

3.5.7 Objective - The objective of this stage is to identify, in as objective a manner as possible the key pattern of features which provides the very essence of landscape character.

3.5.8 Method and Appraisal Criteria - Description of landscape character is in fact really a part of the Landscape Classification process. However, the way in which it is carried out will have a bearing on landscape appraisal. Guidance set out by the UK Countryside Agency should be followed in this regard. They state that "The aim should be to describe the overall character of the landscape with reference to geology, landform, land cover, land use, settlement and enclosure and to draw out the way that these factors interact together and are perceived…Care must be avoided in selecting descriptive words. Subjective value judgements should be avoided. So, words like bland, beautiful, attractive, degraded and ordinary, should be avoided?quot; (Countryside Agency, 1999, p.60).

3.5.9 Inputs - Description of landscape character is a process carried out by professional Landscape Architects, taking into account the opinions of consultees.

3.5.10 Level of Appraisal - The description of landscape character is carried out at the level of the LCT, that is, one description will cover all areas of that generic LCT.

3.5.11 Objective - The objective of this stage of the appraisal is to produce a simple coherent list of Significant Landscape Features (SLF) for each LCA. These features are considered significant because they contribute positively to landscape character. It can be assumed that SLFs will be largely the same for any LCT. However, double-checking will be carried out on site for each LCA. SLFs will become part of the basis for SUSDEV21 Landscape Indicators.

3.5.12 Method and Appraisal Criteria - This stage of the appraisal uses the descriptions of the key landscape pattern and scenic character, to define a list of SLF for each LCA, i.e. the key features which contribute to the positive aspects of its character. Their number should be defined to the fewest necessary to define the essential characteristics of the LCA. The UK Countryside Agency elaborates on the method for identifying lists of key landscape features:

3.5.13 "Landscape descriptions should be accompanied by a separate list which summarise the key characteristics of each landscape character type and/or area. Key characteristics are those combinations of elements which are particularly important in giving an area its distinctive sense of place. If they were to change or be lost there would be significant consequences for the current character of the landscape…Key characteristics should therefore be the prime targets for monitoring change and for identifying landscape indicators...They must be identified and described carefully as they are likely to become a major reference point in making decisions about the future of the landscape. The smaller the scale and the greater the level of detail in the appraisal, the more detailed and specific the key characteristics are likely to be" (Countryside Agency, 1999, p.61-62).

3.5.14 Therefore key characteristics of the southern part of the Sha Tau Kok Valley, a relatively well-preserved lowland landscape, might be said to include:

3.5.15 Inputs - This stage of the appraisal is essentially a task carried out by professional Landscape Architects taking into account the opinion of consultees.

3.5.16 Level of Appraisal - The description of SLFs is initially carried out at the level of the generic LCT, that is, one set of SLFs will cover all occurring examples of that particular LCT. This is then double-checked and if necessary, refined on site for each LCA.

3.5.17 Objective - The aim of this stage of the appraisal is to identify in an objective manner the condition or strength of the sense of place of the landscape. This can be taken forward at a later date for use in landscape strategies as part of future work.

3.5.18 Method and Appraisal Criteria - This part of the appraisal is an extension of the Appraisal of Character and involves a description of the intactness or completeness of the pattern of SLFs. As the Countryside Agency states, landscape condition "is based upon judgements about the extent to which the distinctive character of a particular LCT is visible in a specific area..." (Countryside Agency, 1999, p.80). Landscape Condition can be assessed as Poor, Moderate or Good, depending on the intactness of the fundamental landscape patterns.

3.5.19 As an example, the condition of the southern side of the Sha Tau Kok Valley might be said to be 'good' with an almost intact pattern of isolated villages, agricultural land and blocks of woodland. By contrast, the landscape of the area around Ping Che (a landscape of a similar kind) might be said to be 'moderate' or 'poor' - as the same pattern is interrupted by incongruous features such as storage yards, vehicle parks, abandoned agricultural fields and highways development. (simple yes/no answer is suggested as being the most practicable way of dealing with these issues and also because it will allow the concept of 'Uncharacteristic Development' to be integrated into the Landscape Indicator.

3.5.20 Inputs - This stage of the appraisal is carried out by professional Landscape Architects, taking into account the opinions of consultees.

3.5.21 Level of Appraisal - The appraisal of condition is carried out for each Landscape Character Unit (LCA).

3.5.22 Objective - The objective of this stage of the appraisal is to identify for each LCT a list of development types to which that landscape is sensitive. These will become part of the basis of the SUSDEV21 Landscape Indicator.

3.5.23 Method and Appraisal Criteria - Landscape sensitivity might be defined as 'the degree to which a particular landscape character type or area can accommodate change without detrimental effects on character'. Sensitivity is not absolute but is likely to vary according to the type of change being considered.

3.5.24 Landscape sensitivity is related to landscape character and not necessarily to landscape value. As the Countryside Agency states, "Sensitivity…must be judged separately from quality and/or value because they are quite different." (Countryside Agency, 1999, p.82). Therefore a given landscape might be considered to be of high value, but be able to accommodate development or change of certain types without compromise to its character. Appraisals of landscape sensitivity and landscape value are therefore totally separate issues.

3.5.25 Landscapes which are less sensitive to change include landscapes with considerable landform diversity, significant areas of vegetation and variety of land use which have the effect of absorbing development. In contrast with this, landscapes which are open, low-lying and which have limited visual pattern or texture might be said to be highly sensitive.

3.5.26 From this, an appraisal of sensitivity to future development can be made. This is a broad statement of principal whether development of different kinds can be incorporated into the LCT without changing its essential landscape character. The sensitivity to each type of development should be identified in matrix format as 'Sensitive' or 'Not Sensitive'.

3.5.27 The test in applying sensitivity should be 'Would inclusion of a feature of this kind in this landscape represent a feature of a totally new kind, scale or character?' In making this appraisal the basis on which the various landscape types are defined should be born in mind, so that it is possible to produce a list of types of development to which a given LCT will be sensitive. An example of such a matrix is shown in Table 3.1 below:

3.5.28 Inputs - This stage of the appraisal is a skilled task carried out by professional Landscape Architects.

3.5.29 Level of Appraisal - The appraisal of sensitivity to development is carried out initially at the level of the generic LCT, that is, one description will cover all occurring examples (i.e. LCAs) of that LCT. The Pilot Survey will be used as an opportunity to establish generic sensitivities for many LCTs. This generic appraisal will then be verified on site for each LCA.

3.5.30 The appraisal of Landscape Value is a complex judgement made by professional Landscape Architects based on desk top research, field survey and evidence of public consensus. The judgement includes reference to numerous different facets of landscape. These different facets are set out below. However, it is important to appreciate that the appraisal of landscape value (including the synthesis of all the different facets) is ultimately a professional judgement, which is rationalised and explained by recording the importance of different facets (including evidence of public consensus), in arriving at the overall value judgement.

3.5.31 In this regard, it is really a top-down process whereby the overall final value judgement is rationalised and explained. It should not be seen as a bottom-up process of scoring or weighing the different facets and then trying to somehow mechanically aggregate these scores into a final overall value judgement. As explained in previous Technical Reports, this 'scoring' approach has been widely criticised in international literature, simply because it assumes very different aspects of landscape and landscape value can be reduced to a simple common denominator.

Stage 1 - Appraise Value of Key Natural Resources with visual landscape manifestation;

3.5.32 Objective - The objective of this stage of the appraisal is to identify any natural resources or ecological areas/features, which make a special visual contribution to landscape and by which the landscape may therefore gain value. In this sense, the word 'natural' does not refer to any pristine or un-altered quality, but rather to the fact that the feature is an example of a part of 'natural history'. Therefore, highly adapted natural features, such as agricultural fields or fishponds would still qualify as 'natural resources'.

3.5.33 Method and Appraisal Criteria - Such associations should fulfil two key criteria, namely:

3.5.34 Such associations will be of sufficient value if they are recognised under the following criteria:

3.5.35 Value will be assessed as 'High, Medium or Low'. Appraisal will take the form of a record of the feature concerned and supporting evidence of its value.

3.5.36 Inputs - This appraisal is predominantly a technical exercise of identifying areas already acknowledged as being of value and is carried out by professional Landscape Architects.

3.5.37 Level of Appraisal - The appraisal of natural resource / ecological associations is carried out for each LCA.

3.5.38 Objective - The objective of this stage of the appraisal is to appraise the strength of sense of place of any LCA.

3.5.39 Method and Appraisal Criteria - For the purposes of appraisal, three sets of attributes are recorded and taken into account:

3.5.41 Inputs - It is appropriate for these judgements to be made by Landscape Architects, taking into account the opinion of public consultees.

3.5.42 Level of Appraisal - The appraisal of value as locale is carried out for each LCA.

Stage 3 - Appraise Value of Key Heritage Resources with visual landscape manifestation

3.5.43 Objective - The objective of this stage of the appraisal is to identify any heritage resources or cultural areas/features which make a special contribution to landscape and by which the landscape may therefore gain value.

3.5.46 Such associations will be of sufficient value or interest if they are recognised under the following criteria:

3.5.47 Value will be assessed as 'High, Medium or Low'. Appraisal will take the form of a record of the feature concerned and supporting evidence of its value.

3.5.48 Inputs - This appraisal is predominantly a technical exercise of identifying areas already acknowledged as being of value and is carried out by skilled professional Landscape Architects.

3.5.49 Level of Appraisal - The appraisal of natural resource / ecological associations is carried out for each LCA.

3.5.50 Objective - The objective of this stage of the appraisal is to describe the formal aesthetic or scenic characteristics of the landscape.

3.5.51 Method and Appraisal Criteria - The following scenic resource criteria are proposed to be assessed:

3.5.53 Inputs - It is appropriate for these judgements to be made by Landscape Architects, who are all trained in aesthetics, taking into account the opinion of public consultees.

3.5.54 Level of Appraisal - The appraisal of value as visual resource is carried out for each LCA.

3.5.55 An example of a landscape with high landscape value might be the landscape of the southern areas of Lamma Island, where the landscape has high levels of natural resource value in its flora (recognised as a SSSI); where there are features of landscape heritage importance (e.g. temples and standing tones); where the intact and coherent combination of indented island morphology, dramatic upland topography and undeveloped coastal uplands provides a distinct sense of place of place and where the landscape has high levels of visual coherence, complexity and where there are almost no visual detractors.

3.5.56 All evaluations will be set out as transparently as possible. No attempt will be made to aggregate these criteria in any way, as this is not an objective of the Study. Therefore, there will be no summary appraisal or evaluation of LCTs or LCAs. However, if at a later date, Planning Department wishes to designate areas of high landscape value, sufficient information will be available for this to be achieved.

3.5.57 Similarly, the appraisals of condition, sensitivity and character could be used in future studies to prepare landscape management strategies, development capacity statements and design guidelines respectively.

**Table 3.2 : Appraisal Method, Level of Appraisal, Criteria and Expression of Measurement**
Appraisal Method	Level of Appraisal	Appraisal Criteria	Expression of Measurement
Landscape Character	LCT / LCA	a. Identify landscape character, key landscape features and landscape patterns.	Record/Description
		b. Identify Significant Landscape Features	Record/Description
Landscape Condition	LCA	Identify intactness of SLFs	Good/Moderate/Poor
Landscape Sensitivity	LCT / LCA	Is the LCA sensitive to future development?	Record sensitivity in Matrix
		a. How much comparable development is there in the existing landscape?	None / Some / A lot
		b. Tree cover - is there significant tree cover?	Yes / No
		c. Topography - Is there significant relief through topography?	Yes / No
		d. Is the LCA rare or unique?	Yes / No
Landscape Value	LCA
Landscape Condition	LCA	a. Identify intactness of SLFs	Good / Moderate / Poor
Scenic Value	LCA	a. Identify level of Visual Complexity	High / Moderate / Low
		b. Identify Topographic Relief	High / Moderate / Low
		c. Identify level of Visual Coherence	High / Moderate / Low
		d. Identify Visual Attractors	Record
		e. Significant Presence of Water?	Yes / No
		f. Identify Visual Detractors	Record
		g. Identify Effects of adjoining LCAs	Positive / Negative / Neutral
		h. What are night-time effects?	Positive / Negative / Neutral
Conservation Interests	LCA	a. Does LCA contain visible key natural or heritageistoric features with a visual manifestation:	Record
		b. recognised as being of global importance?	Record
		c. designated under HKSAR Ordinance?	Record
		d. recognised by technical literature as being of important?	Record
Associations	LCA	a. Are there any recognised cultural or historic associations with the landscape or particular features within it?	Record
Sense of Place	LCA	a. Is the LCA rare?	Common / Unusual / Rare / Unique
		b. Identify landscape condition.	Good / moderate / poor
		c. Identify features adding to sense of place.	Record

3.5.58 Where evaluation data can be collected or confirmed on site, this is reflected in the Field Data Record shown in Appendix 5.

Type of Potential Development	Sensitive	Not Sensitive	Not Applicable
Commercial
Industrial or Port-related
High-rise Residential
Medium Rise Residential
Low -rise residential
Storage / Warehousing
Highway or Railway
Reclamation
Quarry or Landfill
Golf Course