IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics0264837720303689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The multivalent nexus of redevelopment and heritage conservation: A mixed-methods study of the site-level public consultation of urban development in Macao

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Yongcheng
  • Yamaguchi, Keita
  • Wong, Yiik Diew

Abstract

Despite the vast literature on planning discourse at the regional level or heritage studies at the site level, lesser known are the trends and rationales of the redevelopment-versus-conservation tension generalised from development sites. In Macao, following its World Heritage inscription, mandatory public consultation and the increased authority of the Cultural Affairs Bureau (Instituto Cultural, IC) over development controls and urban design requirements have introduced a new dynamic to the constant conflict between redevelopment and conservation. This study focused on public consultation exercises for site-level urban condition plan (UCP) applications from 2014 to 2018. A mixed-methods approach was adopted to examine two interrelated aspects of public feedback: intensity (examined from a spatial perspective) and diversity (examined from a discursive perspective). The quantitative results of global and geographically weighted logistic regression analyses (n = 562) showed variegated spatial patterns of the likelihood of high public feedback, and the presence of IC recommendations had a positive effect on these patterns. Moreover, despite a downward trend of intensity over the years, the qualitative results of the content analysis (n = 55) showed that argumentative diversity remained strong with debates regarding various redevelopment/conservation methods and appeals on not only instrumental-technical but also moral-ethical and emotive-aesthetic grounds. Drawing attention to the procedural inclusiveness of UCP consultation and the de facto softening of conservation area boundaries, our empirical study engages with urban policy discourse by accentuating the theoretical and practical affinity of collaborative planning for historic urban landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Yongcheng & Yamaguchi, Keita & Wong, Yiik Diew, 2020. "The multivalent nexus of redevelopment and heritage conservation: A mixed-methods study of the site-level public consultation of urban development in Macao," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720303689
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720303689
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katia Attuyer, 2015. "When Conflict Strikes: Contesting Neoliberal Urbanism outside Participatory Structures in Inner-city Dublin," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 807-823, July.
    2. Maksić, Milica & Dobričić, Milica & Trkulja, Siniša, 2018. "Institutional limitations in the management of UNESCO cultural heritage in Serbia: The case of Gamzigrad-Romuliana archaeological site," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 195-206.
    3. Sherry R. Arnstein, 2019. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 85(1), pages 24-34, January.
    4. Xiaobo Su, 2011. "Heritage Production and Urban Locational Policy in Lijiang, China," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 1118-1132, November.
    5. Santé, Inés & Tubío, José María & Miranda, David, 2020. "Public participation in defining landscape planning scenarios and landscape quality objectives (LQO): Landscape Guidelines for Galicia (NW Spain) case study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Zhang, Xiang & Xu, Jian-gang & Ju, Yang, 2018. "Public participation in NIMBY risk mitigation: A discourse zoning approach in the Chinese context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 559-575.
    7. Dominic Aitken, 2017. "The Influence Fallacy: Resident Motivations for Participation in an English Housing Regeneration Project," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 549-565, October.
    8. van Karnenbeek, Lilian & Janssen-Jansen, Leonie, 2018. "Playing by the rules? Analysing incremental urban developments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 402-409.
    9. Stephen Matthews & Tse-Chuan Yang, 2012. "Mapping the results of local statistics," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(6), pages 151-166.
    10. Gollini, Isabella & Lu, Binbin & Charlton, Martin & Brunsdon, Christopher & Harris, Paul, 2015. "GWmodel: An R Package for Exploring Spatial Heterogeneity Using Geographically Weighted Models," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 63(i17).
    11. Joseph Heathcott, 2013. "Heritage in the Dynamic City: The Politics and Practice of Urban Conservation on the Swahili Coast," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 215-237, January.
    12. Yung, Esther H.K. & Sun, Yi, 2020. "Power relationships and coalitions in urban renewal and heritage conservation: The Nga Tsin Wai Village in Hong Kong," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    13. Van den Hoek, Duncan & Spit, Tejo & Hartmann, Thomas, 2020. "Certain flexibilities in land-use plans Towards a method for assessing flexibility," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. Özbil Torun, Ayşe & Göçer, Kenan & Yeşiltepe, Demet & Argın, Görsev, 2020. "Understanding the role of urban form in explaining transportation and recreational walking among children in a logistic GWR model: A spatial analysis in Istanbul, Turkey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    15. Pontus Strimling & Irina Vartanova & Fredrik Jansson & Kimmo Eriksson, 2019. "The connection between moral positions and moral arguments drives opinion change," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(9), pages 922-930, September.
    16. Tan, Shin Bin & Ti, Edward S.W., 2020. "What is the value of built heritage conservation? Assessing spillover effects of conserving historic sites in Singapore," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Jarkko Bamberg, 2013. "Engaging the public with online discussion and spatial annotations: The generation and transformation of public knowledge," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 39-56, March.
    18. Jennifer Minner, 2016. "Revealing Synergies, Tensions, and Silences Between Preservation and Planning," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 82(2), pages 72-87, April.
    19. John Forester, 2012. "Learning to Improve Practice: Lessons from Practice Stories and Practitioners' Own Discourse Analyses (or Why Only the Loons Show Up)," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 11-26.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elżbieta Antczak, 2020. "Regionally Divergent Patterns in Factors Affecting Municipal Waste Production: The Polish Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Gainbi Park & Zengwang Xu, 2022. "The constituent components and local indicator variables of social vulnerability index," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 110(1), pages 95-120, January.
    4. Zaijun Li & Jianquan Cheng & Qiyan Wu, 2016. "Analyzing regional economic development patterns in a fast developing province of China through geographically weighted principal component analysis," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 233-245, October.
    5. Andréia S. Santos & Lucas Teles Faria & Mara Lúcia M. Lopes & Carlos R. Minussi, 2023. "Power Distribution Systems’ Vulnerability by Regions Caused by Electrical Discharges," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Kirtonia, Sajeeb & Sun, Yanshuo, 2022. "Evaluating rail transit's comparative advantages in travel cost and time over taxi with open data in two U.S. cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 75-87.
    7. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Alexis Comber & Paul Harris, 2018. "Geographically weighted elastic net logistic regression," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 317-341, October.
    9. Yigong Hu & Binbin Lu & Yong Ge & Guanpeng Dong, 2022. "Uncovering spatial heterogeneity in real estate prices via combined hierarchical linear model and geographically weighted regression," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(6), pages 1715-1740, July.
    10. Jay Mittal & Sweta Byahut, 2019. "Scenic landscapes, visual accessibility and premium values in a single family housing market: A spatial hedonic approach," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(1), pages 66-83, January.
    11. Gianfranco Piras & Mauricio Sarrias, 2023. "Heterogeneous spatial models in R: spatial regimes models," Journal of Spatial Econometrics, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-32, December.
    12. Andrea R. Roberts, 2020. "Preservation without Representation: Making CLG Programs Vehicles for Inclusive Leadership, Historic Preservation, and Engagement," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Stephen Matthews & Daniel M. Parker, 2013. "Progress in Spatial Demography," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(10), pages 271-312.
    14. Ertör-Akyazi, Pinar & Akçay, Çağlar, 2021. "Moral intuitions predict pro-social behaviour in a climate commons game," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Sebastian Krätzig & Bartlett Warren-Kretzschmar, 2014. "Using Interactive Web Tools in Environmental Planning to Improve Communication about Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. Shijie Yang & Yunjia Wang & Rongqing Han & Yong Chang & Xihua Sun, 2021. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Factors Influencing CO 2 Emissions in China’s High-Energy-Intensive Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-24, July.
    17. Khalid Al-Ahmadi & Ali Al-Zahrani, 2013. "NO 2 and Cancer Incidence in Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    18. Minghai Luo & Sixian Qin & Haoxue Chang & Anqi Zhang, 2019. "Disaggregation Method of Carbon Emission: A Case Study in Wuhan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, April.
    19. Rie Nomura & Siyuan Shan & Suguru Mori, 2018. "Analyzing Spatial Structure of Traditional Houses in Old Towns with Tourism Development and Its Transformation toward Sustainable Development of Residential Environments in Hexia Old Town, in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Ömer Ünsal & Aynaz Lotfata & Sedat Avcı, 2023. "Exploring the Relationships between Land Surface Temperature and Its Influencing Determinants Using Local Spatial Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-26, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720303689. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.