IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v38y2011i2p322-337.html

Are Engineering Reasons Zoning Neutral? An Empirical Inquiry into Development Proposals in Green Belt and Agriculture Zones

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence Wai Chung Lai
  • Kelvin Siu Kei Wong
  • Kwong Wing Chau

Abstract

As a first statistical study of a planning authority's reasons for rejecting development proposals, this study examines hydraulic and transport engineering reasons adopted by the Town Planning Board for dismissing development applications for ‘small house’ use in Green Belt and Agriculture Zones in Hong Kong to verify the hypothesis that both hydraulic and traffic matters are not zoning-class dependent. The findings, from contingency table analysis of 127 sets of official nonaggregate planning data over a period of more than eight years, appear to affirm the supposition that engineering reasoning has not been swayed by nontechnical planning considerations in either the Green Belt or Agriculture Zones. However, a textual analysis of the objections from all available government records suggests that policy concerns broader than technical considerations were in fact decisive. The study sheds light on the mode of use of technocratic considerations in public policy decision making and articulates with the concept of zone separation based on the Coase theorem.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence Wai Chung Lai & Kelvin Siu Kei Wong & Kwong Wing Chau, 2011. "Are Engineering Reasons Zoning Neutral? An Empirical Inquiry into Development Proposals in Green Belt and Agriculture Zones," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 322-337, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:38:y:2011:i:2:p:322-337
    DOI: 10.1068/b36111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b36111
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b36111?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bo†sin Tang & Siu†wai Wong & Anton K.W. Lee, 2005. "Green Belt, Countryside Conservation And Local Politics: A Hong Kong Case Study," Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 230-247, November.
    2. Geraint Ellis, 2004. "Discourses of Objection: Towards an Understanding of Third-Party Rights in Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(9), pages 1549-1570, September.
    3. Lawrence W.C. Lai & S.K. Wong & Eric C.K. Ho & K.W. Chau, 2008. "Time Is Of The Essence? An Empirical Application Of The Corollary Of The Coase Theorem," Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 34-51, March.
    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. KW Chau & Lawrence WC Lai & Mark H Chua, 2022. "Post-colonial conservation of colonial built heritage in Hong Kong: A statistical analysis of historic building grading," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 671-686, February.
    2. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    3. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard, 2009. "Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4604-4614, November.
    4. Kwong, Jason W.Y. & Lai, Lawrence W.C. & Chau, K.W. & Chan, Vincent N.H., 2021. "A race between urban growth and regulation: An empirical case study on the layout plan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    5. Haijiao Liu & Yonghong Ma & Qing Liu & Yan Song, 2020. "Decision-Making of Green Space Utilization and Protection in Urban Fringe Based on Biodiversity Trade-Off," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Lawrence W. C. Lai & Frank T. Lorne, 2019. "Sustainable Urban Renewal and Built Heritage Conservation in a Global Real Estate Revolution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, February.
    7. LIANG, Jingmin & CHEN, Jiayu & TONG, De & LI, Xin, 2022. "Planning control over rural land transformation in Hong Kong: A remote sensing analysis of spatio-temporal land use change patterns," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    8. Stephen Willey, 2007. "Planning Appeal Processes: Reflections on a Comparative Study," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(7), pages 1676-1698, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Atkinson-Palombo, Carol & Kuby, Michael J., 2011. "The geography of advance transit-oriented development in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000–2007," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 189-199.
    11. Sarah Armstrong, 2014. "Siting Prisons, Sighting Communities: Geographies of Objection in a Planning Process," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 550-565, March.
    12. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    13. Lai, Lawrence W.C. & Ho, Daniel C.W. & Chau, K.W. & Yu, Esther Y.T. & Lam, Cindy L.K. & Leung, Nixon T.H. & Davies, Stephen N.G., 2021. "Property rights & the perceived health contribution of public open space in Hong Kong," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Yu, Ka-hung & Hui, Eddie Chi-man, 2018. "Colonial History, Indigenous Villagers’ Rights, and Rural Land Use: An Empirical Study of Planning Control Decisions on Small House Applications in Hong Kong," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 341-353.
    15. Ping Yung, 2011. "Contractual Enforcement of Planning Conditions: A Hong Kong Case Study," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(1), pages 163-174, February.
    16. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    17. Nicole Cook & Kristian Ruming, 2021. "The financialisation of housing and the rise of the investor-activist," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(10), pages 2023-2039, August.
    18. Keiron Bailey & Benjamin Blandford & Ted Grossardt & John Ripy, 2011. "Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(3), pages 447-467, June.
    19. Katrina Raynor & Tony Matthews & Severine Mayere, 2017. "Shaping urban consolidation debates: Social representations in Brisbane newspaper media," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(6), pages 1519-1536, May.
    20. Andy Inch, 2012. "Creating ‘a Generation of NIMBYs’? Interpreting the Role of the State in Managing the Politics of Urban Development," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 520-535, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:envirb:v:38:y:2011:i:2:p:322-337. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.