IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cipsxx/v22y2017i4p305-319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking the mechanism of the social impact assessment with the ‘right to the city’ concept: a case study of the Blue House Revitalization Project in Hong Kong (2006–2012)

Author

Listed:
  • Kin Wing Chan

Abstract

Over the past two decades, urban renewal has become a major means to increase the efficiency of land production in Hong Kong (HK). Although the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and Hong Kong Housing Authority (HKHA) have introduced the social impact assessment (SIA) mechanism to mitigate the social impact of renewal projects, social conflicts have intensified between affected residents and the URA/HKHA. To what extent can SIA effectively mitigate the social impacts of urban renewal in HK? To answer this question, the author draws on a mixture of empirical and secondary materials to analyse the development, assessment procedures, and report format of SIA in HK as a basis to evaluate the challenges of this mechanism. Then the author goes on to critically analyse how thinking on ‘right to the city’ and affected residents’ comments come together to inform reflections on SIA in HK. The author argues that the SIA mechanism in HK remains technocratic in nature because it does not function effectively in addressing the needs of affected residents and resolving the deep-rooted conflicts between residents’ right of living and pro-growth development.

Suggested Citation

  • Kin Wing Chan, 2017. "Rethinking the mechanism of the social impact assessment with the ‘right to the city’ concept: a case study of the Blue House Revitalization Project in Hong Kong (2006–2012)," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 305-319, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cipsxx:v:22:y:2017:i:4:p:305-319
    DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2016.1273097
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13563475.2016.1273097
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13563475.2016.1273097?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.

    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:taf:cipsxx:v:22:y:2017:i:4:p:305-319. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cips20 .

    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.