Harmonization of the proposed project(s) with local natural setting 2.07 17 2.98 16 3.42 11 3.19 13 Unique local characteristics (u43) 2.82 16 3.43 11 3.33 13 3 Conservation of local cultural and historical heritage (u33) 3.53 9 3.76 9 3 3.72 7 Compensation and relocation plan / strategy (u24) (u41) 2.84 15 5 3.09 16 4.79* 1 Identity of our city and international reputation 3.45 10 3.87 7 2.24 17 2.36 17 Note: represent those extremely important concerns as rated by the respondents of the questionnaire survey ** represent those concerns added to the group labeled as ‘extremely important’ according to the comments of the interviewees through the validation interviews Table 5: Profile of interviewees Group No. Position Organization Type Government department 1 Deputy Director Provincial bureau 2 Director Municipal commission 3 Deputy Director Municipal commission 4 Deputy Director Provincial bureau 5 Deputy Director Municipal bureau General public (who are currently or have previously been participants in the public participation activities) 6 The Lay Public N.A. 7 The Lay Public N.A. 8 The Lay Public N.A. 9 The Lay Public N.A. 10 The Lay Public N.A. Project affected group (who are currently or have previously been affected by the development of MIC schemes) 11 Project affected people N.A. 12 Project affected people N.A. 13 Project affected people N.A. 14 Project affected people N.A. 15 Project affected people N.A. Private sector 16 Project Manager Real estate corporation 17 General Manager Construction company 26* Deputy General Manager Construction company 27* Project Advisor Real estate corporation 28* Executive Director Design company Professional organizations / universities 18 Associate Professor Educational institution 19 Deputy Director National research centre 20 Director Research centre 29* Professor Educational institution 30* Director Provincial research centre Pressure groups (NGOs) 21 Member NGO 22 Director Environmental group 23 Member Environmental group 24 Member Environmental group 25 Director Environmental group Note: * represent those who agreed to participate after the follow up invitation
Table 6: Importance of a single stakeholder group’s satisfaction compared with the satisfaction of stakeholders overall Group Interviewee Importance of a Single Stakeholder Group’s Satisfaction compared to the Satisfaction of Overall Stakeholders General public Government departments Pressure groups Project affected groups Government departments 1 3 4 3 4 2 2 5 2 3 3 3 5 2 3 4 4 4 2 3 5 2 5 2 4 General public 6 5 3 3 4 7 5 2 3 3 8 5 3 2 2 9 4 4 3 4 10 5 4 3 3 Project affected groups 11 3 1 2 5 12 2 2 2 4 13 3 2 3 5 14 3 3 2 5 15 3 3 3 5 Private sector 16 4 4 2 4 17 3 4 3 2 26 3 4 2 3 27 4 4 1 4 28 3 3 2 4 Professional organizations / universities 18 5 3 3 4 19 4 5 3 4 20 3 4 3 4 29 4 4 3 3 30 5 5 2 4 Pressure Groups (NGOs) 21 4 2 4 4 22 4 1 5 3 23 4 3 4 3 24 5 3 5 4 25 4 2 5 3 Mean score 3.70 3.37 2.80 3.67 Ranking 1 3 4 2
Table 7: Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for stakeholder satisfaction with MIC projects First-class Index (U) Weight (A) Second-class Index Weight (a) Membership Function for Each Major Concern Very dis- satisfied [0,1) Dis- satisfied [1,2) Basically satisfied [2,3) Satisfied [3,4) Very satisfied [4,5) Overall satisfaction of MIC stakeholders (S) u1: Satisfaction of general public a1=0.27 u11: Availability of amenities, community and welfare facilities and provision of public open space 0.00 0.23 0.53 0.20 0.04 u12: Access to work and locations of activities 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.49 0.35 u13: Availability of local job opportunities 0.00 0.09 0.42 0.36 0.13 u2: Satisfaction of government departments a2=0.25 u21: Economic benefits to government and local citizens 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.48 0.37 u22: Adaptability of development to the changing needs 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.37 0.35 u23: Harmonious development of different local economic activities 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.37 0.39 u24: Compensation and relocation plan/strategy 0.00 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.17 u3: Satisfaction of pressure groups a3=0.21 u31: Green and sustainable design and construction 0.00 0.20 0.58 0.22 0.00 u32: Value-for-money of the proposed project(s) 0.09 0.35 0.49 0.07 0.00 u33: Conservation of local cultural and historical heritage 0.09 0.42 0.44 0.05 0.00 u4: Satisfaction of project affected groups a4=0.27 u41: Compensation and relocation plan / strategy 0.02 0.15 0.60 0.23 0.00 u42: Building design in terms of aesthetics, density, height and visual permeability 0.00 0.19 0.55 0.26 0.00 u43: Unique local characters 0.02 0.15 0.60 0.23 0.00 u44: Creation of a safe, convenient, comfortable and legible pedestrian circulation and transport network 0.00 0.13 0.42 0.34 0.11
Table 8: Public participation program for the urban design of the New Central Harborfront in Hong Kong Public Participation Program Duration of the Participatory Exercise Detailed Public Participation Activities Participatory Techniques Scope of the Involved Public Stage 1 3 May 2007 – 30 September 2007 (i) Solicit public views on the urban design objectives and issues, sustainable design assessment frameworks and urban design considerations for the key sites; (ii) Consult the community on the possible locations and design ideas for re-assembling Queen’s Pier and reconstructing the Old Star Ferry Clock Tower. Focus group workshop; community engagement forum; roving exhibition; questionnaire survey Professional and academic institutions; general public and concerned parties; Town Planning Board, Harbor Front Enhancement Committee; relevant District Councils and other relevant advisory bodies Stage 2 11 April 2008 – 31 August 2008 Collect public views on the urban design vision and refined urban design framework for the New Central Harborfront as well as the design concepts for the key sites including those for reassembling Queen’s Pier and reconstructing the Old Star Ferry Clock Tower. Public exhibitions; roving exhibitions; focus group workshop; community engagement forum; comment cards; telephone polls; face-to-face interviews; inviting written submissions; briefings; consolidation forum Legislative Council; the Board, Harbor-front Enhancement Committee (HEC), District Councils (DCs), academic and professional institutes and other relevant public and advisory bodies. Source: [64]