Heritage conservation in Hong Kong
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Research Background
Heritage conservation is not a new phenomenon in Hong Kong. It is dated back to the 1920s when British anthropologists suggested preserving archeological sites (Ting, 2013, p.86). However, the issue was revisited in 1976 when the first heritage law was made (Lau and Chow, 2019, p.1). It also included the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance which guide the government and community in declaring some buildings into heritage sites for conservation. However, there was another body, the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB), which was responsible for assessing historical buildings and recommends them. The historical sites are categorized in three grades, 1, 2 and 3 based on their value and uniqueness. As of 2019, there were 1,444 heritage buildings of which 980 had been graded by AAB.
Despite the initiative to preserve heritage, it was not prioritized since the population was increasing, pushing the demand for new buildings that would accommodate many people. In addition, there was a need for modern buildings that would be energy-efficient and environmental-friendly. In the 1980s, there were over 50 historic buildings. However, many were demolished because of the inadequate space for the increasing population. There was a huge conflict between urbanization and heritage conservation. One great challenge that occurred and failed to protect these buildings was a lack of legal protection (Yu, 2015, p.24). The demolition continued until the 2000s when activist groups rose to protect the remaining historic buildings. The heated case was that of the two buildings, Star Ferry Pier demolition in 2006 and Queen’s Pier decision for demolition in 2007. The cases in these buildings have indicated that, sometimes, the Hong Kong government fails to involve the community in making such decisions. Yung and Chan (2013, p.355) confirm that the public went on strike after they discovered that Queen’s Pier was under demolition.
The Edinburgh Place Star Ferry Pier was demolished in 2006 (Ting, 2013, p.81).
The Queen’s Pier was to be demolished in 2007 (Ting, 2013, p.81).
Edinburgh Place Star Ferry Pier was demolished to give way to roads and other buildings. Hong Kong was experiencing a high rate of urbanization, and an old architecture occupying a larger space did not have much economic value. On the day of demolition, in 2006, 150,000 people gathered outside and many were angered by the government’s plan to bring it down (Ting, 2013, p.82). Demonstration took effect and to gauge their anger and frustration, these demonstrations lasted for 7 months.
Queen’s Pier has its history. It had been built by the British colonial governors but used mainly for leisure (Ting, 2013, p.85). Though architecturally unattractive, the building qualified to be a historical heritage. Nonetheless, its location was central and integral to the urban center, making its preservation appear uneconomical. Many modern buildings could have been developed after its demolition and have high returns. Considering how they demonstrated in 2006 because of the Star Ferry Pier demolition, the conservationists were not ready to see this building be phased out of the Hong Kong’s map in just one year (it was set to be demolished in 2007).
With these conflicts between the government and the community, the process of conserving heritage has not been smooth. Different challenges are associated with it such conflict in the regulatory bodies, public participation, and economic value of the historic buildings among others. Sustainability has also been another problem, as planners try to design and renovate these buildings into energy-efficient and green buildings to minimize resource consumption and conserve the environment (Liusman, Ho, and Ge, 2013). If these can be addressed, the process can be smooth and all the stakeholders feel contented.
1.2 Research Aim and Objectives
The research aims to explore the challenges that exist in the conservation of heritage in Hong Kong and recommend ways to mitigate them.
The research objectives include;
- To investigate the benefits associated with the conservation of heritage in Hong Kong.
- To examine the challenges facing the process of conserving heritage in Hong Kong.
- To learn how other developed countries, the UK and US in particular, have succeeded in the process of conserving their cultural heritage.
- To discover the worst-case scenario in heritage conservation by examining the nation of India.
- To determine critical factors in promoting healthy and smooth conservation of heritage in Hong Kong.
1.3 Outline Methodology
There are different methods to be adopted in investigating the challenges that affect the heritage conservation in Hong Kong. It begins in reviewing different sources to understand these challenges based on how other scholars and researchers have gathered. With that knowledge, this study will utilize questionnaires to collect primary data regarding the issue. The details in these methods will be discussed in the section below.
First objective
Benefits associated with the conservation of heritage in Hong Kong.
These were gathered from the literature review and government as well as other agencies’ publications. In addition, the topic was included in the questionnaires to confirm these benefits from the participants themselves.
Second objective
Challenges facing the process of conserving heritage in Hong Kong
The literature review provided many of the challenges that the process of conserving heritage experiences. Moreover, the same was also adopted in the questionnaires to provide more information about the same.
Third objective
How other developed countries, the UK and the US in particular, have succeeded in the process of conserving their cultural heritage.
This was retrieved from academic journal articles which specifically analyzed how these countries have improved their heritage conservation and the bodies they have developed to help in the process. The question was not added to the questionnaire because the participants were Hong Kong residents and might not have known about the topic.
Fourth objective
The worst-case scenario in heritage conservation by examining the nation of India.
This was also investigated in academic journals just like the case of the UK and the US above.
Fifth objective
Critical factors in promoting healthy and smooth conservation of heritage in Hong Kong.
This section was represented by the recommendations that this research would give in promoting ease in the heritage conservation. This was analyzed from finding the questionnaire findings as well as literature reviews that offered recommendations.
1.4 Dissertation Structure
The dissertation is divided into five chapters.
Chapter1: Introduction – it introduces the research topic and the research background, which is the conservation of heritage in Hong Kong. It delves into the history of conservation as well as the developments that have taken place over the years. Additionally, it has the problem statement, research aim, and objectives, as well as the outline methodology.
Chapter2: Literature Review – this detail different sources that support heritage conservation in Hong Kong, the challenges that arise in the process, as well as compare the same with countries like the UK, US, and India.
Chapter3: Research Methodology – the will comprise of the methodology to be used, sample size, ethical considerations, questionnaire design, among other details that outline how the research study will be conducted.
Chapter4: Data Analysis and Discussion – the data obtained from the research study will be analyzed in this chapter. Both descriptive and analytical results are discussed based on how heritage sites are conserved as well as the challenges that face the process.
Chapter5: Conclusion and Recommendation – this will offer the research conclusion alongside the recommendation that can be adopted to improve the conservation process in Hong Kong.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature to understand the benefits of the conservation of heritage sites. Besides, it addresses the challenges that face the process of turning buildings into historic sites in Hong Kong. The conservation of such sites in the UK and the US have also been added to help compare between the two and what Hong Kong can possibly do to improve on its side. The worst-case scenario of heritage conservation in India is also included.
2.2 Definition of a Cultural Heritage
Cultural heritage is ‘a structure, building, place or place that has been recognized as a historical site by Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) (MTR Corporation Ltd, 2011, p.4-3). AMO is the body that was established in 1976 to declare a site, place or building a monument and thus require to be protected from all forms of destruction such as demolition or excavation (Audit Commission Hong Kong, 2013). Whenever AMO declares a building a heritage site, it is added to the list of the existing ones. AAB is responsible for grading the monuments into Grade 1, 2 or 3. The heritage sites are graded based on how unique they are starting from grade 1 which possesses outstanding merits. Understanding that there is a guideline and criteria used in the declaration process is vital.
Benefits of Conservation of Heritage in Hong Kong
According to Chu and Uebegang (2002), conservation of Hong Kong heritages has several benefits and thus should be protected, citing several strategies. The conservation guarantees the uniqueness and diversity of the city. In addition, it gives people a sense of pride as they feel part of the great heritage. These benefits promote economic and cultural enthusiasm. However, Chu and Uebegang (2002) recommended that there should be a conservation authority established to oversee the entire conservation, make decisions, and engage different agencies in the process. Moreover, enact policies and mitigate threats to conservation. Also, improve the effectiveness of the administration bodies, revise the existing policies, and foster public participation in the conservation process. Finally, protect the buildings and monuments where the heritage has been preserved. By so doing, the Hong Kong heritage will have been conserved against all forms of threats.
A study by Tam, Fung, and Sing (2016) was meant to collect public opinions on how a heritage site in Hong Kong, Lui Send Chun building, should be conserved. Citing that many countries are preserving their historical buildings for economic purposes, the authors found from the public that the building should be assigned to a nonprofit organization to conserve it and not dispose of it. Revitalizing it should be through partnership so that it can be preserved for economic and cultural purposes. Built-in 1929 by Lui Leung, the owner, the building was renovated in 2012 at a cost of HK$24.8 million (p.637). Currently, it offers different services such as a center for medical services. Chinese practitioners and medical students receive medical training, there is also a guided tour inside it for the public to learn more and enjoy the Chinese healthcare and medicine. That is what is known as adaptive reuse.
Rypkema and Cheong (2011) delved into a study to measure the economic impact brought about by conserving historic sites. Some of these indicators include job/household income, quantifying the number of people who got employed when the preservation took place. Another indicator would be property value whereby the building under renovation is assessed based on how its value has increased. Another parameter was evaluating the amount generated from heritage tourism, the cash paid by tourists when they enter the building (p.3). Moreover, environmental measurement means measuring the energy saved after utilizing energy-efficient programs and clean energy initiatives. Finally, the measure would also include the downtown revitalizing, the improvements that have occurred within the area after the historic site was rejuvenated. By quantifying these factors, one would get the real economic impact of preserving heritage sites.
The historic and heritage sites in Hong Kong are supposed to be protected by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO). According to Audit Commission Hong Kong (2013), Cap 53 gives the AMO the power to declare a building or site a monument that should be protected from demolition or excavation. The author reported that in 2013, there were 101 monuments in Hong Kong. Among them, 44 owned by private entities while 57 were owned by the government. AMO’s task is to protect Hong Kong heritage, promote tourism through adaptive reuse of the monuments, and encourage public participation (p.5). The grading of the monuments is conducted by the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB). Grade 1 represents those that possess outstanding merits. Grade 2 is for those with special merits. Finally, grade 3 constitutes monuments with some merits.
Hong Kong is a culturally-diverse city with no specific identity and there was nobody that endeared to conserve the heritage. However, Chung (2011) confirmed that the community became very concerned about local identities, prompting the Hong Kong government to initiate policies and strategies to conserve local heritage. ‘Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme’ was initiated to conserve the heritage and tap into its resources including adaptive reuse, leverage community interests in revitalizing, and encouraging public participation to shape local identity (p.980). It promotes education, social and commercial uses. Though not for profit, it creates job opportunities for the locals. In 2008, 7 historic buildings were put under the partnership.
Xu (2015) analyzed the differences between the policies that regulate the preservation of historic sites in Hong Kong and Macau. The need for the comparison was because the two countries share the same climate, and Macau has Portuguese architectural style while Hong Kong has British architecture and both same some similarities. Although there was a concern in the 1970s about the preservation in Hong Kong, the increasing population and urbanization rendered the preservation service the least priority. This was until 2006 when two historic buildings that were at the heart of the city were demolished. On the other hand, Macau has made similar efforts in 2005, relatively the same period, despite having initial regulations back in 1953 (p.30). The difference is that Macau emphasizes cultural reuse and tourism development. Moreover, it does not only protect the building, but it also protects the entire area. As of Hong Kong, it introduces modern technology in the preservation process. The protection takes place on the specific building under preservation.
Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs (2007) summarized the public views and suggestions that took place between 2004 and 2007 in Hong Kong regarding the conservation of heritage sites. The adoption of preservation strategies was supported by the majority of the views. These include relocation, reconstruction, and preservation methods. Some suggestions also included the development of a conservation plan and set standards that could be used in the preservation process. However, they cited that not all buildings should be converted into museums. Redevelopment was allowed provided unique features would not be eliminated or altered. The contributors also included adaptive re-use as a strategy that would effectively preserve the sites (p.8). They agreed that the sites could be used for commercial purposes, tourism, and make them open to the public. By so doing, it would incorporate social and economic gains to boost their efficiency. Importantly, a private-public partnership was highly encouraged to guarantee that they are maintained at all times. The economic aspect would help maintain the sites rather than relying on the government for financial support. Additionally, the private sector would also contribute by donating and would, in turn, get recognition. Many also suggested that there should be money set aside, Heritage Trust Fund, to ensure that conservation was optimized regularly.
The use of adaptive re-use strategy in historic buildings has been identified by the Hong Kong government and the conservationists to promote sustainability. Considering that there are some shophouses in the city that are deteriorating, the study by Yung, Langston, and Chan (2014) explored the level at which heritage value and obsolescence affected the adaptive re-use. The study took place in Mongkok and Wan Chai districts. The determinant to apply adaptive re-use was not in any way associated with the obsolescence of the shophouses or their heritage value. Instead, it was linked with whether the shophouse appeared in the list of the renewal redevelopment plan. The study concluded with the assessment of environmental, social and political considerations, that lead to the adoption of adaptive re-use.
In studying one of the heritage sites in Hong Kong, Liusman, Ho, and Ge (2013) examined whether there is sustainability in the preservation of historic buildings. In the past, these buildings were demolished because of the cost associated with adapting them for new uses. However, it was noted that renovating them promotes cultural identity as well as environmental preservation. Different sustainable indicators (SI) were developed, among them the environmental dimension that measures which tests energy consumption, carbon emissions, and the safety and health of the occupants (p.3). The social dimension included equity and fair access to the building and social security. Finally, the economic dimension was to test whether the building is economically-sound and growth-oriented. Measuring the three dimensions would accurately estimate the sustainability of all heritage buildings in Hong Kong.
Controversial problems in Hong Kong
Ting (2013) gave an account of the reversal and transformation that led the Hong Kong government to start rethinking about the historic sites. The government was destroying the old and build new. When the Queen’s Pier and – Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier were demolished to give a space for the development of roads, waterfront, and other spaces, the community went loose. These old buildings had served as the location for the city’s financial district as well as cross-harbor transportation centers for decades. The community would converge in the two piers, an action that would give the government a wake-up call into how the community cared for the old historic buildings. The public felt the government being inefficient because of not involving them in the plan for demolition. The movement was born out of that and would see the government engage in a hot debate with intellectuals from different sectors on how heritage would be preserved (p.86). Even if Antiquities and Monuments Office had existed since 1976, heritage preservation had not been given a priority until 2006 when this demolition took place.
Barber (2014) studied local heritage policies in Hong Kong to understand how they relate to heritage conservation. Claiming that heritage policy was enacted by the government in 2006 following public protests for the need to redevelop culturally-important landmarks, the article reviewed different government documents and newspaper articles and included interviews. One of the challenges in heritage policy is inadequate training. Hong Kong University began a program that trains people on heritage policy so that they can appreciate the process (p.1188). That would help lower the gap that exists in the lack of training that should be offered by the government concerning the matter. Another issue that the author found is that renovations must be aligned with local politics and culture, and must be thought locally. Despite applying the global knowledge, understanding and incorporating regional perspective, community interests, and local governance, the policy would be more effective.
Although cultural heritage must be protected because it is a unique resource and should be passed from one generation to another, their renovation is a huge challenge. While their use has changed to fit the current needs of the community, Lecic and Vasilevska (2018) stipulated that adaptive reuse regarding environmental concerns is a new phenomenon. The renovation and new arrangements have presented huge problems to the planners, architects and other relevant agencies. Many of the strategies used are only for short-term existence and benefits, but not effecting along-term solution. Nonetheless, adaptive reuse or recycling brings out the renewal and arrangement to produce a positive image. It also enhances resource promotion and economic progress. Lecic and Vasilevska (2018, p.5) discussed about three historical buildings that have been revitalized using the adaptive reuse model. These include Carcassonne (France), Ljubljana Castle (Slovenia), and Hoenverfen (Austria). In conclusion, the author, giving the three examples, specifies that adaptive reuse is the best practice that many planners should consider when conserving their old historic sites.
Aronsson (2016) argued that heritage sites have been neglected when it comes to project resettlement. The 2015 report by the International Development Evaluation Association (IDEAS) Bangkok concluded that there are practical challenges in resettlement issues, majorly in cultural heritage. The challenges have been associated with sociocultural factors that build a culture. These factors are critical in leading to success or failure of heritage preservation. These include human actions like settlement, economic activities, construction of new houses among others. To IDEAS, these have not favored cultural heritage preservation so far. In conclusion, after considering the consequences of the current resettlement measures, there is a need for research on how the new resettlement strategies can accommodate cultural heritage. When considered, the cultural heritage will improve the resettlement model.
The criteria used in assessing a building to become a heritage site are also confusing and challenging. In 2007, the Hong Kong government decided to demolish the Queen’s Pier to develop a highway and a shopping mall (Yung and Chan, 2013, p.355). However, the p conservation activists and the local interest groups wanted a review as to why the decision, citing that it should be a monument. When the government insisted that it would move ahead and demolish the building, the public went on strike. When the case was analyzed by the judges, it was revealed that AMO lacked any architectural value in the building, prompting the government’s decision to demolish it. With such a decision, by AMO, nothing would prevent the building from being demolished even if AAB exerts graded it as grade 1 – the highest rank/grade (p.556). This indicates a conflict of role whereby AAB does not work along with AMO. Second, the lack of building’s value by the government and the need to demolish it depicts a government that never took the endeavor to include the community in its decision.
With the need to examine what different groups would need from a heritage site and whether they need it, Yung and Chan (2013) studied the evaluations of historic buildings’ conservation from the policymakers, professionals and laymen’s perspective, in Hong Kong. With a sample of 25 historic buildings, including the controversial Queen’s Pier case, the researchers employed social, architectural, and historical significance. The results revealed that professional groups and laymen assume different criteria of assessment. The architectural significance was the most considered factor, followed by social and finally historical significance (p.552).To the laymen, the laymen group did not indicate any cultural significance or identity. It means that, in Hong Kong, laymen did not perceive the buildings to have a cultural identity. To them, heritage buildings demonstrated social significance more than others (p.555). This is a challenge because the government might declare a building a monument and it may end being useless to the community. This indicates that the government should consider many factors as well as many groups of people before declaring a building a monument.
The study by Lau and Chow (2019) identified the challenges that face heritage sites in Hong Kong. Giving an example of the State Theatre that became Grade 1 in 2017, historic sites have been left in the hands of public participation and heritage authorities. According to Lau and Chow (2019, p.3), the initial idea in the 1960s was to cater to environmental concerns but changed in the 1970s where the economic aspect became the order of emphasis.
The two would make the social aspect insignificant, eradicating the feeling of connection and pride in the community. Apart from focusing much on income, there is a need to also consider social cohesion and the quality of time as that was the primary aim of conserving these heritage sites. The authors concluded by recommending the adoption of social sustainability to cater for the future benefit of the historic sites in the city.
Urban renewal is characterized by the demolition of old buildings, an initiative that can destroy social networks. With increased literature citing that conserving heritage sites can improve the community’s identity and development sense, a study by Yung, Zhang, and Chan (2017) in Hong Kong were aimed at examining the impact of conservation of these sites. The study revealed that social factors such as local characteristics, socio-demographics, and the level at which a heritage building is to be renewed have no relation with the influence of conservation matters. The two districts, Wai Chai and Sham Shui Po indicated different results. Wai Chai is populated by people with high educational levels and high household income and would need intangible benefits such as research centers (p.145). Thus, they would like a heritage center because they love their history as a fishing region. On the contrary, Sham Shui Po was populated by people who lacked attachment with their buildings and lacked a deep understanding of places. To them, a heritage site would not be a priority. When considering the people-first approach, it is recommended to understand people’s social factors when deciding whether to conserve a heritage site near them.
The analysis by Chan and Lee (2017) on the social and cultural issues about heritage sites since 1997 in Hong Kong, focused on the cultural resource management and heritage governance. There have been debates surrounding how the heritage sites are conserved, these debates go back to the government, citing a failed mechanism that affects the social, cultural, political and economic facets. Cultural conservation must influence the living experiences as well as promoting good memories to the community (p.266). Without these aspects, it lacks its initial purpose. Another challenge with Hong Kong heritage conservation is that it has failed to keep up with international standards (p.277). The address the problem, the government needs a long-term vision on what it wants to achieve with the cultural sites. The vision should consider cultural, social, economic, and political aspects, and how each is addressed in the conservation plan. That will prevent the current challenge where the community feels that the social factor has been left out.
Built-heritage conservation is a joint activity by the nonprofit organizations, the government, and the community, to warrant the protection of cultural identity and a sense of pride. Hung’s (2015) study focused on the role of NGOs in ensuring that heritage sites are protected. The three roles were identified as advocacy, monitoring, and service provision. In the case studies included in the study, Hung (2015) found that NGOs majorly concentrate on advocacy. Service provision was noted to be given to NGOs through a strict process. Furthermore, the role of monitoring was deemed to have been neglected. In advocacy, NGOs have persistently opposed the top-down decision-making approach which involves the government implementing policies to be implemented by all the parties. There is a need for the government to increase openness in policy formulation and engage other stakeholders in the process.
Heritage Conservation Challenges in India
Countries are working towards restoring their heritage sites. India is among them and has more than 1500 heritage buildings developed from different materials such as plasters and stone. Lakhani and Sahrma (2018) highlighted that such differences make different buildings become affected by the climatic conditions in different variations and therefore, require different restoration strategies. Thus, their condition is deteriorated due to weather conditions, and their joints, and materials like eggs, molasses, milk, and others, are added to improve the quality. The buildings whose mortars made by stone are considered strong. As such, they are not cared for, leaving them in desperate conditions. In reviewing these materials and their capability to restore these sites, Lakhani and Sahrma (2018) suggested that there is indeed a conflict between craftsmanship, old materials, and new products. The authors argued that the best way to renovate historic buildings is by diagnosing their diseases, evaluating the surrounding, and what cases phenomenal decay. Disease diagnosis would help understand their weaknesses and the components that are deteriorating. The surrounding environment would entail taking into considerations the temperatures, pollutants, and water and soil salinity, to realize the materials needed for renovation. Finally, the need to understand the cause of decay such as ultraviolet and thermal expansion would help the planner determine how to make the renovations and mitigate the effects of such agents. That would assist in selecting the appropriate materials to renovate them. The above materials have not been tested scientifically and hence not supported by the advancement of the current technology.
Heritage Conservation in the UK
Godwin (2011) reviewed how new building technology can be used to restore and conserve historic buildings. There has been a strong emphasis on developing carbon-free buildings for long-term sustainability. The implemented Codes for Sustainable Construction in the United Kingdom, (p.13) cite that sustainability encompasses, social, economic and environmental aspects. Ideally, historic buildings require renovation to improve their thermal comfort, become energy-efficient, shuttered windows, insulated walls among others. Besides, they should be fed with greener energy such as solar because it is clean. These issues are essential to ensure that historic buildings benefit from the current technology to promote sustainability and habitability.
The Heritage Alliance is a nonprofit organization that is mandated into voicing and advising on matters regarding heritage conservation in the UK. The agency manages many historic sites in the UK, with 9 member organizations and 6.3 million individuals as members and staff. The Heritage Alliance Manifesto (2014/15) confirmed that the Alliance, requests the UK government to apply VAT Act 1994 for 5% tax exemptions to the organizations that respond to renovations of historic sites in the country. This endeavor campaigns for the contribution to preserve these sites. Some buildings such as The Isle of Man have been policies and media reports, this study unveils and analyses issues related to the conservation of the Theatre using a humanized anthropological approach. The results highlight the need for a more socially sustainable future for cultural capital by integrating the notion of the cultural landscape with heritage conservation in Hong Kong.
Despite the impact that heritage sites on local cities, the 2016 Brexit decision (UK exiting from EU) would affect heritage sites in the UK because many of them were funded by funds distributed by the EU. Between 2014 and 2020, Sykes and Ludwig (2016) report that there was an allocation of £3bn of the European Regional Development Fund in England. Much of the money has been going to heritage projects since the country has been prioritizing on heritage conservation. The role will be left in the hands-off member country, the UK in this case. Under the EU, heritage sites have been protected because the Lisbon Treaty Article 3.3 of the EU ensures that heritage is safeguarded (p.621). Unfortunately, heritage sites may suffer financial support when Brexit is completed.
Heritage Conservation in the US
In the US, the government has enacted laws that govern the preservation of historical sites. DeSantis (2019) highlighted that despite limited intervention in the process in the past, preservation began in the 1890s.
The US Congress enacted laws that protected the Puebloan sites and later the Civil War battlefield pack. The Antiquities Act of 1906 was passed to protect national monuments as historic sites. Later, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 was enacted to evaluate cultural sites and to develop programs that can preserve historic sites. In the 1960s, the government experienced much infrastructural transformation such as highways and urban buildings that led to the demolition of historic sites. President called a committee for historic preservation in 1965. The committee made recommendations that would see the passing of the National Historic Preservation Act, in 1966. To ensure that heritage sites are protected, there is the Historic Preservation Fund, $150 million a year, which was also passed in 1966 (p.4). The funds are awarded to 50 states annually to perform activities related to heritage preservations. These include conducting surveys, educating communities about preservation, preservation planning, public participation among others. In addition, there is the Certified Local Government Program that awards certification to local governments to preserve historic sites. All these are meant to ensure that the US sites are preserved for future generations.
References
Aronsson, I. (2016). The Imperfect Use of the Past in Resettlement. Evaluation for Agenda 2030: Providing Evidence on Progress and Sustainability
Chan, Y. W., and Lee, V. P. (2017). Postcolonial cultural governance: a study of heritage management in post-1997 Hong Kong. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(3), pp.275-287. DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1269238
Chu, C., and Uebegang, K. (2002). Saving Hong Kong Cultural Heritage. Civic Exchange
Audit Commission Hong Kong. (2013).Conservation of monuments and historic buildings.
Chung, H. (2011). Heritage conservation and the search for a new governing
approach in Hong Kong. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29, pp.975- 989
DeSantis, M. K. (2019).The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview. Congressional Research Service
Godwin, P. J. (2011). Building Conservation and Sustainability in the United
Kingdom. Procedia Engineering, 20, pp12 – 21
Hung, H. (2015). Governance of built-heritage in a restrictive political system: The involvement of non-governmental stakeholders. Habitat International, 50, pp.65-72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.006
Lakhani, R., and Sahrma, R. (2018). Strategies for the Restoration of Heritage Buildings: Material Issues.
Lau, L. K., and Chow, P. Y. (2019). The Right to Landscape: Social Sustainability and the Conservation of the State Theatre, Hong Kong. Sustainability, 11, pp.1-16. Doi:10.3390/su11154033
Lecic, N. and Vasilevska, L. (2018). Adaptive reuse in the function of cultural heritage revitalization. Built Heritage Management and Presentation, National Heritage Foundation 2018 Conference – Serbia
Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs. (2007). Views and Suggestions Received from the Public on the Review of Built Heritage Conservation Policy. LC Paper No. CB(2)1599/06-07(01)
Liusman, E., Ho, D. C., and Ge, J. X. (2013).indicators for heritage buildings sustainability. Central Europe towards Sustainable Building 2013
MTR Corporation Ltd. (2011). Cultural Heritage Impact. Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report
Rypkema, D., and Cheong, C. (2011). Measuring Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation: A Report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Place Economics Washington, DC
Sykes, O., and Ludwig, C. (2016). Aftermath – the consequences of the result of the 2016 EU referendum for heritage in the United Kingdom. Town Planning Review, 87(6), pp.619-626
Tam, V. W., Fung, I. W., and Sing, C. P. (2016). Adaptive reuse in sustainable development: An empirical study of a Lui Seng Chun building in Hong Kong. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 6, pp.635–642
The Heritage Alliance Manifesto. (2014/15). Value added taxation [VAT]
Supplementary Briefing. The Heritage Alliance
Ting, C. C. (2013). The Star and the Queen: Heritage Conservation and the Emergence of a New Hong Kong. Modern Chinese Literature and Culture, 25(2), pp. 80-129
Xu, Y. (2015). The study of historic building conservation policy and measure: A comparison between Hong Kong and Macau. University of Hong Kong, Institutional Repository
Yung, E. H., and Chan, E. H. (2013). Evaluation for the conservation of historic buildings. Facilities, 31 (11/12), pp. 542 – 564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2012-0023
Yung, E. H., Zhang, Q., and Chan, E. H. (2017). Adaptive reuse of traditional Chinese shophouses in government-led urban renewal projects in Hong Kong. Cities, 39, 87-98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.02.012
Yung, E. H., Zhang, Q., and Chan, E. H. (2017). Underlying social factors for evaluating heritage conservation in urban renewal districts. Habitat International, 66, pp.135-148