Trust and public perception: insights for facility siting in Hong Kong.
Based on the overall findings and implications of this study, this dissertation offers a siting strategy for addressing the NIMBY problem. The strategy calls for policy-makers to develop a more collaborative, learning and deliberative engagement process, address public concerns and past negative exp...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Others |
| Language: | English Chinese Chinese |
| Published: |
2010
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://library.cuhk.edu.hk/record=b6075003 http://repository.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/item/cuhk-344636 |
| Summary: | Based on the overall findings and implications of this study, this dissertation offers a siting strategy for addressing the NIMBY problem. The strategy calls for policy-makers to develop a more collaborative, learning and deliberative engagement process, address public concerns and past negative experiences, and build trust by iv enhancing their performance in planning and siting LULUs to meet public expectations. Finally, suggestions for future research are provided. === Siting locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) is a major policy problem across different societies. The problem is particularly pronounced in Hong Kong because of its small size, high population density and rapid development. The term NIMBY (not in my backyard) is generally used to describe public opposition towards LULUs. The literature highlights the importance of understanding the basis of public objections so as to resolve siting conflicts effectively. Thus, the purpose of this study is to address the NIMBY problem in Hong Kong by unraveling the factors that affect public response to siting, with particular focus on trust, and to suggest a siting strategy that can address public opposition to LULUs. A conceptual framework based on previous studies for understanding public response to LULU siting is developed to guide this study. The framework includes such factors as the perceived need for the facility, perceived risk, fairness, trust in government and certain socio-demographic characteristics, in addition to community siting experience, which has not been sufficiently studied in the past. This framework also includes the attributes that affect the formation of trust. === This research utilizes social surveys to investigate the factors underlying public opposition and in-depth interviews to explore the role of trust from the perspective of stakeholders. Four social surveys were conducted, one across the whole of Hong Kong (1,002 respondents) and the other three in local districts. Over 750 respondents had been surveyed in each district. These surveys were designed to investigate general public perceptions towards LULU siting, the influence of community siting experiences, and the factors that are most influential upon public acceptance/ opposition towards LULUs. Findings of the four social surveys are broadly similar and demonstrate that public have broad interests embracing social, political, environmental, risk and health concerns. The survey findings confirm that the NIMBY problem is prevalent in Hong Kong and that the most unwanted LULUs are those without demonstrated societal need and those which are perceived to be risky. The public feel that it is unfair to site LULUs in their districts; they think it is fairer to distribute LULUs evenly across districts, or based on local needs. The results also suggest a lack of trust in the government, reflecting a possible breakdown in communication between the planning authority and the public. In addition, comparison of the three local surveys shows that responses from the three communities are broadly similar, but there are some inter-community differences in terms of the magnitude of their responses. Results show that residents from communities with negative siting experiences have a lower degree of acceptance of LULUs, a stronger sense of unfairness about siting LULUs in their districts, and a lower level of trust in the government than do residents of communities without negative experiences. They also tend to be more sensitive to the risks associated with LULUs and to have a stronger preference for more public participation and implementation of effective mitigation and monitoring programs as methods for resolving siting conflicts. Further, results of the binary logistic regression analysis show that people are likely to oppose LULU siting if they have had a negative siting experience, do not perceive the need for the facility, accord a high risk to the facility and have a low level of trust in government. The above results suggest that it is important to understand and address public perceptions so as to resolve siting conflicts effectively. The importance and formation of trust was studied by conducting in-depth interviews with 35 local stakeholders. The respondents confirm the importance of trust in promoting consensus building and collaboration, which are conducive to conflict resolution. The conception of trust is also shown to be relevant to the respondents' evaluation of trust attributes including competence, openness, credibility, accountability, objectivity, fairness and caring. Moreover, the stakeholders require a higher level of trust in proponents involved in siting more risky or polluting LULUs. To enhance trust, the stakeholders recommend that proponents increase public participation and develop effective communications, and improve performance to meet social expectations on matters related to LULU planning and siting. === Woo, Lai Yan. === Advisers: K.C. Lam; T. Fung. === Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 73-01, Section: A, page: . === Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2010. === Includes bibliographical references (leaves 173-186). === Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. === Electronic reproduction. [Ann Arbor, MI] : ProQuest Information and Learning, [201-] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. === Abstract and appendixes 2, 3-5, 7 also in Chinese. |
|---|