Green belt, grey belt? : non-zoned approaches to landscape evaluation and management in Hong Kong

Abstract

This thesis challenges the zone-based planning and evaluation systems for Hong Kong’s landscapes. Existing Country Park designations, Green Belt, and various conservation-related zones conserve Hong Kong’s natural landscapes and resources. However, these designations, especially the more ambiguous Green Belt, are weakly defined and susceptible to ever-increasing development pressures. Examining commonalities and differences across 6 sample sites, which are representative of the diverse development threats and range of zoning scenarios typical of Hong Kong’s buffer areas, it provides insight into the current disadvantages of zoned approaches. New methods of land categorization are needed to increase the resiliency and manageability of Hong Kong’s valuable natural areas.

Using the controversial planned development of North Lantau Island as design test site, a more flexible yet less ambiguous approach is proposed to evaluate ecologically sensitive landscapes. Because scale and fineness of application was a major flaw in previous landscape in Hong Kong, including in the Metroplan (1989), Urbis’s Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong (2005), and annual Land Utilization Maps by the Planning Department, a trans-scalar approach is taken that is applicable at both a district scale (3000 sqm) as well as a neighbourhood level (400 sqm). The landscape gradient model recently advocated in landscape ecology (McGarigal, A. Cushman. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 2005) suggests an alternative approach to landscape valuation than zoneor patch-based models. However, gradient models have been difficult to apply to smallscale sites. Using design or iterative methods, four aphysical value metrics are used in developing a new approach, including: 1) Conservation value (or intended value); 2) Ecological value; 3) Redevelopment/rezoning susceptibility (risk or threat value); and 4) Manageability (enforcement or strictness value).

From this, two landscape management programs are proposed including: 1) a productive landscape which encourages social and economic growth that is mutually benefiting the environment and villagers; and 2) a conservation landscape which conserves and restores the ecological legacies and its intactness. Each program views the rural landscape as a dynamic system, as opposed to the existing zoned-approach that uses Green Belt and Conservation Area zones as static or closed. Such a gradient approach can allow or facilitate social and ecological value transfer into adjacent urban and natural areas.