PERCEPTION ON INCINERATION IN SHEK KWU CHAU AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC BY LEUNG WING KI STUDENT NO.:14676974
環境及資源管理社會科學學士 (榮譽)學 位 課 程 BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCES (HONS) IN ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
April/2016
畢業論文 PROJECT
PERCEPTION ON INCINERATION IN SHEK KWU CHAU AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC
BY
LEUNG WING KI STUDENT NO. 14676974
AN HONOURS PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCES (HONOURS) IN ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
APRIL / 2016
ii HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
April/2016
We hereby recommend that the Honours Project by Miss LEUNG Wing Ki entitled “Perception on incineration in Shek Kwu Chau among the general public” be accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Social Sciences (Honours) in Environment and Resources Management.
Dr. Lo Tek Sheng Kevin
Chief Adviser Second Examiner
Overall Grade :
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Chief Adviser, Dr. Lo Tek
Sheng Kevin for his valuable time, invaluable advice and guidance throughout the entire study, which provided me a clear direction on how to conduct a research for my honours project.
Furthermore, I would like to express my special thanks to my family and friends for their unlimited support and encouragement.
At last, I would like to thank all respondents who have helped me to complete the questionnaire, which helped me to obtain precious data for my study.
iv ABSTRACT
In Hong Kong, amount of municipal solid waste produced has grown by nearly 80% over the past three decades. In 2011, the government proposed to construct an Integrated Waste Management Facilities at Shek Kwu Chau to effectively tackle with the imminent problem of waste management. This study aims to investigate public perception towards the issue of constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. A questionnaire was designed and distributed to respondents to obtain information about their perception towards this issue. Pearson's correlation coefficient was employed for data analysis.
Results show that about 40% respondents supported Shek Kwu Chau incinerator, but nearly 70% of them opposed to live near an incinerator, so
NIMBY syndrome exists. High risk perception among the respondents was found. In terms of knowledge on incineration, respondents concerned more about adverse impacts brought by incineration. Their trust level towards the experts from incinerator operation company was even higher than their trust level towards the government. Proximity of respondents‟ residential district from incineration site, public‟s knowledge of benefits of incineration and their trust towards the government were found to be correlated with public‟s approval rate towards the incinerator while age does not. Moreover, female
v had a higher opposition rate for incinerator than male. On the other hand, desk research was conducted to explore differences between current waste management approach in Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Singapore and
Berlin. Results show that for those countries utilizing incineration technology to treat waste, their reliance on landfills has been greatly reduced. Hence,
Hong Kong should construct an incinerator to solve existing waste management in the long run. Regarding the methods to enhance future‟s public acceptance on incinerator, educating public on the benefits of incineration and introducing successful overseas cases are needed to enhance public acceptance towards incineration. Examples are conducting large scale campaigns and subsidizing teenagers to join the overseas tours to visit other countries‟ incineration facilities. Tax benefit could be provided to residents who live near the incinerator. Public involvement at initial stage is also recommended to increase the transparency of decision making and trust between the public and incinerator operating company and the government.
(Total number of words of Honours Project: 14,988)
vi TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………….... iv ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………….……... v TABLE OF CONTENT ………………………………………………...… vii LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………….…...... ix LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………...... xi LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………….. xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Overview ...... 1 1.2 Background of study ...... 3 1.3 Literature review ...... 7 1.3.1 Factors affecting public acceptance on LULUs ...... 7 1.3.2 Impacts brought by public‟s high risk perception on LULUs ...... 13 1.4 Knowledge gap ...... 17 1.5 Objective ...... 19 1.6 Research questions ...... 20 1.7 Hypothesis...... 21
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY ...... 23 2.1 Selection of research method ...... 23 2.2 Desk research ...... 25 2.2.1 Data Collection ...... 25 2.2.2 Data Analysis ...... 26 2.3 Questionnaire survey ...... 26 2.3.1 Questionnaire Design ...... 26 2.3. Data Collection ...... 28 2.3. Data Analysis ...... 29 2.4 Ethical consideration ...... 29
CHAPTER THREE: DESK RESEARCH ON CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT APPROACH IN HONG KONG AND OTHER COUNTRIES/CITIES ...... 31 3.1 Hong Kong ...... 31 3.2 Republic of Korea ...... 35 3.3 Singapore ...... 40 3.4 Berlin, Germany ...... 45 3.5 Comparison between current waste management approach in
vii Hong Kong and other countries/cities...... 50
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...... 53 4.1 Primary data analysis with descriptive statistics ...... 53 4.2 Hypothesis testing ...... 70
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ...... 82 5.1 Approval rate towards Shek Kwu Chau incinerator ...... 82 5.2 Knowledge towards the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 83 5.3 Attitudes towards the incinerator ...... 84 5.4 Variables affecting respondents‟ approval rate towards Shek Kwu Chau incinerator ...... 84 5.5 Differences between various concerns ...... 88 5.6 Solutions to tackle with existing waste management problem ...... 89
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 90 6.1 Summary of significant findings ...... 90 6.2 Implications of the study ...... 92 6.3 Recommendations ...... 94 6.4 Limitations of the study ...... 97 6.5 Suggestions for further research ...... 98
APPENDICES ...... 100
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 108
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Background information of three strategic landfills in Hong Kong ... 33
Table 2 Four waste-to-energy incineration plants in Singapore at present ..... 41
Table 3 Waste statistics and recycling rates in Singapore (2014) ...... 42
Table 4 Some types of waste collected for recycling in Berlin in 2012 ...... 47
Table 5 Volume-based municipal solid waste charging fees for household and small business companies in Berlin in 2009-2010 ...... 49
Table 6 Comparisons of demography and current waste management approach between Hong Kong and other countries ...... 52
Table 7 Demographic characteristics of the respondents in comparison with Hong Kong population...... 54
Table 8 Knowledge on the proposed waste incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau .... 58
Table 9 Attitudinal characteristics of respondents toward incinerator ...... 64
Table 10 Respondents level of agreement or disagreement towards the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau among different concerns ...... 67
Table 11 Possible solutions to waste management problem in Hong Kong .... 69
Table 12 Descriptive statistics of approval rate of all respondents, male respondents and female respondents in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 71
Table 13 Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ trust towards the government and the incinerator operation company ...... 73
Table 14 Descriptive statistics between proximity of respondents‟ residential district from incinerator site and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau...... 75
Table 15 Descriptive statistics between age group and respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ..... 76
ix Table 16 Descriptive statistics between knowledge on proposed location of incinerator and respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 77
Table 17 Descriptive statistics between knowledge on construction cost to build Shek Kwu Chau incinerator and respondents‟ approval rate in incinerator construction ...... 78
Table 18 Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ knowledge on incineration‟s benefits and public‟s approval rate in incinerator construction ...... 79
Table 19 Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ acceptance level on living near an incinerator and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 80
Table 20 Descriptive statistics between level of trust to the government and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 81
x LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location of the potential site for IWMF at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 5
Figure 2 Proposed area to be reclaimed for IWMF at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 5
Figure 3 Respondents‟ level of familiarization with the issue of incinerator construction at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 55
Figure 4 Sources of information on incineration of respondents ...... 59
Figure 5 Level of agreement or disagreement of respondents toward they were well-informed by the government about constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 60
Figure 6 Solutions suggested enhancing public acceptance towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau...... 62
Figure 7 Approval rating of respondents in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 65
Figure 8 Approval rating of female respondents in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 72
Figure 9 Approval rating of male respondents in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau ...... 72
xi LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Copy of questionnaire (English version) ………….….…...… 100
Appendix B Copy of questionnaire (Chinese version) ………….…...….... 104
xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
Hong Kong is an extremely densely populated city and has a limited land available for new developments. So, siting of locally unwanted land uses
(LULUs) like landfills and incinerators are unavoidably near residential areas.
Incineration is an engineered process that thermally degrading waste materials under very high temperature by using controlled flame combustion (Travis &
Cook, 1989). Siting of incinerator always facing opposition from local residents due to “not be in my backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome, potential environmental and health impacts. Since quality of life and property value near incinerator siting would be adversely affected, so public perception on incineration is negative (Liu & Yau, 2014). “Perception” is defined as a cognitive process that a person selects, organizes, and interprets sensory information he/she received in order to understand his/her surrounding environment and events. The process of perception is highly subjective in nature. A person‟s behavior and attitude is affected by his/her own perception because an event may be perceived and interpreted differently by different people (Wood, 2013).
1 Strong negative public perception on incineration may thus results in social disharmony and conflicts between residents and government. Actions such as demonstration and signature collection would be carried out in order to express local residents‟ worry and opposition towards incineration siting proposals. Their ultimate goal is the government can withdraw incineration siting proposals.
2 1.2 Background of study
In Hong Kong, municipal solid waste (MSW) generally refers to the solid waste comes from domestic, commercial and industrial sectors. Product packaging, clothing, food waste and batteries are the examples of MSW while construction and demolition waste, chemical waste and other special waste are excluded from MSW (GovHK, 2015b).
Over past three decades, population in Hong Kong increased by 36%.
However, amount of MSW produced grew by nearly 80% (Environment
Bureau, 2013). There is an alarmingly high rate of MSW production by Hong
Kong residents. According to the Environmental Protection Department, in
2014, 14,859 tonnes of solid waste were disposed of at the three strategic landfills per day, in which MSW accounted for 9,782 tonnes. The amount of
MSW dumped on Hong Kong‟s three strategic landfills keeps on increasing, which rose by 3.8% from 2013 to 2014. However, only 37% of MSW were recycled and the remaining MSW were sent to landfills (Environmental
Protection Department, 2015b). This poses a huge pressure on these landfills including South East New Territories at Tseung Kwan O, North East New
Territories at Ta Kwu Ling, and West New Territories at Tuen Mun.
Nevertheless, these landfills will be exhausted by the end of 2020 (GovHK,
3 2015c). Different waste management measures have been proposed by the government to promote recycling and waste reduction, such as MSW charging system and development of an EcoPark in Tuen Mun.
In 2011, in order to effectively tackle with the imminent problem of waste management, Hong Kong government proposed to construct an Integrated
Waste Management Facilities (IWMF). Incineration is the main technology introduced in IWMF. An incinerator is proposed to build on an artificial Island near Shek Kwu Chau (Figure 1 & Figure 2). It is estimated that construction of an incinerator will be completed in 2018. Volume of waste can be greatly reduced by 90%. About 3,000 tonnes of MSW can be processed by incinerator per day. Moreover, through incineration process, waste can be turned into resource as approximately 480 million kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity can be generated per year, which is enough to supply 100,000 households in Hong
Kong (Environmental Protection Department, 2005).
4 Shek Kwu Chau
Figure 1 Location of the potential site for IWMF at Shek Kwu Chau (Google Map, 2016)
Possible site for IWMF
Figure 2 Proposed area to be reclaimed for IWMF at Shek Kwu Chau (Google Map, 2016)
Nevertheless, there is a strong local opposition towards Shek Kwu Chau incinerator, especially for the residents living in Cheung Chau.
Demonstrations were carried out in 2011. For example, about 500 Cheung
Chau residents demonstrated against the planned Shek Kwu Chau incinerator
5 at Central Government offices on 14th March 2011 (Hong Kong Daily News,
2011), and nearly 200 boats reaching Shek Kwu Chau against the building of an incinerator on 17th March 2011 (RTHK, 2011). Due to potential adverse health effects and hinder tourism and fish catch in Cheung Chau brought by the proposed incineration facility, demonstrators hoped the government can withdraw this plan. Besides, an assertion in the Court of First Instance was made by a resident living nearby Cheung Chau Island in 2012. However, it failed (South China Morning Post, 2012). In 2014, Cheung Chau residents lodged for another judicial review in an attempt to overturn the government‟s decision of constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (Singpao, 2014).
These show that construction of an incineration facility at Shek Kwu Chau has been faced a strong local opposition. In January 2015, the Legislative
Council's Finance Committee has approved the government‟s funding application for Shek Kwu Chau incinerator (RTHK, 2015). So, construction of
Shek Kwu Chau incinerator will start soon.
6 1.3 Literature review
1.3.1 Factors affecting public acceptance on LULUs
Incinerators, nuclear power plants, waste disposal facilities and landfills are the examples of LULUs. Previous studies have identified risk perception, proximity, knowledge, trust, environmental injustice, and demographic characteristics as the key factors shaping public‟s acceptance on LULUs. (Liu
& Yau, 2014; Lima, 2004; Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000; Yim & Vagenov, 2003,
Gregory, Kunreuther, Easterling, & Richards, 1991; Giordano, 2005)
1.3.1.1 Risk perception
Liu & Yau (2014) summarized that public‟s risk perception on incineration can directly affect their acceptability of LULU‟s siting and opposition. Risks are the potential negative impacts brought by LULUs. There are three types of risks are associated with them, including safety risks to human health, environmental risks to nature as well as economic risks to property values.
People will be more likely to oppose LULU facilities if they perceive higher risks.
Risk perception can be established by any factor that can make a hazard uncommonly memorable or imaginable. A recent disaster and an incident that
7 has high media coverage are the examples. Hence, public‟s perceived risk on
LULU can be assessed by measuring the probability of occurring accident and illness arising from LULU facilities etc. (Liu & Yau, 2014).
1.3.1.2 Proximity
Lima (2004) discovered that higher level of risk perception and less favourable attitudes can be found in the residents living closer to the incineration site, which can be described as NIMBY syndrome. Dear
(1992:288) defined NIMBY as “the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in their neighbourhood”. Although residents believe that facilities such as incinerators and landfills are necessary, they do not want these facilities located near their homes.
Study conducted by Furuseth & O'Callaghan (1991) examined pre-operational attitude towards incinerator in the neighbourhoods living near an incinerator in
Charlotte, USA reported that NIMBY phenomenon and proximity to incineration facilities led to a strong local opposition towards incinerators.
There was a high approval rate (73%) for incineration facility, but nearly 70% of the respondents were still unwilling to live near an incinerator. Statistical
8 results also found out that respondents‟ opposition varies with proximity to an incinerator.
Huang, Ning, Zhang & Fei (2015) conducted a research in China investigating respondents‟ attitudes toward incinerator also shares similar results. It showed that more than 70% of the respondents supported waste incinerators, but they hoped the incinerator would not build in the vicinity of their residential districts no matter how good of the incineration technology is. Besides, public acceptance is the most important element in incinerator sitting, only addressing technical performance of incinerators is not sufficient. So, considering potential environmental, economic and social impacts systemically throughout waste incineration sitting process are needed.
1.3.1.3 Knowledge
Siegrist & Cvetkovich (2000) argued that risk perceived by an individual is influenced by one‟s own knowledge towards specific subject matter. Technical experts can make rational judgments of risks and benefits of certain technology such as incineration because they are knowledgeable and familiar with it. However, in the absent of adequate knowledge of specific technology,
9 people will rely on social trust in order to determine the risks as well as benefits of particular technology.
Yim & Vagenov (2003) also added that education is a good means to change residents‟ risk perception as well as attitude toward LULUs such as nuclear technology. By educating the public about the benefits and management system of proposed environmental project, they could have a positive attitude on proposed development. It is because they become familiar with the project‟s details and thus reduce their perceived risks. Besides, ignorance is one of the reasons that lead to local opposition to LULUs.
Moon, Shirakawa, Higashi, & Imura (2009) further suggested residents‟ knowledge and risk perception on incinerator are also affected by their experience of visiting an incinerator as well as their main source of information about incinerator, and these can influence their level of acceptance to incinerators. Residents in Nagoya had a longer experience with incinerators than the residents living in Seoul, Korea, so residents living in Nagoya had a lower dread risk factor of unknown risk perception. Yet, as the development of incinerators in Seoul only had a short history, residents living in there had less actual experience with incinerators, and their perceived risk was based on
10 information obtained from mass media like TV programmes and Newspapers.
During 1998 – 2008, about 40% and 30% of newspaper articles related to incinerators published in Korea were about the conflicts between local residents and the administrative institution and environmental threats such as dioxins respectively. Therefore, level of Korean‟s opposition towards the development of an incinerator increased greatly as they perceived higher risks after obtaining first-hand knowledge about incineration from mass media.
1.3.1.4 Trust
Apart from quantitative estimates of risks, public‟s level of confidence or trust to incineration facility is influenced by scientific, governmental, and industrial parties‟ effective management of risks. If mitigation measures can alleviate and maintain incineration plant at acceptable levels that do not cause unacceptable harmful health and environmental impacts, then host community‟s level of trust to incinerators can be increased (Gregory,
Kunreuther, Easterling, & Richards, 1991). Trust is highly correlated with risk perception. People perceive fewer risks if they have trust and confidence in the responsible parties of incinerator such as the government and operation company (Flynn, Burns, Mertz, & Slovic, 1992).
11 Besides, Kikuchi & Gerardo (2009) added that public confidence in the ability of government to protect residents from dangers will decrease if public participation is omitted at the initial stage of siting procedures. Public‟s risk sensitivity towards hazardous waste facilities thus increases.
1.3.1.5 Environmental injustice
Liu & Yau (2014) summarized that LULU facilities are likely to be located in the areas where there are high number of poor people, elderly or minorities.
People pay more attention on fair siting procedure and final outcome instead of the potential risks and benefits brought by LULUs. Baxter, Eyles, & Elliott
(1999) explained that public‟s attitude towards siting of an incinerator is influenced by perceived inequity throughout the siting process, including spatial inequity, procedural inequity as well as social inequity.
Woo & Lam (2009) discovered that residents‟ perception of LULUs in the three communities in Hong Kong including Shatin, Tuen Mun and Tsueng
Kwan O had similar risk beliefs, but their response to and level of awareness to LULUs varied greatly. Especially in communities that disproportionately share of LULUs (Tuen Mun and Tseung Kwan O), residents did not trust Hong
Kong government has the ability to handle issues related to LULUs and
12 believed the LULUs‟ siting process was unfair. Residents are more likely to oppose LULU siting in their community in case they have any negative siting experience on LULUs, do not perceive the necessity of facilities, perceive a high risk and have a low level of trust towards the government.
1.3.1.6 Demographic characteristics
Giordano (2005) summarized that public‟s risk perception can be influenced by demographic characteristics, in which socio-demographic characteristics contribute a significant role. Women, younger, elderly and people with low education level, have a greater fear of hazards.
Furuseth & O'Callaghan (1991) mentioned that apparent local opposition towards construction of incinerators can be found in the households with child/children. Statically results also showed that “Income”, “Age” and
“Gender” are the important factors in predicting one‟s knowledge on incinerator.
1.3.2 Impacts brought by public’s high risk perception on LULUs
Early studies have identified four impacts brought by the high risk perception on LULUs, including results in trigger heated discussion in society, strong local opposition from the society, decline in residential property values nearby
13 and evacuation of people living near the LULU (Chung & Yeung, 2013; Liu &
Yau, 2014; Wolsink & Devilee, 2009; Farber, 1998; McCluskey & Rausser,
2001).
1.3.2.1 Trigger heated discussion in society
High risk perception on LULU would cause heated discussion in society, especially on the perceived competency of the government and operation companies of undesirable facilities to handle the hazards arisen from undesirable facilities such as incinerators, nuclear power plants and landfills.
For example, after the Fukushima accident in Japan, lots of Hong Kong residents concerned about the safety problem of nuclear power plant located in
Daya Bay, such as the ability to handle nuclear leakage, adequacy of emergency plan (Chung & Yeung, 2013).
1.3.2.2 Strong local opposition in the society
High risk perception on LULUs among the general public can lead to strong local opposition (Liu & Yau, 2014). A typical example of this is about 500
Cheung Chau residents demonstrated against the planned Shek Kwu Chau incinerator at Central Government offices in 2011. It is because Cheung Chau residents worried about the potential adverse impacts to human health and
14 fishing industry in Cheung Chau brought by the proposed incineration plant, so protesters organized a demonstration to express their worry and concerns, and hoped the government can withdraw the plan (Hong Kong Daily News,
2011). Additionally, there was an assertion in the Court of First Instance made by a resident living nearby Cheung Chau Island in 2012 (South China
Morning Post, 2012). Demonstrations and applying for judicial review may lead to social disharmony as conflicts are existed between the government and public.
Besides, there will be a higher chance for people to participate in social activities like protests against the LULU siting decisions if they think injustice or inequity is existed in LULU siting procedures. (Wolsink & Devilee, 2009)
1.3.2.3 Decline in residential property values nearby
Farber (1998) mentioned that undesirable land uses like waste disposal facilities may pose health or amenity risks in communities having any undesirable facility. More importantly, those risks brought by undesirable facility are more likely to be translated economically into negative impacts on the adjacent property values. For example, Havlicek, Richardson, & Davies
(1971) conducted a hedonic study found that property values increased by
15 USD 3,200 per mile from a MSW landfill in a medium-sized town in Fort
Wayne, USA. Besides, McCluskey & Rausser (2001) showed that the higher the risk perception among the general public, the lower the property values near the LULUs.
1.3.2.4 Evacuation of people living near the LULU
In the light of fear, people living near LULUs may be evacuated to other places. Take Three Mile Island (TMI) accident as an example. After the Three
Mile Island accident, the governor of Pennsylvania encouraged pre-school children as well as pregnant women living within 5 mile of the TMI nuclear power plant to leave. Yet, due to fear, a total of 20,000 people within 100 mile of the TMI nuclear power plant were evacuated finally. (Chung & Yeung,
2013)
16 1.4 Knowledge gap
Nevertheless, research of public‟s perception on incinerators is rare in the world, especially in Hong Kong. Previous studies related to public‟s perception on LULUs are mainly conducted in western countries such as USA and Asian countries except Hong Kong such as South Korea and Japan. So, there is little effort devoted to exploring perception towards incineration plant among Hong Kong‟s residents. Overseas research may not be applicable to
Hong Kong because Hong Kong is an extremely populous city and has a limited land available for new developments, so siting of LULUs such as landfills and incinerators are unavoidably near residential areas, which is different from many other countries that the incinerators can be located far away from residential areas. Thus, more Hong Kong residents may oppose the proposed incinerator and lead to difference between Hong Kong‟s and other countries‟ public perception on incinerator.
Research conducted by Woo & Lam (2009) only focused on investigating residents‟ perception on LULUs who live in Shatin, Tuen Mun and Tsueng
Kwan O, so their study failed to include the investigation of public perception on LULUs who live in other districts such as Island District, Kowloon district and Hong Kong Island are not included. Therefore, results from this study
17 might not be significant enough to represent Hong Kong residents‟ perception on LULUs as a whole.
Previous studies also failed to investigate the methods to enhance public acceptance on LULU to reduce the impacts brought by high risk perception on
LULUs among the public.
As there is relatively little effort devoted to explore public perception towards incineration facility in Hong Kong, so public‟s knowledge on incinerator at
Shek Kwu Chau, their attitudes towards incinerator, factors that influencing the public perception on incinerator in Hong Kong and methods to enhance public acceptance on it have not been investigated in detail yet. Therefore, this study begins to address this gap.
18 1.5 Objective
The main objective of this study is to investigate public perception towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. Factors affecting public‟s perception and knowledge towards this issue will be investigated. Besides, differences of knowledge and concerns between different social characteristics of the respondents will be identified and explained. Reasons why Hong Kong residents support or against the construction of an incinerator at there also will be explained. This study can provide useful information for the government to understand general public‟s attitude and concerns towards this issue and thus managing and resolving conflicts and improving the waste treatment policies in future.
19 1.6 Research questions
In this study, the research questions were as follows:
1. Do the public familiar with the issue of constructing an incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau?
2. Do the public support the construction of an incinerator at Shek Kwu
Chau?
3. What is the attitude of the public towards the incinerator at Shek Kwu
Chau?
4. What are the concerns about incineration among the public?
5. Is there any possible method for government to enhance the public
acceptance towards this issue?
20 1.7 Hypothesis
In this study, night hypotheses on public perception towards incineration at
Shek Kwu Chau among the general public are examined.
H1: There is a high public opposition on constructing an incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau in Hong Kong.
H2: Female would have a higher tendency to oppose the construction of an
incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau than male.
H3: Respondents‟ trust level towards the government is lower than their
trust level towards incinerator operation company.
H4: There is a negative correlation between the proximity of respondents‟
residential district from incinerator site and approval rate in
constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
H5: There is a negative correlation between age group and approval rate in
constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
H6: There is a positive correlation between respondents‟ basic knowledge
on information about Shek Kwu Chau incinerator and approval rate in
constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
21 H7: There is a positive correlation between respondents‟ knowledge on
benefits of incineration and approval rate in constructing an incinerator
at Shek Kwu Chau.
H8: There is a positive relationship between respondents‟ acceptance level
living near an incinerator and approval rate in constructing an
incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
H9: There is a positive correlation between respondents‟ trust level towards
the government and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau.
22 CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY
This chapter composes of three main parts. Firstly, research methods adopted is presented. Then, data collection procedure as well as data analysis method are explained in the second part. The last part is ethical consideration of this study.
2.1 Selection of research method
King, Keohane & verba (1994) defined quantitative research method as a kind of statistical method using numbers. It bases on numerical measurements of particular aspects of phenomena. Then, particular instances are extracted in order to seek general descriptions and to test any causal hypothesis in a study.
It attempts measurements and analyses which can be easily replicated by other researchers. Questionnaire and laboratory experiment are the examples of quantitative research method.
For quantitative research method, Taylor (2005) mentioned a very large sampling size is needed in order to have significant representation of respondents‟ opinion. It is also unable to convey data richness from quantitative research method. However, it enables researchers to get data from a lot of people or field sites quickly. Analysis of responses to questions is
23 straightforward. Suggestive data for testing a hypothesis also can be provided, so accurate statistical comparison between various sample sets can be achieved.
Denzin & Lincoln (1994) defined qualitative research methods as a method involving interpretive and naturalistic approach to investigate specific subject matter. Collection of different empirical materials is involved qualitative research method. Case study and interview are the examples of qualitative research method, to find out routine as well as problematic moments and meanings in one‟s live.
Taylor (2005) added that qualitative research method allow researchers to collect in-depth data of subject matters, especially in discovering why certain phenomenon or view exists in a community or person, so the quality of data obtained from qualitative research methods usually higher than quantitative research methods. However, qualitative research method collects and analyzes data based on the personal and subjective judgments. Therefore, interviewees‟ opinions collected from personal interviews can only be a subjective data analysis. Furthermore, data analysis for qualitative research method is usually time-consuming.
24 Therefore, both secondary information and questionnaire were used in this study to a have a comprehensive investigation this study, especially on differences between existing waste management approach in Hong Kong and other countries/cities and public‟s perception and attitude towards incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
2.2 Desk research
Secondary information was reviewed to provide supplementary information to this study. Purpose of adopting desk research approach in this study was to explore the differences between current waste management approach in Hong
Kong and other countries/cities.
2.2.1 Data Collection
Four countries or cities were chosen for desk research, including Hong Kong,
Republic of Korea (ROK), Singapore and Berlin in Germany. Demography, legislation on waste management and current waste treatment approach in
Hong Kong, ROK, Singapore and Berlin were investigated. Government‟s publications (e.g. statistics yearbooks, policy documents and reports) and academic journals available on the internet were the major sources of secondary information for this study. These documents were collected from
25 the corresponding government‟s websites and online subscription-based library such as ScienceDirect and Wiley Online Library.
2.2.2 Data Analysis
Secondary information collected from desk research were analyzed into four parts (demography, legislation on waste management and current waste treatment approach) and then collected secondary information was used to compare the differences of current waste management approach between in
Hong Kong and ROK, Singapore and Berlin.
2.3 Questionnaire survey
Questionnaire survey was also adopted in this study to investigate public‟s perception and attitude toward constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
2.3.1 Questionnaire Design
Questionnaires were given to Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above. There were 14 questions in total and all questions were close-ended question.
The questionnaire was divided into 3 sections. Section A comprised 5 questions and aimed to collect the personal background information of each
26 respondent, including gender, age, education level, residential district and monthly income.
There were 5 questions in Section B and mainly aimed at investigating the understanding of respondents towards the incineration facility at Shek Kwu
Chau. Moreover, sources of respondents obtaining information about incineration facility at Shek Kwu Chau and methods they think they are effective to enhance public acceptance towards this issue were asked as well.
In Q8 and Q10, respondents were asked to indicate the level of agreement and disagreement to questions using five-point Likert scale ranging from “Very
Clear” to “Very Not Clear” or “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”, where
“Very Clear” or “Strongly Agree” is given a value of 5 while “Very Not Clear” or “Strongly Disagree” is given a value of 1.
Section C comprised 4 questions and used to collect respondents‟ attitude towards proposed incineration facility at Shek Kwu Chau, investigate the factors that they concern with when an incinerator is going to be constructed and find out their ideal measures to solve waste disposal problem in Hong
Kong. Respondents were asked to indicate the level of agreement and disagreement (from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” or from
27 “Strongly Support” to “Strongly Oppose”) to each question using five-point
Likert scale.
Appendix A and Appendix B show the copy of questionnaire for this study in
English version and Chinese version respectively.
2.3.2 Data Collection
In order to let respondents easier to complete the questionnaire, the questionnaire was translated into Chinese version. Paper-based questionnaires in Chinese Version were distributed from 6th February, 2016 to 31th March,
2016. Convenient sampling method was used. Two-third of all respondents were found in the McDonald's in Cheung Chau (Islands District), Telford plaza at Kowloon Bay (Kowloon Districts), Kornhill Plaza at Quarry Bay
(Hong Kong Island), Tuen Mun (New Territories West) and Tiu King Ling
(New Territories East). Most of people in there were having lunch or tea leisurely at that time, so they were more willing to help me to complete questionnaire. Besides, about one-third of all questionnaire collected was completed by my classmates, friends, family members and relatives. 110 respondents aged 18 or above completed the questionnaire. After excluding one invalid questionnaire that respondent did not complete the whole
28 questionnaire, a total of 109 respondents completed in this questionnaire and could be used for data analysis at last.
2.3.3 Data Analysis
Data collected from the questionnaire were entered and analyzed by using
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 16. Descriptive statistical results were presented as frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation. Moreover, Pearson‟s correlation coefficient was employed to find out the relationship between two variables and statistical significance of results.
2.4 Ethical consideration
Shrader-Frechette (1994) defined ethics in research ethics as any individual and communal code of bahaviour that based on a set of principles to conduct research. Therefore, the ways that researchers ought to conduct themselves for each investigation is specified in research ethics. Harms to the general public, environment and research subjects hence can be prevented.
Three methods were used to deal with ethical issues in this study, including
Voluntarism, anonymity and responsible dissemination of findings. Purposes and nature of the research was introduced to potential respondents first, then
29 they were informed that all collected data will be kept in anonymity to protect participant's personal information and their participation in this study will be voluntary, they are free to decide whether to participate this study or not.
Moreover, they had freedom to quit the research in any stage for any reason without any punishment or penalty. At last, responsible dissemination of work and findings was maintained in this study. All research findings in this study must be accurately presented.
30 CHAPTER THREE: DESK RESEARCH ON CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT APPROACH IN HONG KONG AND OTHER COUNTRIES/CITIES
In this chapter, current waste management approach in Hong Kong, Republic of Korea (ROK), Singapore and Berlin was introduced. Then, comparison between current waste management approach in Hong Kong and ROK,
Singapore and Berlin can be found in the last section of this chapter.
3.1 Hong Kong
3.1.1 Demography of Hong Kong
Total area of Hong Kong covers 1,104 km2 while its population about 7.24 million at the mid-2014. The average annual population growth rate was 0.8% during 2010 to 2014. Its population density is about 6,690 persons per km2, which is one of the most densely-populated cities in the world (GovHK,
2015a).
3.1.2 Legislation on waste management in Hong Kong
Waste is managed through various legislations. Examples are the Waste
Disposal Ordinance (1980), the Dumping at Sea Ordinance (1995) and the
Waste Disposal (Livestock Waste) Regulations (1988) (Environmental
Protection Department, 2016b).
31 3.1.3 Current waste treatment approach in Hong Kong
In 2014, total waste generation in Hong Kong was 5.62 million tonnes, increased by 2.3% compared with 2013. 1.35 kg of MSW waste was generated per person per day. Approximately 63% (3.57 million tonnes) of MSW was disposed at landfills and 37% (2.05 million tonnes) of MSW was recycled
(Environmental Protection Department, 2015b).
3.1.3.1 Landfill
Current MSW treatment in Hong Kong solely relies on the 3 strategic landfills located at Nim Wan (WENT), Tseung Kwan O (SENT) and Ta Kwu Ling
(NENT) (Environmental Protection Department, 2010).
Waste Diversion Plan is implemented by the government to address odour problem in Tseung Kwan O district. Starting from 6th January 2016, only construction waste can be disposed of at SENT Landfill, so domestic waste, commercial waste, industrial waste and special waste have to be disposed of at
WENT and NENT Landfill (Environmental Protection Department, 2016b).
32 Table 1 Background information of three existing strategic landfills in Hong Kong
SENT WENT NENT Location Tseung Kwan O Nim Wan, Tuen Mun Ta Kwu Ling Area (ha) 100 110 61 Capacity (Mm³) 43 61 35 Current waste intake in 4,500 7,300 3,100 2014 (tonnes/day) Waste types Construction waste Municipal waste Municipal waste Construction waste Construction waste Special waste
3.1.3.2 Recycling
Waste recycling is important in local waste management framework. It can reduce demand for landfill space and conserving natural resources.
Around 2.05 million tonnes of MSW was recovered in 2014. Only 2% was recycled locally while the remaining 98% was exported for recycling. By exporting waste, HKD 5.5 billion was earned. (Hong Kong Waste Reduction
Website, 2015).
Food Waste Recycling Partnership Scheme is one of the programmes launched by EPD to promote waste recycling in Hong Kong. In order to encourage food waste separation at source and recycling in commercial & industrial sectors,
Food Waste Recycling Partnership Scheme is implemented by EPD in 2009.
About 12 public or private enterprises are invited to join this scheme each year.
33 They conduct food waste separation at source and placed them in designated collection bins at specific collection points. Separated food waste is then collected by EPD to Pilot Composting Plant in Kowloon Bay for recycling
(Environmental Protection Department, 2016a).
3.1.3.3 Environmental levy
Under the Product Eco-responsibility Ordinance (Cap. 603), the first phrase of
Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags was launched in July
2009. It firstly aims at reducing overuse of plastic shopping bags in supermarkets, convenience stores, personal healthcare stores and drug stores.
Not less than 50 cents is charged for each plastic shopping bag taken by customer from these stores. Any person who violates this law is subject to penalty. Number of plastic shopping bag distributed to customers in registered retail shops has been reduced by over 80% after implementation of this scheme. A full implementation of plastic shopping bags charging was enacted in April 2015 (Environmental Protection Department, 2015a).
34 3.2 Republic of Korea
3.2.1 Demography of Republic of Korea
Total land area of Republic of Korea (ROK) extends to 223,343 km2.
Excluding the area in the Demilitarized Zone, territory of ROK covers
100,210 km. Its population in 2010 is about 48 million with a population density of about 500 persons per km2, which ranks the third smallest population density in the world (Min & Rhee, 2014).
3.2.2 Legislation on waste management in Republic of Korea
Waste management in ROK started since the 1980s, when the Wastes Control
Act enacted in December 1986, to impose volume-based waste fee system and extended producer responsibility (Min & Rhee, 2014). Environmental
Protection Law and the Filth and Cleaning Law also came into effect in 1963 and 1973 respectively. In March 1994, Act on the Promotion of Saving and
Recycling of Resources was implemented, to regulate the use of disposable products like disposable plates and chopsticks. Act on Construction/demolition
Waste was enacted in 2005 (Min & Rhee, 2014; Yang, Park, Park, & Seo,
2015).
35 3.2.3 Current waste treatment approach in Republic of Korea
Landfills, incineration, and recycling are the three main methods for household waste treatment in ROK. In 2012, 4.56 million tonnes of waste was generated, in which MSW accounted for 48,990 tonnes per day. Daily amount of residential waste generated was about 0.95 kg per capita per day. 15.9%
(7,778 tonnes) of waste was disposed at landfills, 25.0% (12,261 tonnes) of waste was incinerated, 59.0% (28,951 tonnes) of waste was recycled (Ministry of Environment, 2014).
3.2.3.1 Landfill
In Republic of Korea, total number of landfills in use has been increased from
269 in 2003 to 288 in 2012. Total landfill capacity has reached to about
587,000 million m3. 7,778 tonnes of residential waste was disposed at landfills per day (Ministry of Environment, 2015c).
3.2.3.2 Incineration
There are 184 incineration plants in ROK that under local government‟s monitoring. As the Korean government puts efforts in reducing amount of waste being dumped at landfills and promoting energy recovery, so incineration rate was increased from 5.5% in 2006 to 25 % in 2012 (Ministry
36 of Environment, 2014).
3.2.3.3 Waste Recycling
Deposit-refund System and food waste recycling are the example of waste recycling in ROK.
Deposit-refund System was launched since 1992, which is an economic incentive instrument to encourage post-consumer waste recycling. Producers are responsible for retrieving and recycling of waste like packaging containers and household electric appliances. Manufacturers are required to deposit a specific amount of money first. They can receive the refund after having proper treatment on post-consumer waste (Kim, 2002).
Another example is food waste recycling. Since December 1997, developers of housing and tourist complex are mandated to install a facility to convert food wastes into valuable resources like feed and fertilizers. In 2012, 13,209 tonnes of food waste was produced per day, in which 96.0% (12,675 tonnes) was recycled and processed into feed and compost. Besides, 185 billion won fund has been issued till 2013 to promote food waste recycling like subsidizing the installation of public food waste conversion facilities (Ministry
37 of Environment, 2015a).
3.2.3.4 Waste charging system
Volume-based Waste Fee System and Volume-based Food Waste Fee System are the examples of waste charging system in ROK.
Volume-based Waste Fee System for household waste was enforced in January
1995, aims at reducing waste generation and promoting waste separation at source and recycling under polluter pays principle. Each household has to discharge general garbage by using prepaid garbage bags. In order to encourage people to generate less waste through recycling, so the Fee is not charged for recyclable materials regardless of the amount (Yang, Park, Park, &
Seo, 2015). Amount of waste generated per person was decreased from about
1.3 kg/day in 1994 to 1.0 kg/day in 2004, and the amount of recyclable materials collected has been increased by one-fold, which rose to 82.4% in
2012 (Ministry of Environment, 2015b; Yang, Park, Park, & Seo, 2015).
Later, direct disposal of food waste at landfills was banned in 2005. Food waste accounts for 27% (13,209 tonnes/day) of total residential waste generated in 2012. So, Volume-based Food Waste Fee System was enforced in
38 2010 to reduce food waste generation of each household. Fees are charged proportional to the quantity of food waste generated. It has been enforced nationwide as the charging targets are expanded to multi-unit housing since
2013. (Ministry of Environment, 2015a) This can reduce the amount of food waste being sent to landfills.
39 3.3 Singapore
3.3.1 Demography of Singapore
Singapore is a land scarce country. Total area of Singapore is only 718 km2 but its total population has increased about 2.5 times from 1970 to 2014, reached
5.46 million (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2015). Population density in
Singapore is more than 7,140 persons per km2, which ranks the fourth highest in the world. (Xue, Cao, & Li, 2015)
3.3.2 Legislation on waste management in Singapore
Environmental Pollution Control Act (EPCA) enforced in 1999 is the legislation that deals with solid waste management in Singapore. This legislation is also consolidated with Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) and the regulations passed under EPHA including Environmental Public
Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations (1970), Environmental Public Health
(Toxic Industrial Waste) Regulations (1988), Environmental Public Health
(General Waste Collection) Regulations and Environmental Public Health
(Corrective Work Order) Regulations (Zhang, Keat, & Gersberg, 2010).
3.3.3 Current waste treatment approach in Singapore
In 2014, amount of total waste generated in Singapore was about 7.51 million tonnes, an increase of 61% compared to 2001. Total amount of domestic waste
40 disposed rose from 1.31 million to 1.74 million tonnes during 1998 to 2014.
0.87 kg of domestic waste was generated per person per day (Ministry of the
Environment and Water Resources, 2015; Xue, Cao, & Li, 2015).
Waste treatment in Singapore relies on incineration, recycling and landfill, which accounted for 38% (2.87 million tonnes), 60% (4.47 million tonnes) and
2% (0.17 million tonnes) respectively in 2014 (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, 2015).
3.3.3.1 Incineration
At present, there are 4 waste-to-energy incineration plants in Singapore (Table
2). As 90% of solid waste volume can be reduced after incineration, hence this can help Singapore to reduce the need for more landfills for waste disposal in future. Green energy can be also generated. (Zhang, Keat, & Gersberg, 2010;
National Environment Agency, 2015c).
Table 2 Four waste-to-energy incineration plants in Singapore at present (Zhang, Keat, & Gersberg, 2010; National Environment Agency, 2015c)
Location of incineration plant Year Built Designed capacity (tonnes/day) Power generation (MW) Tuas 1986 1,700 30 Senoko 1992 2,400 56 Tuas South 2000 3,000 80 Keppel Seghers Tuas 2009 800 22
41 3.3.3.2 Recycling
Waste recycling has been placed at the top of Singapore‟s solid waste management hierarchy. Singapore‟s waste statistics and recycling rates in 2014 is shown in Table 3. In 2014, 60% of waste generated in Singapore was recycled and the total waste recycled has increased by 34% from 3.34 million tonnes in 2008 to 4.47 million tonnes in 2014 (Department of Statistics
Singapore, 2015). 76% of total non-domestic waste was recycled like construction debris. However, recycling rate for total domestic waste like food and plastics was very low, only reached 19% in 2014 (Ministry of the
Environment and Water Resources, 2015).
Table 3 Waste statistics and recycling rates in Singapore (2014) (National Environment Agency, 2015b)
Note: *Including 201,300 tonnes that used as fuel in biomass plants
42 National Recycling Programme is an example that Singapore‟s government has been done to promote waste recycling. It was held by the National
Environment Agency in 2001. Appointed public waste collectors are required to place recycling bins at public areas like pedestrian walkways of busy streets, commercial areas and some of the residential areas (Zhang, Keat, & Gersberg,
2010). They are also required to provide recycling bags or recycling bins to households to put in their recyclable waste like glass bottles, plastic bottles and metal cans. Public waste collectors collect recyclables once every two weeks on pre-determined days (National Environment Agency, 2008).
Since August 2001, over 4,100 sets of centralized recycling bins have been placed in public areas. National Environment Agency has also placed 1,600 centralized recycling bins at public housing estates in 2007. Recycling depository services is provided by Housing Development Board to facilitate door-to-door collections of recyclable materials in public housing (Zhang,
Keat, & Gersberg, 2010).
3.3.3.3 Landfill
Singapore has limited land space, so disposal of waste at landfill has the lowest priority in her solid waste management. Landfill capacity is basically
43 reserved for those waste that cannot be incinerated (e.g. construction waste and treated sludge) and incineration ash. They are disposed of at Semakau
Landfill (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2015). Semakau Landfill is the only landfill in Singapore. In 2014, approximately 2,460 tonnes of ash generated from 4 incineration plants and non-incinerable waste was disposed at it per day (National Environment Agency, 2015c).
3.3.3.4 Waste charging system
There is a Uniform Fee System for residential solid waste collection in
Singapore. In the past, each household had to pay a fixed fee for waste collection per month, and different amount of charge in different regions, ranged from SGD 4.31 to 7.35 (Environmental Protection Department, 2012).
Uniform Fee System was launched in 2012. Households in different regions of
Singapore are now subjected to a uniform charge for waste collection services, based on the type of domestic housing. This scheme is fully implemented in all regions of Singapore since 1 January 2015. Current monthly uniform fee rate for Housing Development Board households (households that live in public housing unit) and all other landed households is SGD 7.49 and SGD
24.81 respectively (National Environment Agency, 2015a).
44 3.4 Berlin, Germany
3.4.1 Demography of Berlin
Berlin covers a total area of 892 km2 with an estimated population of 3.45 million in 2013.Its population density is about 3,940 persons per km2. It is the largest city and the second most populous city in Germany (The Press and
Information Office of the Federal Government, 2014; Xue, Cao, & Li, 2015).
3.4.2 Legislation on waste management in Berlin
German Packaging Ordinance enforced in 1991, Incineration and Storage of
Waste Requiring Particular Supervision enforced in 1991, Technical
Instructions on Waste from Human Settlement enforced in 1993 and Act for
Promoting Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management and Ensuring
Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal in Berlin (KrW-/AbfG Bln) entered into force in 1999 are the examples of waste legislation in Berlin
(Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, 2013).
3.4.3 Current waste treatment approach in Berlin
Amount of municipal waste produced in Berlin in 2012 was 1.48 million tonnes, a 43% decline compared with 1992. About 79% of municipal waste generated from households while the remaining 21% came from commercial sector (include road sweeping). Approximately 0.85 kg of municipal waste
45 was produced per person per day (Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, 2013).
In Berlin, 57% (0.857 million tonnes) of municipal waste was dumped at landfills and 43% (0.624 million tonnes) was recycled or processed in waste-to-energy recovery (Senate Department for Urban Development and the
Environment, 2013).
3.4.3.1 Landfill
There is a significant reduction of waste being disposed of in Berlin, from 2.33 million tonnes in 1992 to 0.822 tonnes in 2012 (Senate Department for Urban
Development and the Environment, 2013). It is mainly due to the promotion of waste prevention, waste separation, waste recycling, and waste incineration, the need for landfills in Berlin thus decreases greatly.
Starting from 2005, only ashes from waste incineration, construction and demolition waste and low calorific fractions from mechanical and biological treatment facilities are allowed to be disposed of in landfills. So, no new landfill is needed in Germany. Number of landfills was decreased from 50,000 in the 1970s to 333 in 2000. Currently, there are approximately 160 landfills
46 that still in operation in Germany, in which three landfill sites are located in
Berlin (Zhang, Keat, & Gersberg, 2010).
3.4.3.2 Incineration
At present, Ruhleben Incineration Plant is the only waste incineration plant in
Berlin. Its total capacity is up to 520,000 tonnes per year. This incinerator is the core in Berlin‟s waste disposal plan (Zhang, Keat, & Gersberg, 2010).
3.4.3.3 Waste recycling
Recycling rate in Berlin was only approximately 21% in 1996, but then doubled to 42.2% in 2012. It is mainly due to its well-established system for collecting waste separately for recycling (Senate Department for Urban
Development and the Environment, 2013). Table 4 shows some types of waste collected for recycling in Berlin in 2012.
Table 4 Some types of waste collected for recycling in Berlin in 2012 (Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, 2013)
47 Bio-waste recycling and glass recycling are the examples that government has done to promote waste recycling in Singapore.
For Bio-waste recycling from domestic waste, residents have to put their organic waste in the “brown bins” provided by the Berliner Stadtreinigung
(BSR) and then taken away for further treatment in composting sites or fermentation plant. In 2012, 120,000 tonnes of organic waste was collected.
(Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, 2013)
Recycling of glass is promoted since Packaging Ordinance was enforced in
1991. There is a separate collection of glass in Berlin. About 6,000 public
“glass bottle bank” containers are placed in city, residents can put old glass items into containers. Then, glass is collected by different recycling companies.
Approximately 70,000 tonnes of glass is collected each year. (Senate
Department for Urban Development and the Environment, 2013).
3.4.3.4 Waste charging system
A two-tier pricing system based on the Pay-As-You-Throw principle is used in the volume-based waste charging system in Berlin. Residents first need to pay for the service used. Then, they can influence the subsequently cost. Table 5
48 shows the volume-based municipal solid waste charging fees for household and small business companies in Berlin (2009 – 2010). In order to promote waste recycling, 15 recycling centres are built for drop-off waste. Residents and small business companies can bring their recyclable waste to recycling centres free of charge (Zhang, Keat, & Gersberg, 2010).
Table 5 Volume-based municipal solid waste charging fees for household and small business companies in Berlin in 2009-2010 (Zhang, Keat, & Gersberg, 2010)
49 3.5 Comparison between current waste management approach in Hong Kong and other countries/cities
Table 6 shows the comparisons of demography and current waste management approach between Hong Kong and other countries. Hong Kong has the highest amount of MSW generated per capita per day. It is mainly due to its poor waste management.
Other countries or cities like ROK, Singapore and Berlin, have already launched the charging system for domestic or food waste collection years ago, which is in line with the polluter pays principle. As there is an economic incentive, people obviously want to pay less fee, they will try to minimize quantity of waste produced, so this can lead a great drop in the amount of waste generated per person after the implementation of charging system for waste collection. However, in Hong Kong, Municipal Solid Waste Charging is still not yet enforced and Source Separation of Domestic Waste is still in a trial basis in some housing estates. Since no fee is charge for collection and disposal of MSW in Hong Kong, this results in huge amount of waste to be disposed of at landfills.
50 Besides, Hong Kong has a high reliance on disposing of the waste at landfills and is the only one that does not have an incinerator to treat waste. Because of the limited land and high population density, country‟s solid waste management cannot only rely on landfill and voluntary recycling programmes.
In fact, there is a new trend in many countries to increase the use of incineration to treat MSW. Widely adopt waste incineration can reduce waste volume by 90% and generate electricity at the same time. This also can reduce the pressure of existing landfills. Nevertheless, proposed incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau is expected to be completed in 2018. So, before Hong Kong is still need to rely on landfill and recycling before its completion.
In terms of waste recycling, Hong Kong also has the lowest waste recycling rate. Firstly, majority of recycling programmes in Hong Kong are on a voluntary basis while many recycling programmes in other countries or cities like Singapore, Republic of Korea and Berlin are mandatory. Besides, Hong
Kong has a poor planning and support of recycling programmes including inadequate facilities provided like recycling bins. Economic incentive in Hong
Kong‟s recycling programmes is also absent to encourage residents to recycle waste. For example, Deposit-refund System enforced in ROK, a mandatory
51 recycling programme with economic incentive to encourage post-consumer waste recycling.
Therefore, there is a room of improvement for Hong Kong government to improve its waste management approach.
Table 6 Comparisons of demography and current waste management approach between Hong Kong and other countries
Population Total amount of Total waste generated Landfill Incineration Recycling density MSW generated (million tonnes /year) (%) (%) (%) (persons/km2) per capita (kg/day) Hong Kong 6,690 5.62 1.35 63 N/A 37 Republic of Korea 500 4.56 0.95 16 25 59 Singapore 7,140 7.51 0.87 2 38 60 Berlin, Germany 3,940 2.60 0.85 57 43
52 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
In this chapter, results of data collected from questionnaire survey will be firstly presented, including demographic characteristics of the respondents and descriptive data of other questions in the questionnaire. Then, Hypothesis testing is another part in this chapter in order to find out the relationship between two variables of each hypothesis stated in Chapter I.
4.1 Primary data analysis with descriptive statistics
4.1.1 Demographic characteristics
In this study, a sample of n = 109 adults aged 18 or above, and demographically representative of Hong Kong population was surveyed.
Selected demographic characteristics of the respondents and Hong Kong population are shown in Table 7. The sample consisted of 51 male (46.8%) and 58 female (53.2%). 63 respondents (57.8%) were young aged (18 years old to 29 years old), 39 of them (35.8%) were middle-aged (30 years old to 59 years old), and only 7 of them (6.4%) were in the old age group (over 60 years old). Most of respondents were well-educated as 95 respondents (87.2%) had an education level with Upper Secondary / Sixth Form or higher. Besides,
25.7%, 12.8%, 21.1%, 22.9%, 6.4%, 11.0% of the respondents were lived in
Kowloon district, Hong Kong Island, New Territories East, New Territories
53 West and Islands District respectively.
Table 7 Demographic characteristics of the respondents in comparison with Hong Kong population (Census and Statistics Department, 2012)
54 4.1.2 Knowledge towards the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Figure 3 shows respondents‟ level of familiarization with the issue of constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. Generally speaking, most of the respondents expressed that they were quite not familiar with the issue
(Mean = 2.72). Standard deviation is 1.05, so it means that collected data are quite concentrated to the mean. Out of 109 respondents, more than half of the respondents expressed that they were not familiar with this issue, in which
“Not Familiar” and “Very Not Familiar” accounted for 39% and 12% respectively. Only 26% of them believed that they were familiar with this issue. About a quarter (23%) of them expressed that they could not differentiate whether they were familiar with the issue of constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau or not.
Figure 3 Respondents‟ level of familiarization with the issue of incinerator construction at Shek Kwu Chau (n = 109)
55 Result of respondents‟ knowledge on the proposed waste incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau is presented in Table 8.
Firstly, respondents were asked whether they were clear about the proposed location of Shek Kwu Location will be built, 31.2% and 13.8% of respondents were “Clear” and “Very Clear” about the proposed location respectively while
30.3% and 12.8% respondents were “Not clear” and “Very Not Clear” about it respectively. About 12% of respondent responded “Neutral”.
The percentage of respondents choosing “Not Clear” or “Very Not Clear” to answer the item about the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau will be built on an artificial island was 52.3% while 41.2% of respondents answered “Clear” or
“Very Clear”. 6.4% respondents answered “Neutral” to this item (Table 8).
Table 8 also shows that about two-third of the respondents were not clear the date of the funding for incinerator construction was approved by the
Legislative Council‟s Financial Committee, 48.6% respondents were “Not
Clear” while 20.2% respondents were “Very Not Clear”. Approximately 16% of them answer “Neutral”.
56 In answering the item related to the expected year of the incineration will be completed, only 14.7% respondents responded “Clear” or “Very Clear” while
70.1% respondents responded “Not Clear” or “Very Not Clear”. Respondents answered “Neutral” were accounted for 14.7% (Table 8).
Majority of respondents answered the item about construction cost of the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau as “Not Clear” or “Very Not Clear” (72.5%), and only 13.7% of them responded “Clear” or “Very Clear”. The percentage of respondents choosing “Neutral” was 13.8%.
On the other hand, knowledge on incineration was asked in the questionnaire and results are showed in Table 8. When ask if they clear about the benefits of incineration, over half of the respondents answered “Clear” (12.8%) or “Very
Clear” (40.4%). About 32.1% responded as “Not Clear” or “Very Not Clear” while 14.7% responded as “Neutral”.
Then, regarding the potential negative impacts brought by incineration, 78.9% respondents choosing “Clear” or “Very Clear” to answer the item about potential health hazards caused by incineration while only 4.6% answered
“ Not Clear” or “Very Not Clear”. 16.5% respondents answered “Neutral”.
57 Besides, 78% respondents answered “Clear” or “Very Clear” for the item about environmental degradation may be brought by incineration, 7.3% responded as “Not Clear” or “Very Not Clear”, 13.8% responded as “Neutral”.
Overall, the mean score of respondents‟ knowledge towards the proposed waste incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau is 2.95, which shows that a fair knowledge level in about proposed waste incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. The items asking respondents‟ knowledge on the environmental degradation and potential health hazards brought by incineration has the highest two means of
3.91 and 3.89 respectively, and knowledge on incinerator‟s construction cost has the lowest mean of 2.17, reflecting respondents were more concern about adverse impacts instead of basic information of project details.
Table 8 Knowledge on the proposed waste incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (n = 109)
Very Not Very Clear Clear Neutral Not Clear Standard Clear Total Mean (5) (4) (3) (2) Deviation (1) The proposed location where an incinerator 15 (13.8) 34 (31.2) 13 (11.9) 33 (30.3) 14 (12.8) 109 (100) 3.03 1.30 will be built The proposed incinerator will be built on an 14 (12.8) 31 (28.4) 7 (6.4) 39 (35.8) 18 (16.5) 109 (100) 2.85 1.35 artificial island When the funding of constructing an incinerator is approved by Legislative 3 (2.8) 14 (12.8) 17 (15.6) 53 (48.6) 22 (20.2) 109 (100) 2.29 1.02 Council's Finance Committee The expected year of the incinerator at Shek 4 (3.7) 12 (11.0) 16 (14.7) 50 (45.9) 27 (24.8) 109 (100) 2.23 1.06 Kwu Chau will be completed Construction cost of the incinerator at Shek 2 (1.8) 13 (11.9) 15 (13.8) 51 (46.8) 28 (25.7) 109 (100) 2.17 1.01 Kwu Chau Benefits of incineration 14 (12.8) 44 (40.4) 16 (14.7) 25 (22.9) 10 (9.2) 109 (100) 3.25 1.21 Potential health hazards caused by the 17 (15.6) 69 (63.3) 18 (16.5) 4.0 (3.7) 1 (0.9) 109 (100) 3.89 0.74 incineration Environmental degradation may be caused 24 (22.0) 61 (56.0) 16 (14.7) 6.0 (5.5) 2 (1.8) 109 (100) 3.91 0.87 by the incineration Overall mean: 2.95 Note: the number in brackets denotes the percentage (%).
58 4.1.3 Information sources about incineration
Results showing sources of information on incineration of respondents are shown in Figure 4. Since respondents may have more than one information sources about incineration, they were allowed to choose more than one sources.
Out of 109 respondents in total, 91 respondents (83%) obtained information about incineration from newspaper, TV and the Internet, while 55 respondents
(50%) and 41 respondents (38%) also chose green groups and government as their information source on incineration. 28 respondents (23%) obtained information from school. 20 respondents (18%) obtained incineration information through informal talks with family members, relatives and friends.
Figure 4 Sources of information on incineration of respondents Note: Respondents were allowed to choose more than one sources
59 Figure 5 shows the results of the question about whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they were well-informed by the government about constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. In general, majority of respondents expressed that they were not agreed with it (Mean = 2.30, standard deviation =
1.00). Over 60% of respondents answered as “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” and only 11% and 2% responded with “Agree” and “Strongly Agree” respectively. 25% of all respondents answered “Neutral”, it means that they were neither agreed nor disagreed on this question.
Figure 5 Level of agreement or disagreement of respondents toward they were well-informed by the government about constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (n = 109)
60 Survey results for the question about which of the solution(s) suggested that respondents think it/they can enhance public acceptance towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau are shown in Figure 6. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one options. 71 and 68 respondents thought public acceptance can be enhanced through TV programmes and increasing procedural justice and transparency in decision making respectively. The number of respondents chose “Extending the period of public consultation” was 44. Besides, 29 respondents chose “Organization more talks” to public acceptance towards this issue. 10 of all respondents thought there are other methods to increase public acceptance towards this issue, including tax relief, improving technological level of incinerator to reduce amount of pollutants emitted in future and making good use of online social networking to promote the benefits of constructing an incinerator in Hong Kong.
61
Figure 6 Solutions suggested enhancing public acceptance towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau Note: Respondents were allowed to choose more than one sources
4.1.4 Attitude towards the incinerator
Attitudinal characteristics of respondents toward incinerator are presented in
Table 9.
Majority of respondents (97.3%) either answered “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that “Hong Kong is facing serous waste management problem”. Only about
2.8% of respondents responded as “Neutral”, so they were neither agree nor disagree to this statement. No respondent either answered “Disagree” or
“Strongly Disagree” for this statement.
Then, 31.2% respondents did not have confidence in the incinerator operation while 23.9% respondents have confidence on it. 45% responded as “Neutral”
62 for this statement.
About 66% agreed that incineration poses a health threat to the residents living nearby and only 9.1% disagreed. The remaining 24.8% respondents chose
“Neutral”.
Besides, 29.4% and 38.5% respondents agreed and disagreed the government has the ability to handle any hazards associated with incineration facility respectively. On the other hand, 31.2% of respondents agreed that experts from the operation company of incinerator have the ability to handle any hazards associated with the incineration facility. At the same time, 24.8% disagreed with it.
Only 13.7% respondents accepted to live near an incinerator while 67.9% expressed opposition to live near an incinerator. Approximately 18% respondents answered “Neutral”, hence they were neither accept nor oppose living near an incineration facility.
Overall, the mean score of respondents‟ attitude towards the proposed waste incinerator is 3.03 (Table 9), which shows that they had a neutral attitude towards proposed waste incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. Statement of
63 “Incineration poses a health threat to the residents living nearby” has the highest mean of 3.37 while the statement of “I accept to live near an incinerator” has the lowest mean of 2.21.
Table 9 Attitudinal characteristics of respondents toward incinerator (n = 109)
64 Figure 7 shows the results of the question about whether respondents supported or opposed the incinerator construction at Shek Kwu Chau. Out of
109 respondents, 41% respondents answered as “Support” or “Strongly
Support” while 21% responded as “Oppose” or “Strongly Oppose”. 38% responded as “Neutral”, it means that they were neither support nor oppose towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
Figure 7 Approval rating of respondents in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (n =
109)
65 4.1.5 Concerns of respondents towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Table 10 shows the survey results of respondents‟ level of agreement or disagreement on different concerns towards incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
Firstly, majority of respondents (87.1%) agreed that health hazards such as air pollution and water pollution as their concerns towards the incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau. Only 0.9% respondents disagreed. About 12% respondents responded as “Neutral”.
For the concern of “Construction and operation cost”, over half of the respondents (52.3%) agreed that it is one of their concerns while only 13.7% disagreed. At the same time, 33.9% respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with this concern.
63.3% of respondents agreed that odor is one of their concerns towards incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. 11.0% responded as “Disagree” or “Strongly
Disagree” while 25.7% answered “Neutral”.
Approximately two-third (66.1%) of respondents agreed that
“Ecological/Biodiversity degradation” as their concern towards incinerator at
Shek Kwu Chau. However, only 9.2% respondents did not consider it as their
66 concern. About a quarter (24.8%) of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed ecological or biodiversity degradation is one of their concerns.
Majority of respondents disagreed (34.9%) that visual appearance as one of their concerns for the incinerator construction at Shek Kwu Chau. However, at the same time, 32.1% agreed while 33% neither agreed nor disagreed.
Table 10 Respondents level of agreement or disagreement towards the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau among different concerns (n = 109)
Strongly Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Standard Disagree Total Mean Agree (5) (4) (3) (2) deviation (1) Health hazard (e.g. air and water 53 (48.6) 42 (38.5) 13 (11.9) 1 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 109 (100) 4.35 0.72 pollution) Construction and operation cost 18 (16.5) 39 (35.8) 37 (33.9) 14 (12.8) 1 (0.9) 109 (100) 3.54 0.95 Odor 32 (29.4) 37 (33.9) 28 (25.7) 11 (10.1) 1 (0.9) 109 (100) 3.81 1.00 Ecological/Biodiversity degradation 33 (30.3) 39 (35.8) 27 (24.8) 10 (9.2) 0 (0.0) 109 (100) 3.87 0.95 Visual appearance 13 (11.9) 22 (20.2) 36 (33.0) 34 (31.2) 4 (3.7) 109 (100) 3.06 1.07 Overall mean: 3.72 Note: the number in brackets denotes the percentage (%).
67 4.1.6 Possible solutions to waste management problem in Hong Kong
Survey results of respondents‟ level of agreement or disagreement on different solutions to waste management problem in Hong Kong are shown in Table 11.
57 respondents (52.3%) answered “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that building an incinerator can solve existing waste management problem in Hong Kong while 13 respondents (21.1%) replied “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”.
35.8% of them replied “Neutral”, so they neither agree nor disagree with this solution can solve the problem.
49 Respondents (45%) answered “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” with extending existing landfills as a solution to Hong Kong‟s current waste management problem. Only 23 respondents (21.1%) agreed that extending existing landfills can be a solution. About 34% neither agreed nor disagreed this solution.
Implementing municipal solid waste charge is another possible solution.
Nearly four-fifth (76.1%) respondents agreed this solution while 8 respondents
(8.2%) disagreed with this solution can solve the problem. 15.6% were neither agreed nor disagreed with this solution.
68 94 respondents (86.2%) expressed that promoting recycling can be a solution to Hong Kong‟s waste management problem. However, a small portion of respondents disagreed with this possible solution (9.2%). Respondents chose
“Neutral” for this solution was accounted for 4.6%.
At last, 98 respondents agreed that promoting waste reduction at source can solve existing waste management problem, accounted for nearly 90%. Only 4 respondents disagreed with this solution (4.6%), and 6 respondents replied as
“Neutral” (5.5%).
Table 11 Possible solutions to waste management problem in Hong Kong
69 4.2 Hypothesis testing
Percentage, mean and Pearson‟s correlation coefficient were the analyzing methods used in hypothesis testing, in which Pearson‟s correlation coefficient was employed to find out the relationship between two variables and statistical significance of each correlation.
4.2.1 Respondents’ approval rate for constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Table 12 presents descriptive statistics of approval rate of all respondents, male respondents and female respondents towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. This incinerator construction received neutral approval rate on average among all respondents (Mean = 3.17, Standard deviation =
1.00), they were neither supported or opposed this construction. Yet, from
Figure 7 shown in Section 4.1.4, Out of 109 respondents, 45 respondents answered as “Support” or “Strongly Support” (41%) while 23 respondents responded as “Oppose” or “Strongly Oppose” (21%). Only 41 respondents replied as “Neutral” (38%).
Respondents‟ approval rate (41%) in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu
Chau was higher than the opposition rate (21%) among all respondents, so
Hypothesis H1 stated that there is a high public opposition in constructing an
70 incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau in Hong Kong fails.
Table 12 Descriptive statistics of approval rate of all respondents, male respondents and female respondents in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau Mean Standard deviation Frequency Female 3.09 0.96 58 Male 3.24 1.03 51 Total 3.17 1.00 109
4.2.2 Difference between gender and public’s approval rate for constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Shek Kwu Chau incinerator construction received a neutral approval rate among female respondents (Mean = 3.09, Standard deviation = 0.96) and male respondents (Mean = 3.24, Standard deviation = 1.03) (Table 12 in Section
4.2.1), in which more male supported the construction of an incinerator.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 illustrate female and male respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau respectively. 25% of female respondents opposed the construction of an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau while only 18% of male respondents opposed this construction.
This result supports Hypothesis H2 which stated that female would have a higher tendency to oppose the construction of an incinerator at Shek Kwu
Chau than male.
71
Figure 8 Approval rating of female respondents in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (n =58)
Figure 9 Approval rating of male respondents in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (n = 51)
4.2.3 Difference between respondents’ trust towards the government and the incinerator operation company
Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ trust towards the government and the incinerator operation company is presented in Table 13. Respondents had a
72 low trust level towards the Hong Kong government can be found. The mean of respondents agreed that government has ability to handle any hazards associated with incinerator such as dioxin emission is low (mean = 2.82,
Standard deviation = 1.07). Only 23% respondents trust the government has the ability to handle hazards associated with incineration.
However, respondents showed a higher trust level towards the incinerator operation company‟s ability to handle any hazard caused by incinerator (mean
= 3.05, Standard deviation = 0.85). 31.2% of respondents agreed that experts from the incinerator operation company have the ability to handle any hazards associated with the incineration facility.
Since respondents‟ trust level towards the experts from incinerator operation company was higher than their trust level towards the government, this result supports Hypothesis H3.
Table 13 Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ trust towards the government and the incinerator operation company
Mean Standard deviation Frequency
Trust level towards the 2.82 1.07 109 government Trust level towards the 3.05 0.85 109 incinerator operator
73 4.2.4 Variables affecting respondents’ approval rate for constructing Shek Kwu Chau incinerator
Respondents‟ approval rate towards constructing Shek Kwu Chau incinerator is a dependent variable that may be affected by the independent variables such as proximity of respondents‟ residential district from incinerator site, Age
Group, Knowledge on basic information about incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau,
Knowledge on benefits of incineration, Acceptance level on living near an incinerator and Trust level towards the government.
Proximity of respondents’ residential district from incinerator site
Descriptive statistics between proximity of respondents‟ residential district from incinerator site and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau are shown in Table 14. To measure distance from incineration site, respondents‟ residential districts were grouped into six categories. From closest Cheung Chau (6), Hong Kong Island (5), New Territories West (4),
Kowloon (3), New Territories East (2) to the furthest New Territories North
(1). Most of the respondents did not live near the proposed incineration site
(Mean = 3.61, Standard deviation = 1.26). There was a neutral approval rating of respondents (Mean = 3.17, Standard deviation = 0.10).
There is a weak negative relationship between proximity of respondents‟
74 residential district from incinerator site and respondents‟ approval rate in incinerator construction at Shek Kwu Chau (r = -.257). This supports
Hypothesis H4 stated that there is a negative correlation between the proximity of respondents‟ residential district from incinerator site and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. The correlation is statistically significance (p = .003), which is less than .01, null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 14 Descriptive statistics between proximity of respondents‟ residential district from incinerator site and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Age group
Table 15 presents descriptive statistics between age group and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. Most of the respondents were below 30 years old (Mean = 2.70, Standard deviation = 1.37). There was a neutral approval rating of respondents towards constructing an incinerator
(Mean = 3.17, Standard deviation = 0.10).
There is no or negligible relationship between age group and respondents‟
75 approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau due to a
Pearson Correlation Coefficient of r = -.139 with a statistical significance of p
= .148. Hypothesis H5 stated that there is a negative correlation between age group and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau can be rejected.
Table 15 Descriptive statistics between age group and respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Mean Standard deviation Frequency
Age group 2.70 1.37 109 Approval rating 3.17 1.00 109
Knowledge on basic information about incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Public tend to use their existing knowledge to have judgment on particular subject matter, such as basic understanding on subject matter and its benefits.
It is very important that to know the proposed location of incinerator because proposed location site helps public to decide whether they would be affected in fast way. Table 16 presents the descriptive statistics between respondents‟ knowledge on proposed location of incinerator and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. Most respondents were neither clear nor not clear about knowledge on the proposed location of incinerator
(Mean = 3.03, Standard deviation = 1.30). Besides, there was a neutral
76 approval rating of respondents towards constructing Shek Kwu Chau incinerator (Mean = 3.17, Standard deviation = 0.10).
No or negligible relationship can be found between respondents‟ knowledge on proposed location of incineration and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (r = .189). The correlation is statistically significant (p = .049), so null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 16 Descriptive statistics between knowledge on proposed location of incinerator and respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Mean Standard deviation Frequency
Knowledge on proposed 3.03 1.30 109 location of incinerator Approval rate 3.17 0.10 109
Construction cost of building an incinerator is another knowledge that residents may clear about it as the construction uses public fund, they always care about how the government spend the public fund mainly collected taxpayers. Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ knowledge on construction cost to build an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau is shown in Table 17. In generally, respondents were not clear with the construction cost of building an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (Mean = 2.17, Standard deviation = 1.01) and
77 there was a neutral approval rating of respondents (Mean = 3.17, Standard deviation = 0.10).
No or negligible relationship can be found between respondents‟ knowledge on the construction cost to build an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau and public‟s approval rate in constructing an incinerator as a Pearson Correlation
Coefficient of r = .036 and this correlation is not statistically significant (p
= .713), thus null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
In short summary, no relationship can be found between respondents‟ knowledge on proposed location of incinerator and its construction cost and their approval rate in constructing at Shek Kwu Chau incinerator, so
Hypothesis H6 stated that there is a positive correlation between respondents‟ basic knowledge on information about Shek Kwu Chau incinerator and approval rate in constructing Shek Kwu Chau incinerator fails.
Table 17 Descriptive statistics between knowledge on construction cost to build Shek Kwu Chau incinerator and respondents‟ approval rate in incinerator construction
Mean Standard deviation Frequency
Knowledge on construction cost to build Shek Kwu Chau 2.17 1.01 109 incinerator Approval rate 3.17 0.10 109
78 Knowledge on incineration’s benefits
Table 18 shows the descriptive statistics between respondents‟ knowledge on incineration‟s benefits and respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. Respondents were neither clear nor not clear about benefits of incineration (Mean = 3.25, Standard deviation = 1.21). A neutral approval rate of respondents in constructing Shek Kwu Chau incinerator can be found (Mean = 3.17, Standard deviation = 1.00).
A strong positive relationship between respondents‟ knowledge on incineration‟s benefits and public‟s approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau can be found (r =.411). The correlation is statistically significant (p <0.001), so null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, Hypothesis
H7 stated that there is positive correlation between respondents‟ knowledge on benefits of incineration and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at
Shek Kwu Chau stands.
Table 18 Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ knowledge on incineration‟s benefits and public‟s approval rate in incinerator construction
Mean Standard deviation Frequency
Knowledge on incineration’s 3.25 1.21 109 benefits Approval rate 3.17 0.10 109
79 Acceptance level on living near an incinerator
Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ acceptance level on living near an incinerator and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau is shown in Table 19. Most of the respondents were not to accept living near an incinerator (Mean = 2.21, Standard deviation = 1.00). Moreover, a neutral approval rate among respondents in constructing an incinerator can be found
(Mean = 3.17, Standard deviation = 1.00).
A strong positive relationship can be found between respondents‟ acceptance level on living near an incinerator and public‟s approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau as the Pearson Correlation Coefficients of r
=.402. The correlation is statistically significant (p < .001), so null hypothesis is rejected. This result supports Hypothesis H8 stated that there is a positive relationship between respondents‟ acceptance level living near an incinerator and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
Table 19 Descriptive statistics between respondents‟ acceptance level on living near an incinerator and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
80 Trust level towards the government
Table 20 presents descriptive statistics between respondents‟ level of trust towards the government and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at
Shek Kwu Chau. Most of the respondents did not believe the government has the ability to handle any hazards associated with incineration facility such as dioxin leakage (Mean = 2.82, Standard deviation = 1.07), so respondents‟ had a low level of trust towards the government. A neutral approval rating of respondents in constructing an incinerator can be found (Mean = 3.17,
Standard deviation = 1.00).
There is a moderate positive relationship between respondents‟ trust level towards the government and their approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau (r = .323). This supports Hypothesis H9. Besides, this correlation is statistically significance (p = .001).
Table 20 Descriptive statistics between level of trust to the government and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Mean Standard deviation Frequency
Trust level towards the 2.82 1.07 109 government Approval rating 3.17 1.00 109
81 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
5.1 Approval rate towards Shek Kwu Chau incinerator
Results from questionnaire survey found out that about 40% respondents supported constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, and surprisingly low opposition rate to this incinerator construction (18%), this reflects the government still can pay more effort in gaining public support for constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau as less than half of respondents supported it.
Female have a higher opposition rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau than men, which matched with the results by Furuseth &
O'Callaghan (1991) and Giordano (2005). Giordano (2005) reported that women generally have a greater fear of hazards. The reasons behind can be explained by some findings of the questionnaire survey in this study. Female respondents had lower confidence towards incinerator operation and higher risk perception on incineration. In terms of respondents‟ confidence level towards incinerator operation, only 18% of female respondents and 29% of male respondents agreed that they had confidence towards it. 35% female respondents disagreed that they had confidence towards the operation of incinerator, which was 7% higher than male respondents‟ disagreement.
Besides, in terms of respondents‟ risk perception on incineration, 68% of
82 female respondents agreed that incineration poses a health threat to the residents living nearby while only 64% of male respondents agreed with it.
These show that female respondents had weaker confidence and higher risk perception towards the operation of incinerator than male respondents, these led to women had a higher opposition to Shek Kwu Chau incinerator.
5.2 Knowledge towards the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
Respondents thought they were not familiar with the issue of constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau with a mean of 2.72. Respondents tended to be clear about the adverse impacts (e.g. health hazards and environmental degradation) rather than basic information of project details (e.g. construction cost and the expected year of completion for the incinerator). This shows that there is a room of improvement for the government to disseminate information about Shek Kwu Chau incinerator such as details of the incinerator, benefits of incineration and mitigation measures for negative impacts aroused to the public.
83 5.3 Attitudes towards the incinerator
In terms of the respondents‟ attitude towards incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, respondents had a neutral attitude towards incinerator. Nevertheless, they had a high risk perception to incineration. The item “Incineration poses a health threat to the residents living nearby” has the highest mean value of 3.37 which implies a generally high risk perception on the threats brought by incineration among the respondents.
5.4 Variables affecting respondents’ approval rate towards Shek Kwu Chau incinerator
Result found out that proximity from incineration site of respondents‟ residential district is negatively correlated with their approval rate towards constructing an incinerator, which is supported by Furuseth & O'Callaghan
(1991) and Lima (2004) findings. It can be explained by NIMBY syndrome is existed in Hong Kong among the public (Lima, 2004). Due to NIMBY syndrome, although most of respondents (97.6%) realized that Hong Kong is facing a serous waste management problem and 41% of them supported building an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, 67.9% were not willing the incineration facility to be built in or near their community, especially, most respondents living in Cheung Chau strongly opposed this construction.
84 Nevertheless, results in this study show that age is not an important socio-demographic characteristic that influencing respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. This can be possibly to be explained by respondents in various age groups had a certain level of knowledge on incineration, which resulted in a positive effect on respondents‟ approval rate on Shek Kwu Chau incinerator (Yim & Vaganov, 2003).
No or negligible relationship can be found between basic knowledge on information of Shek Kwu Chau incinerator and approval rating in constructing
Shek Kwu Chau incinerator. The first possible reason behind is respondents seldom pay an in-depth attention on local news. This can be proved from only low percentage of respondents was clear about the incinerator will be built on an artificial island (41.2%) and its construction cost (13.7%). The second possible reason is there was not enough effort paid by the government to inform public about the information of constructing an incinerator. It can be explained by using the result of the questionnaire survey in this study, which shows that more than 60% of respondents disagreed that they were well-informed by the government about this construction plan, this led public to have a poor knowledge on the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. Thirdly,
Moon et al. (2009) suggested that information source about incineration also
85 plays an important role in affecting one‟s risk perception and level of opposition towards incinerator. Since mass media like newspapers and news reports in Hong Kong usually reported the news about potential negative impacts brought by the proposed incinerator and protests of the residents to against constructing an incinerator, hence this may probably adversely affects people‟s risk perception on incineration after obtaining first-hand knowledge from mass media.
However, as expected, there is a positive relationship between respondents who have knowledge on the benefits of incineration and approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. It may be due to they realized that current incineration technology is safe and reliable. In addition, they may realize that incineration is an essential element to solve current waste management problem in Hong Kong, treating waste in incinerator can reduce the pressure of landfill saturation. Green energy can be generated through incineration process, so this can reduce fossil fuel combustion to produce electricity and achieve sustainability. So, people who know the benefits of incineration have a higher tendency to support the construction of an incinerator.
86 Besides, respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau is positively correlated with their acceptance level on living near an incinerator. It may be because of respondents‟ knowledge on incineration, they know the existing incineration technology is safe, no significant harm will be resulted in even living near the incinerator, so they have a higher acceptance to the proposed incinerator.
On the other hand, in regards to respondents‟ trust level, their trust level towards the experts from incinerator operation company was higher than their trust level towards the government. The reason behind can possibly be explained by respondents had a higher confidence level to the experts from incinerator operation company rather than the government. As experts have professional knowledge, so respondents think they are more reliable. Hence, respondents‟ trust level towards the government‟s ability was lower than the trust level towards incinerator operation company.
Survey results discovered that respondents‟ approval rate in constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau is positively correlated with their trust level towards the government. Flynn et al. (1992) suggested that public‟s risk perception on LULU also depends on their trust level towards the
87 corresponding parties (e.g. government and facility operation companies). If public has trust in the corresponding parties, they will have a lower risk perception to the LULU facilities than those having no trust. So, more public support the development of new LULU.
5.5 Differences between various concerns
The average mean of all concerns suggested is 3.72, representing most of the respondents agreed that potential health hazards, construction and operation cost of building an incinerator, odor, ecological/biodiversity degradation and visual appearance were their concerns towards this issue. Respondents were more health conscious as the concern of health hazards associated with the incinerator has the highest concern level (Mean = 4.35, Standard deviation =
0.72). This implies a high level of awareness among respondents in the threats of incineration. Visual appearance of Shek Kwu Chau has the lowest concern level (Mean = 3.06, Standard deviation = 1.07). Reason behind is respondents are not live in Shek Kwu Chau, so they would not affected by the incinerator in terms of visual impact , so they would not care about visual impact brought by the incinerator.
88 5.6 Solutions to tackle with existing waste management problem
For the solutions suggested to solved the waste management problem in Hong
Kong, majority of respondents agreed that solutions suggested can solved the problem (overall mean = 3.77). Promoting waste reduction at source has the highest mean (Mean = 4.43, Standard deviation = 0.80). This implies respondents agreed reducing waste at source can decrease the amount of waste being sent to landfills and incinerated, so this can reduce the pressure of extending landfills and constructing more incinerators in future. Yet, respondents expressed that extending the existing landfills is the least possible solution to solve the problem (Mean = 2.68, Standard deviation = 0.96).
Reason behind is respondents believed that this solution cannot solve the problem in the long run, and extending landfills may cause more odor problem to the residents living near the landfills. Therefore, fewer respondents agreed with this solution.
89 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter aims at presenting the conclusion of this study. Summary of significant findings, implications of the study, recommendations, limitations of the study and suggestions for further research are the five main parts in this chapter.
6.1 Summary of significant findings
This study conducted a questionnaire survey to examine public response to
Shek Kwu Chau incinerator. Result shows that 41% of respondents supported the incineration facility at Shek Kwu Chau while only 18% of them oppose it.
In terms of knowledge on incineration and Shek Kwu Chau incinerator, respondents concerned more about adverse impacts brought by incineration instead of basic information of project details. Respondents also exhibited
NIMBY syndrome. Although most of them (97.6%) agreed that Hong Kong is facing serous waste management problem and 40% supported to construct
Shek Kwu Chau incinerator, nearly 70% of them opposed to live near the incinerator. High risk perception among the respondents could be discovered as nearly 70% believed that incineration poses a health threat to the residents living nearby and only 29.4% respondents agreed the government has the ability to handle any hazards associated with incineration facility. More
90 importantly, respondents‟ trust level towards the experts from incinerator operation company was even higher than their trust level towards the government.
Public‟s approval rate towards Shek Kwu Chau incinerator was influenced by the proximity from incineration site, public‟s knowledge on incineration‟s benefits and their trust towards the government. Besides, if respondents accept to live near the incinerator, public support in constructing an incinerator at
Shek Kwu Chau would increase. However, in this study, no or negligible relationship was found between age group and their support towards Shek
Kwu Chau incinerator. It also found out that female had a higher opposition rate than male.
Nowadays, many other countries and cities in the world like Singapore,
Republic of Korea and Berlin have utilized incineration to treat their MSW.
This greatly reduces the reliance on landfills for waste disposal. Local opposition and land shortage are two difficulties for Hong Kong to extend existing landfills. In order to solve the waste management in the long run, it is necessary for Hong Kong to construct an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. In fact, the government could inform the public and enhance public support
91 towards the incinerator by broadcasting more TV programmes that introduce the details and technology adopted in the proposed incinerator and increasing procedural justice and transparency in decision making. In addition, mitigation measures are needed to mitigate the impacts brought by the incineration processes, such as human health, environmental impacts and odor problem.
Public‟s risk perception will decrease if they realize current incineration technology is safe to use.
Only rely on incinerator and landfill are not enough, waste charges on domestic waste and food waste could also be implemented to further reduce amount of waste generated. At the same time, the government has the responsibility to improve existing recycling facilities provided to promote recycling of different types of recyclables. Therefore, an all-round approach on Hong Kong waste management can be achieved.
6.2 Implications of the study
This study presents public perception towards constructing an incinerator at
Shek Kwu Chau. It provides useful information for the government to understand general public‟s attitude and concerns towards this issue.
92 Although about 40% of respondents supported constructing an incinerator, a generally high risk perception and NIMBY syndrome still exist among Hong
Kong residents. The reasons behind were mainly due to the public were lack of knowledge on incineration‟s benefits and trust to the incineration operation.
They thought incineration would bring harms to the residents living nearby.
Such negative public perception on incineration leads to local opposition in constructing an incineration facility. This shows that the government has to keep on paying effort to reduce public‟s risk perception on it to gain support if building more incinerators is needed in future.
The government also needs to consider other important public‟s concerns. It seems that they are more likely concern about the health impacts, odor problem and environmental impacts caused by the incineration process, so the government can implement measures in future, aim at alleviating harms to residents living nearby. According to the findings of this study, it would be better if government can broadcast more TV programmes introducing incineration and increasing procedural justice and transparency in decision making would be a better means to increase public support on incinerator.
93 Base on the findings, respondents tended to support implementing municipal solid waste charge, promoting waste reduction at source and recycling rather than constructing an incineration facility and extending landfills. Thus, government can consider implementing municipal solid waste charge in future to solve Hong Kong‟s waste management problem.
6.3 Recommendations
As discovered in the questionnaire survey, residents in all age groups had a probability to constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, especially female are more likely to oppose. It is recommended that the government should organized large scale campaigns to raise residents‟ awareness of incineration. It can be in the forms of information leaflets, TV programmes and public meetings, providing sound and scientific information about the benefits of incineration, design features of the proposed incinerator (e.g. treatment capacity and technology adopted) and any mitigation measures used to mitigate possible environmental impacts arisen from constructing an incinerator that public could easily understand. So, more residents can be more familiar with the incineration‟s benefits and other information about the proposed incinerator and lessen their risk perception on impacts brought by incinerator.
94 Furthermore, Moon et al. (2009) mentioned that public‟s acceptance to incinerators can be influenced by experience of visiting an incinerator.
Therefore, the government can subsidize teenagers and young adults to join the overseas tours that visit other countries‟ successful incineration facilities
(e.g. Japan and Taiwan). In addition, after the completion of Shek Kwu Chau incinerator, the government should regularly open for public visits. Through visiting incineration facilities, they could be more familiar with the operation of incineration, measures used to monitor and control the pollutants and treatment of the ash left after incineration. This could reduce their worries and risk perception on incineration and then more young people will support the new incineration facilities in future.
Strongest local opposition can be found in the community that has the shortest distance from the proposed incinerator site. For instance, Cheung Chau residents expressed their opposition through protest activities and lodged for judicial review trying to overturn the government‟s decision of constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau. Disruption for incinerator construction thus occurred. Incentives such as tax benefit should be provided to the residents who live in the districts that close to the proposed incinerator site in order to lessen local opposition.
95 Public involvement is a vital element to gain public support in constructing an incinerator. Goodfellow, Dewick, Wortley & Azapagic (2015) suggested that public engagement in decision making can increase the „cultural legitimacy‟ of the LULU. Thus, involving the general public in the design of future incinerator is a possible method for their engagement. Besides, several types of communication with the general public at the initial stage are needed, such as questionnaire survey, advisory committees and collaboration between various stakeholders. This can increase the transparency and procedural justice of the proposed projects as well as trust between the public and incinerator operating company and the government. Possible conflicts at the later stage can be minimized. Public confidence in government‟s ability can be enhanced and therefore results in less local opposition.
The last recommendation is to have stringent standards for odor and other pollutants emission and monitoring incinerator operation regularly after the operation of Shek Kwu Chau incinerator. Since public‟s concern of environmental pollution is the main cause of NIMBY syndromes, by implementing this suggestion, their health concern and environmental concern could thus alleviate (Huang et al., 2015).
96 6.4 Limitations of the study
Several limitations exist in the findings of this study. The most significant limitation of this study is only quantitative research method was used for collecting data of public‟s knowledge and attitude towards incinerator at Shek
Kwu Chau. It might not be able to preciously reflect respondents‟ attitude, feelings and opinion towards this issue.
Generalizability of this study might by low because of the sampling method used. Since convenience sampling was employed, bias in sample selection thus occurred. Respondents of this study concentrated on a particular category like 61.5% of respondents had an education level with post-secondary and
57.8% of all respondents in this study were aged between 20 and 29, which has a great difference from the demographic characteristics of Hong Kong population. These reduced the representativeness of the results. In fact, efforts have been made in trying to ask potential participants in different age groups in restaurants to complete the questionnaire, but only most of the people who aged between 20 and 39 years old were willing to complete the questionnaire of this study. Therefore, in order to enhance generalizability of this study, more time should be spent on collecting different age groups‟ respondents in different sampling locations (e.g. more elderly people sitting in the parks).
97 Another limitation is small sample size of this study. There were 109 respondents in total. Thus, it might not be representative enough and cannot stand for all Hong Kong resident‟s opinions and attitudes toward the issue of
Shek Kwu Chau incinerator.
Besides, this study may overlook other possible factors such as income and family status (e.g. married or not and possessing any child/children or not), which are also related to the public‟s approval rate, attitudes, knowledge and degree of confidence towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
6.5 Suggestions for further research
First of all, since variables such as income and family status is overlooked in this study, so it is recommended that to take these two variables into consideration in future‟s study in order to explore the correlation between these variables and public‟s attitude, knowledge and degree of confidence towards constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
Apart from quantitative research method adopted in this study, qualitative research method such as interview and focus group are recommended to have a deeper investigation on public‟s attitude and opinion towards Shek Kwu
Chau incinerator. Causal relationship of various variables affecting public‟s
98 perception and attitude can be explored through quantitative research method.
Hence, a more comprehensive understanding on public perception on Shek
Kwu Chau incinerator can be achieved.
At last, after commencement of Shek Kwu Chau incinerator‟s operation, future research on the investigating public perception on incineration is needed.
If quantitative research method is employ again in future, a larger sample size like more than 1,000 respondents is recommended. This can reduce the probability of selection bias and enhance the representativeness of the study.
99 APPENDICES Appendix A. Copy of questionnaire (English version) Public perception towards the construction of an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau Questionnaire
This study is being conducted by a Year 4 student majoring in Environment and Resources Management at Hong Kong Baptist University. The purpose of this questionnaire is to investigate the public perception of constructing an incineration at Shek Kwu Chau in order to find out the knowledge, factors affecting one‟s perception and opinions towards this issue. It might take you about 10 minutes to finish it. Your responses are in complete anonymity. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Elsa Leung at 64136003.
Please for the appropriate response.
A. Personal background information Q1. Gender: □ Male □ Female
Q2. Age: □ 18 - 19 □ 20 - 29 □ 30 - 39 □ 40 - 49 □ 50 - 59 □ 60 or above
Q3. Education level: □ No schooling/Pre-primary □ Primary □ Lower secondary □ Upper secondary/Sixth Form □ Post-secondary
Q4. Residential district: □ Kowloon □ Hong Kong Island □ New Territories East □ New Territories West □ New Territories North □ Islands District
Q5. Monthly income (HKD): □ 0 – 10,000 □ 10,001 – 20,000 □ 20,001 – 30,000 □ 30,001 – 40,000 □ 40,001 – 50,000 □ 50,000 or above
100 B. Understanding towards incineration facility at Shek Kwu Chau Very Not Very Not Familiar Familiar Neutral Familiar Familiar Are you familiar with the issue of Q6. constructing an incinerator at Shek □ □ □ □ □ Hwu Chau?
Q7. Do you clear about each of the following items? Very Not Very Not Clear Clear Neutral Clear Clear Amount of municipal solid waste a. disposed of at landfills in Hong □ □ □ □ □ Kong per day When the three landfills in Hong b. Kong will be exhausted □ □ □ □ □ The proposed location where an c. incinerator will be built □ □ □ □ □ The proposed incinerator will be d. built on an artificial island □ □ □ □ □ When the funding of constructing an incinerator is approved by e. Legislative Council's Finance □ □ □ □ □ Committee The expected year of the f. incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau will □ □ □ □ □ be completed Construction cost of the incinerator g. at Shek Kwu Chau □ □ □ □ □ h. Benefits of incineration □ □ □ □ □ Potential health hazards caused by i. the incineration □ □ □ □ □ Environmental degradation may be j. caused by the incineration □ □ □ □ □
Q8. What is/are the source(s) for you to know the information about the incineration? (You can choose more than one options) □ Government □ Green Groups (e.g. Friends of the Earth (HK) and Green Power) □ Newspapers, TV and the Internet □ Informal talks among family members, relatives and friends □ School
101 Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Do you agree or disagree that you are well-informed by the Q9. government about the □ □ □ □ □ construction of an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau?
Q10. Which of the following solution(s) do you think it/they can enhance public acceptance towards this issue? (You can choose more than one options)
□ Increasing procedural justice and transparency in decision making □ Extending the period of public consultation □ Talks □ TV programme □ Others (Please specific: ______)
C. Attitude towards incineration facility at Shek Kwu Chau
Q11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree I think Hong Kong is facing serous a. waste management problem. □ □ □ □ □ I am confident in the incinerator b. operation safety. □ □ □ □ □ Incineration poses a health threat to c. the residents living nearby. □ □ □ □ □ I believe that the government has the ability to handle any hazards d. associated with incineration facility □ □ □ □ □ (e.g. dioxin leakage). I believe that experts from incineration company has the ability e. to handle any hazards associated with □ □ □ □ □ incineration facility (e.g. dioxin leakage).
f. I accept to live near an incinerator. □ □ □ □ □
102 Strongly Strongly Support Support Neutral Oppose Oppose Do you support the construction Q12. of an incinerator at Shek Kwu □ □ □ □ □ Chau?
Q13. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following factors are my key concerns about constructing an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau? Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Health hazards a. (e.g. air and water pollution) □ □ □ □ □
b. Construction and operation cost □ □ □ □ □
c. Odor □ □ □ □ □
d. Ecological/Biodiversity degradation □ □ □ □ □
e. Visual appearance □ □ □ □ □
Q14. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following measures can solve waste disposal problem in Hong Kong? Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
a. Building an incinerator □ □ □ □ □
b. Extending landfills □ □ □ □ □ Implementing municipal solid waste c. charge □ □ □ □ □
d. Promoting recycling □ □ □ □ □
e. Promoting waste reduction at source □ □ □ □ □
- THE END - This questionnaire will be destroyed after the study is finished. Thank you for your participation!
103 Appendix B. Copy of questionnaire (Chinese version)
「公眾對石鼓洲興建焚化爐的認知」問卷調查
本人是香港浸會大學環境及資源管理學系四年級學生。由於研究需要，正進行一項問卷調查， 以了解公眾對石鼓洲興建焚化爐的認知。填寫問卷約需 10 分鐘，閣下毋須填寫姓名，所有提供 的資料絕對保密，並僅作研究及參考用途。如有任何疑問，請致電 64136003 與梁小姐聯絡。
請在適當方格填上
A. 個人背景資料 Q1. 性別 : □ 男 □ 女
Q2. 年齡: □ 18 - 19 □ 20 - 29 □ 30 - 39 □ 40 - 49 □ 50 - 59 □ 60 或以上
Q3. 教育程度: □ 未受教育/學前教育 □ 小學 □ 初中 □ 高中/預科 □ 大專或以上
Q4. 居住地區: □ 九龍 □ 港島區 □ 新界東 □ 新界西 □ 新界北 □ 離島區
Q5. 每月主要職業收入(港元): □ 0 – 10,000 □ 10,001 – 20,000 □ 20,001 – 30,000 □ 30,001 – 40,000 □ 40,001 – 50,000 □ 50,000 或以上
104 B. 市民對石鼓洲焚化爐的理解
非常熟悉 熟悉 中立 不熟悉 非常不熟悉
Q6. 你對石鼓洲興建焚化爐的議題熟悉嗎 ? □ □ □ □ □
Q7. 你是否清楚下列每個項目？ 非常清楚 清楚 普通 不清楚 非常不清楚 香港每天棄置於堆填區的都市固體廢 a. 物的數量 □ □ □ □ □ b. 香港三個堆填區何時爆滿 □ □ □ □ □ c. 興建焚化爐的建議地點 □ □ □ □ □ d. 焚化爐將會興建在人工島上 □ □ □ □ □ 立法會財務委員會何時通過興建焚化 e. 爐的撥款 □ □ □ □ □ f. 石鼓洲焚化爐的預計竣工年份 □ □ □ □ □ g. 石鼓洲焚化爐的建築成本 □ □ □ □ □ h. 焚化的好處 □ □ □ □ □
i. 焚化可能引起的健康危害 □ □ □ □ □ 焚化可能導致環境退化 j. (例如: 空氣污染) □ □ □ □ □
Q8. 你是從甚麼途徑知道焚化的資訊? (你可選擇多於一個) □ 政府 □ 綠色組織 (例如: 香港地球之友和綠色力量) □ 報紙、電視節目和互聯網 □ 與家人、親戚、朋友日常交談 □ 學校
非常同意 同意 中立 不同意 非常不同意 你是否同意政府充分地使我了 Q9. 解在石鼓洲興建焚化爐的相關 □ □ □ □ □ 資訊?
105 Q10. 你認為下列哪些方法能提高大眾對在石鼓洲興建焚化爐的接受度。(你可選擇多於一個) □ 提高决策程序中的公正和透明度 □ 延長公眾諮詢期 □ 講座 □ 電視節目 □ 其他 (請註明: ______)
C. 市民對石鼓洲焚化爐的態度
Q11. 你是否同意下列的陳述？
非常同意 同意 中立 不同意 非常不同意
a. 我認為香港的廢物處理問題嚴重。 □ □ □ □ □
b. 我對焚化爐的運作充滿信心。 □ □ □ □ □ 焚化廢物會對居住在焚化設施附近居 c. 民的健康構成威脅。 □ □ □ □ □ 我相信政府有能力處理焚化設施引起 d. 的事故(例如:二噁英洩漏)。 □ □ □ □ □ 我相信營運焚化設施公司的專家有能 e. 力處理焚化設施引起的事故(例如:二 □ □ □ □ □ 噁英洩漏)。
f. 我接受居住的地方附近有焚化設施。 □ □ □ □ □
Q12. 你是否支持在石鼓洲興建焚化爐嗎? □ 非常支持 □ 支持 □ 中立 □ 反對 □ 非常反對
106 Q13. 你是否同意下列是你對石鼓洲興建焚化爐的主要關注因素?
非常同意 同意 中立 不同意 非常不同意
a. 危害健康 (例如:空氣及水污染) □ □ □ □ □
b. 興建及運作成本 □ □ □ □ □
c. 臭味 □ □ □ □ □
d. 生態/生物多樣性退化 □ □ □ □ □
e. 地區視覺景觀 □ □ □ □ □
Q14. 你是否同意下列方法能解決香港廢物處置的問題?
非常同意 同意 中立 不同意 非常不同意
a. 興建焚化爐 □ □ □ □ □
b. 擴建堆填區 □ □ □ □ □
c. 推行都市固體廢物徵費 □ □ □ □ □
d. 推廣回收 □ □ □ □ □
e. 鼓勵源頭減廢 □ □ □ □ □
- 完 -
本問卷將於研究完成後銷毀。
多謝參與!
107 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baxter, J. W., Eyles, J. D., & Elliott, S. J. (1999). From Siting Principles to Siting Practices: A Case Study of Discord Among trust, Equity and Community Participation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(4), pp. 501-525.
Census and Statistics Department. (2012). 2011 Population Census - Main Report : Volume I. Retrieved April 7, 2016, from Census and Statistics Department: http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11200592012XXXXB0100.pdf
Chung, W., & Yeung, I. M. (2013). Attitudes of Hong Kong residents toward the Daya Bay nuclear power plant. Energy Policy, 62, pp. 1172-1186.
Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), pp. 288-300.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Department of Statistics Singapore. (2015). Statistics Singapore - Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2015. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from Singapore Department of Statistics: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/p ublications/publications_and_papers/reference/yearbook_2015/yos2015.p df
Environment Bureau. (2013). Hong Kong Blueprint For Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022. Retrieved from Environment Bureau: http://www.enb.gov.hk/en/files/WastePlan-E.pdf
Environmental Protection Department. (2005). Problems & Solutions - Integrated Waste Management Facilities. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from Environmental Protection Department: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions /WFdev_IWMF.html#Shek Kwu Chau
Environmental Protection Department. (2010). Strategic Landfills. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from Environmental Protection Department: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions /msw_strategic.html
Environmental Protection Department. (2012). Summary of MSW Charging in Selected Jurisdictions. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from Environmental Protection Department: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/msw_consult/file/MSW_Con_Doc_Annex_E
108 NG.pdf
Environmental Protection Department. (2015a). Full Implementation of the Plastic Shopping Bag Charging. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from Environmental Protection Department: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/psb_charging/en/introduction/index.html
Environmental Protection Department. (2015b). Monitoring of Soild Waste n Hong Kong - Waste Statistics for 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from Environmental Protection Department: https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/sites/default/files/msw2014.pdf
Environmental Protection Department. (2016a). Food Waste Recycling Partnership Scheme. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from Environmental Protection Department: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions /owt_food2.html
Environmental Protection Department. (2016b). Waste. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from Environmental Protection Department: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/waste_mainco ntent.html
Environmental Protection Department. (2016c). Waste Diversion Plan. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Environmental Protection Department: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions /waste-diversion-plan.html
Farber, S. (1998). Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies. Ecological Economics, 24, pp. 1-14.
Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model. Risk Analysis, 12(3), pp. 417-429.
Furuseth, O. J., & O'Callaghan, J. (1991). Community response to a municipal waste incinerator: NIMBY or neighbor? Landscape and Urban Planning, 21(3), pp. 163-171.
Giordano, A. (2005). The People and the Plan: Intended Reactions to a Nuclear Emergency in New York State. Risk Management, pp. 41-56.
Goodfellow, M. J., Dewick, P., Wortley, J., & Azapagic, A. (2015). Public Perceptions of Design Options for New Nuclear Plants in the UK. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 94, pp. 72-88.
Google Map. (2016). Google Map. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from Google: https://www.google.com.hk/maps/@22.206052,114.0622198,12.5z?hl=zh-
109 TW
GovHK. (2015a). GovHK: Hong Kong - the Facts. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from GovHK: http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/facts.htm
GovHK. (2015b). GovHK: Municipal Solid Waste. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from GovHK: http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/environment/waste/msw.htm
GovHK. (2015c). Waste & Recycling in Hong Kong. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from GovHK: http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/environment/waste/wasterecycinhk.htm
Gregory, R., Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., & Richards, K. (1991). Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities. Risk Analysis, 11(4), pp. 667-675.
Havlicek, J., Richardson, R. J., & Davies, L. (1971). Measuring the Impacts of Solid Waste Disposal Site Location on Property Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(5), p. 869.
Hong Kong Daily News. (2011). 500 Zhang zhou ju min kang yi jian fen hua lu. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from Hong Kong Daily News: http://cquestgarden.com/upload/2999/doc/1773.pdf
Hong Kong Waste Reduction Website. (2015). Waste Recycling Statistics. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from Hong Kong Waste Reduction Website: http://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/en/quickaccess/stat_recycle.htm
Huang, Y., Ning, Y., Zhang, T., & Fei, Y. (2015). Public acceptance of waste incineration power plants in China: Comparative case studies. Habitat International, pp. 11-19.
Kim, I. C. (2002). Korea's policy instruments for waste minimization. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 4(1), pp. 12-22.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Lima, M. L. (2004). On the influence of risk perception on mental health: living near an incinerator. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, pp. 71-78.
Liu, T., & Yau, Y. (2014). Institutional inadequacies and successful contentions: A case study of the LULU siting process in Hong Kong. Habitat International. 44, pp. 22-30. Elsevier.
McCluskey, J. J., & Rausser, G. C. (2001). Estimation of Perceived Risk and Its
110 Effect on Property Values. Land Economics, 77(1), pp. 42-55.
Min, D. K., & Rhee, S. W. (2014). Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Korea. In Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia and the Pacific Islands (pp. 173-194). Singapore: Springer.
Ministry of Environment. (2013). MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT - SUDOKWON Landfill Site Management Corp. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT: http://eng.me.go.kr/eng/web/index.do?menuId=54
Ministry of Environment. (2014). Environmental Statistics Yearbook 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from Ministry of Environment: http://eng.me.go.kr/eng/web/board/read.do?pagerOffset=0&maxPageItems =10&maxIndexPages=10&searchKey=&searchValue=&menuId=29&org Cd=&boardId=497370&boardMasterId=548&boardCategoryId=&decorat or=
Ministry of Environment. (2015a). MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT - Volume-based Food Waste Fee System. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from Ministry of Environment: http://eng.me.go.kr/eng/web/index.do?menuId=387&findDepth=1
Ministry of Environment. (2015b). MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT - Waste Recycling. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT: http://eng.me.go.kr/eng/web/index.do?menuId=372&findDepth=1
Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. (2015). Key Environmental Statistics 2015. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources: http://www.mewr.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/gra b-our-research/kes-2015.pdf
Moon, D., Shirakawa, H., Higashi, O., & Imura, H. (2009). Comparison of the Characteristics of Perceived Risks of Residents Living Near Waste Incineration Facilities in Korea and Japan. Journal of Environmental Information Science, 37(5), pp. 155-164.
National Environment Agency. (2008). Guidebook on Setting Up Structured Waste Recycling Programme in Condominiums and Private Apartments. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from National Environment Agency: http://www.nea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/training-knowledge-hub/guide book-on-setting-up-structured-waste-recycling-programme-in-condominiu ms-and-private-apartments.pdf?sfvrsn=0
National Environment Agency. (2015a). A New Uniform Fee for Waste Collection. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from National Environment Agency:
111 http://www.nea.gov.sg/energy-waste/waste-management/a-new-uniform-fe e-for-waste-collection
National Environment Agency. (2015b). Refuse Disposal Figures. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from National Environment Agency: http://www.nea.gov.sg/energy-waste/waste-management/refuse-disposal-fi gures
National Environment Agency. (2015c). Solid Waste Management Infrastructure. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from National Environment Agency of Singapore: http://www.nea.gov.sg/energy-waste/waste-management/solid-waste-mana gement-infrastructure
RTHK (2011). Fishermen Protest Against Incinerator. Retrieved October 21, 2015, from RTHK English News: http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20110317/news_20110317 _56_741636.htm
RTHK. (2015). LegCo approves funding for incinerator. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from RTHK English News: http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20150109/news_20150109_56_1067 707.htm
Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment. (2013). Municipal waste management in Berlin. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/abfallwirtschaft/downloads /siedlungsabfall/Abfall_Broschuere_engl.pdf
Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1994). Ethics of Scientific Research. England: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc.
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), pp. 713-720.
Singapore Department of Statistics. (2015). STATISTICS SINGAPORE - Singapore in Figures, 2015. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from Singapore Department of Statistics: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/p ublications/publications_and_papers/reference/sif2015.pdf
Singpao. (2014). Zhang zhou ju min zai shen fu he zu jian fen hua lu. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from Singpao: http://www.singpao.com/xw/gat/201406/t20140605_511581.html
South China Morning Post. (2014). Incineration and landfill extensions are essential to tackle Hong Kong's waste crisis. Retrieved October 15, 2015,
112 from South China Morning Post: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1643826/incineratio n-and-landfill-extensions-are-essential-tackle?page=
Taylor, G. R. (2005). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Research. USA: University Press of America.
The Press and Information Office of the Federal Government. (2014). Berlin - A success story Facts. Figures. Statistics. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from The Press and Information Office of the Federal Government: file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/140911_berlin_erfolgsgeschichte_2014_engl .pdf
Travis, C. C., & Cook, S. C. (1989). Hazardous waste incineration and human health. USA: CRC Press.
Wolsink, M., & Devilee, J. (2009). The Motives for Accepting or Rejecting Waste Infrastructure Facilities. Shifting the Focus from the Planners' Perspective to Fairness and Community Commitment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(2), pp. 217-236.
Woo, L., & Lam, K. (2009, September 17). Public perception of locally unwanted facilities in Hong Kong: implications for conflict resolution. Local Environment, 14(9), pp. 851-869.
Wood, J. T. (2013). Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters (7th ed.). USA, Boston: Cengage Learning.
Xue, W., Cao, K., & Li, W. (2015). Municipal solid waste collection optimization in Singapore. Applied Geography, 62, pp. 182-190.
Yang, W. S., Park, J. K., Park, S. W., & Seo, Y. C. (2015). Past, present and future of waste management in Korea. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 17(2), pp. 207-217.
Yim, M. S., & Vaganov, P. A. (2003). Effects of education on nuclear risk perception and attitude: Theory. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 42(2), pp. 221-235.
Zhang, D., Keat, T. S., & Gersberg, R. M. (2010). A comparison of municipal solid waste management in Berlin and Singapore. Waste management, 30(5), pp. 921-933.
113