Unopened Space: Mapping Equitable Availability of Open Space in

February 2017 Carine Lai About Civic Exchange

Civic Exchange is an independent, non-partisan, public policy think-tank established in Hong Kong in 2000. With a vision to shape a liveable and sustainable Hong Kong, Civic Exchange's mission is to advance civic education and engage society to influence public policy through research, dialogue and development of practical and sustainable solutions. Civic Exchange undertakes research in three major areas: air quality, nature conservation and the urban environment, with an overarching framework of promoting wellbeing. For more information about Civic Exchange, visit www.civic-exchange.org.

About the Author

Carine Lai, who led this research project, joined Civic Exchange in 2004, and has combined her policy work with ongoing study since then. She has worked widely on projects related to wellbeing in Asian cities, walkability, urban design, urban renewal and governance in Hong Kong. She holds a master's degree in urban planning from University College London and a bachelor’s degree in political science and studio art from Tufts University.

1

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements………………………...... …………..…………………………….……………………..……………4 Executive Summary………………………...... ………..…………………………….………………………..……………6 Abbreviations……………………...... ……………..…………………………………….…………..……….………………8 1. Introduction………………………………………………………..……………….…...... ……………………….……9 1.1 The Benefits of Open Space 1.2 Aims of this Report 1.3 Data Gaps

2. Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ….………………………...….……………...………11 2.1 Definition of Open Space 2.2 Open Space Standards 2.3 Providers of Open Space

3 Methodology 3.1 Calculating Open Space at the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) Level…………...……………..17 3.2 Geographical Scope 3.3 Analysis 4. Overall Provision of Open Space in Hong Kong…….…………...………………...………………...…20 4.1 Per Person Countable Open Space Provision by District (2012). 4.2 Geographical Variability within Districts. 4.3 International Comparisons 4.4 Would Raising the Standard 2.5 m2 per Person Lead to Meaningful Improvement? 4.5 Should Regional Open Space Be Included in the Standard? 4.6 Summary of Policy Recommendations

5. What Type of Housing Offers Better Access to Local Open Space?...... …………...…….32 5.1 The Role of Housing Authority and Private Open Space 5.2 Local Open Space (LOS) Varies Based on Housing Type 5.3 Policy Implications 5.4 How Should the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) Handle Private Open Space? 5.5 Summary of Policy Recommendations

6. Demographic Analysis of Open Space Provision.……………...... …………...………………..42 6.1 Median Household Income and Multiple Deprivation 6.2 Children 6.3 Elderly People 2

7. Potential for Improvement ….…………………………...………………...….……….…...……………….....51 7.1 What are “O” Zones? 7.2 Future Open Space Potential 7.3 Obstacles to “O” Zone Development 7.4 Policy Implications 7.5 Summary of Policy Recommendations

8. Conclusion and Summary of Policy Recommendations .…………...……………….…………...……57 Appendix 1: Countable Open Space as Defined by the HKPSG (2016) .…………...……………...… 61 Appendix 2: Publicly Available Open Space Data in Hong Kong.………...……………...... …62 Appendix 3: Provisions of Open Space as of 2012, According to the Planning Department.…65 Appendix 4: Existing Per Person Countable Open Space by District (2012).……..……...……….…67 Appendix 5: Methodology for Calculating Countable Open Space at the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) Scale.………...……………...…………...……………...………...…………...……………...…………...…69 Appendix 6: Methodology for the Compilation of Demographic Data………...……………...………75 Appendix 7: Countable, Local and District Open Space per Person and Selected Demographic Variables in Urban OZP Areas………...………….………...……………...…………...……………...……………...77 Appendix 8: Open Space by Provider in Urban OZP Areas………...……………...………………………..79 Appendix 9: Additional Maps.……...……………...…………...……………...…………...……………...…………87 Appendix 10: Potential Open Space………...……………...…………...………………………...……………...…96 Appendix 11: Future Housing Sites Identified by the Government on “O” Zoned Land………..98 Endnote.…………...………………...………………...…………...……….…………...………………...…………………..99

Note: There are several detailed maps included in this report. To view them in more detail, visit the Civic Exchange website, civic-exchange.org, and click on “Publications.”

3

Acknowledgements

Civic Exchange sincerely thanks the Hong Kong public, whose crowdfunded donations of more than HK $300,000 in 2016 made this research project possible. The contributions of 74 individual sponsors allowed “Unopened Space” to be a truly independent initiative, with an unbiased study on how public open space is counted and used in Hong Kong.

The grassroots support shown for this project demonstrated how important the issue of “public open space” is, in a very crowded city. The public wish to know how much open space they do get, how much they should get – and whether some groups or areas get more or less than their fair share. Civic Exchange congratulates Carine Lai, the author of this report, for the completion of a groundbreaking study. Ms. Lai spent a year untangling the web of definitions and measures the Hong Kong Government uses to count and monitor public open space. She found data that was not easily accessible, and mapped out public open space by neighbourhood, in a way that was more detailed than what was previously published. Civic Exchange also developed a composite Multiple Deprivation Index, in order to study how underprivileged groups were affected.

Most importantly, this report offers concrete public policy recommendations that the Hong Kong Government, urban planners and property developers can consider.

This report is just a first step in Civic Exchange’s long-term study of how to make Hong Kong a better, more liveable city for all its residents.

Maura Wong Chief Executive Officer Civic Exchange

4

Thank You

Civic Exchange would like to thank the many donors who supported this initiative, in particular: Bruce Au, Melissa Brown, Iris Chan, James Chan, Julia Chan Pui Shan, Phyllis Chan, Leslie Chang, Cindy Cheng, Cheng Lok Man, Sealing Cheng, Selina Cheung, Ellen Choy, The Correa Family, Simon Dambe, Michael Edesess, Eilidh, Isabelle Ensarguet, Robert Footman, Fung Yeuk Kin, Lisa Genasci, Gidumal & Sons Ltd., Shanti Govindaraju, Gumgum, Ho Ka Po, Kirsten Ho, Patrick Ho, Shelagh Ho, Ho Wai Chi, Ip Sze Wai, Kristine Johnson, Raymond K., Elaine Lai, Ni Quiaque Lai, Etienne Lamy-Smith, Lee Ka Man, Lui Yick Sze, Keenan Manning, Pamela Mar, Lenlen Mesina, Peter Milliken, Nicki, Sean Niem, Roger Nissim, Clive Noffke, Joanne Oswin, Karen Pong, Benson Poon, Alfred Romann, Sarah, Matthew David Saul, Barbara Shaw, Fiona Sykes, Kelly Tang, Diane To, Kylie Uebergang, Wan Yiu Ming, Ada Wong, Agnes Wong, S. T. Wong, Yanyan Yip and Terence Yuen. Many anonymous donors also contributed generously to this project, with our great thanks.

Civic Exchange would also like to thank Hayden Kwan, Town Planner for the District Planning Office of the Planning Department; Ian Brownlee, Managing Director of Masterplan; Christina Lo of the University of Hong Kong; Yuen Yee Pong, Town Planner; and Stephen Brown, Noble Group’s Director of Corporate Affairs and Civic Exchange Fellow; for providing invaluable assistance and insights during the course of this research.

5

Executive Summary

There is keen interest in open space in Hong Kong, a city with small private homes and some of the world’s most densely populated urban areas. The territory has a unique setup, in that about 40% of the land is preserved as country park, with most of the population of 7 million housed in a built-up area occupying just 25% of the land. Hong Kong also has high tourist and visitor arrival numbers, making for crowded streets. On top of that, the Hong Kong Government policy encourages the private sector to provide a significant amount of Hong Kong's urban recreational open space. That creates a grey area between private and public space.

It was in this context that Civic Exchange launched its “Unopened Space” initiative, to study open space in Hong Kong’s urban areas. After a successful crowdfunding event in 2016 and nearly a year’s worth of research, Civic Exchange presents this report, which includes statistics that are broken down, mapped, and compared with demographic data in a way that they had not been before. Our report found that the current Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) standard of 2 m2 of open space per person is far too low. That standard – a space the size of a toilet cubicle – was set 15 years ago. The government’s proposed increase to 2.5 m2 per person, as cited in the 2030+ Planning Vision and Strategy, is also insufficient, in that it barely matches the current situation, which we calculate to be 2.7-2.8 m2 per person depending on the definition used. Civic Exchange recommends a standard of at least 3-3.5 m2. That standard still puts Hong Kong behind major Asian cities like Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai and Singapore, whose residents get between 5.8 m2 and 7.6 m2.

Open space is unevenly distributed across Hong Kong. Civic Exchange broke down open space statistics in Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) areas – or, more simply, the smaller neighbourhoods most Hong Kongers know by name. Our study found that 1.84 million Hong Kongers live in OZPs with less than their promised 2 m2 of open space. Another 2.06 million live in OZPs with less than 2.5 m2. Together, that is more than half the city’s urban population. Raising our standards could potentially help an addition 1.3 million Hong Kongers, especially in New Towns like , Tsing Yi and Sha Tin.

For this report, Civic Exchange compared open space data with census data to identify the demographic groups most affected. The elderly, for example, are more likely to live in densely built, old neighbourhoods with little accessible open space. This is the worst in areas like Cheung Sha Wan, Ma Tau Kok, and .

Those in the Housing Authority’s public housing have more than 2m2 of open space, as those complexes have courtyards. (The quality of that space is a different issue). On the other end of the income scale, the most affluent Hong Kongers in areas like The Peak, Kowloon Tong and Discovery Bay have plentiful open space (more than 8m2 per person), as well as easy access to country parks or other green areas. Those who fare the worst are in the middle – residents in smaller, individual buildings in older neighbourhoods. This is particularly true on the north shore of (Kennedy Town, Wan Chai, Causeway Bay) and urban Kowloon (Mong Kok, Hung Hom). Residents in Mong Kok, for example, suffer from a high level of socio-economic deprivation, little public housing, and just 0.6m2 of open space per person.

6

Open space can be hard to find, both physically and figuratively. In recent years, the public has heard about controversies over the accessibility and management of open spaces within private residences like Metro Harbour View in Kowloon, or private shopping malls like IFC in Central or Times Square in Causeway Bay. These Public Open Spaces in Private Developments (POSPDs) are a tiny part of the overall picture, making up just 2% of Countable Open Space (COS). There is more than four times as much fully private open space located in large residential developments (making up 9% of the total) with no public access at all.

There are large tracts of land that have been zoned for open space on Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs), but which have never been developed for public recreational use. These include smaller spaces under highway overpasses or in fenced-in urban lots, or larger spaces in the New Territories. If developed for recreational use, they could greatly increase our open space supply.

Open space was also difficult to find in a more academic sense. Civic Exchange researchers found that data was partial, or missing entirely. There are a tangle of definitions and inconsistencies in how space is counted. Data is not easily accessible to planners or NGOs, much less to ordinary residents. This is particularly important as major land projects are undertaken. At this point, there are only a few places left where new, larger urban parks could be built – the Central-Wan Chai Reclamation, West Kowloon and Kai Tak. The Hong Kong public wishes to know how these areas will be used.

This report is a first step in making open space data public and accessible, and also to encourage the government to more greatly consider it in its future planning. Open space has enormous health and societal benefits. International cities like New York and London are defined, in part, by iconic parks and walkable neighborhoods. Asian cities like Singapore have put policy emphasis on world-class attractions like Gardens by the Bay. Good parks and decent public space are the hallmarks of a truly world-class city.

7

Abbreviations

In this report, abbreviations and full names are used interchangeably. COS Countable Open Space

LOS Local Open Space

DOS District Open Space

ROS Regional Open Space

POSPD Public Open Space in Private Developments

TOS Total Open Space

HA Housing Authority

HOS Home Ownership Scheme

HKPSG Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines

LCSD Leisure and Cultural Services Department

OZP Outline Zoning Plan

PlanD Planning Department

TPU Tertiary Planning Unit

URA Urban Renewal Authority

8

1 Introduction

1.1 The Benefits of Open Space

Open space is an important element of any city’s liveability and sustainability. According to the World Health Organization and other researchers, urban green open space brings about many health, social and environmental benefits.1

Open space facilitates exercise in both adults and children, promoting better cardiovascular health and preventing obesity.2 One Japanese study showed that elderly people with access to walkable green space lived longer.3 Green open space has also been associated with lower rates of illness.4

Living near green open space also has a beneficial effect on people’s ability to cope with stress,5 and is associated with lower symptoms of depression and anxiety,6 7 and fewer reported feelings of loneliness.8

Green open space promotes social interaction and greater community cohesion.9 10 Green open space also promotes social equality, in that the greatest health benefits are seen among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Demographic groups that spend most of their time at home and in their residential neighbourhoods, such as the elderly and homemakers, also benefit especially.11

The environmental benefits of green open space include absorbing and sequestering air pollutants including greenhouse gases,12 facilitating air circulation in densely built-up areas,13 mitigating the urban heat island effect,14 reducing storm water run-off, and reducing noise.15

1.2 Aims of This Report

In light of the benefits of open space, it is important to be able to assess the availability of open space in different Hong Kong districts and neighbourhoods in relation to their demographic composition, in order to identify the populations that are the best and worst served.

Hong Kong is an extremely densely built-up city of more than 7 million people, with population densities reaching as high as 400,000 people per square kilometre in some street blocks.16 Although 40% of its land area is reserved as country parks, much of its urban population has little day-to-day exposure to green open space. Although the Government has, through the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, set standards for the provision of open space, there is very limited publicly available data on how well these standards have been fulfilled.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the extent to which the Government’s own open space standards have been fulfilled throughout urban areas, in order to make 9 recommendations to improve the overall provision and equitability of access to open space. Due to gaps and inconsistencies in publicly available information, it is currently very difficult if not impossible for residents, NGOs and other non-planning professionals to find out the quantity of open space in different areas. This report assembles publicly available open space figures from different sources to make a reasonable estimate of open space provision at the Outline Zoning Plan scale, and analyse them in comparison to area demographics such as income and age.

This report is intended to be a first step. There are many important issues in open space planning, such as quality, management, and accessibility which need further study. This report focuses only on urban open space which is intended for recreational purposes. Other elements of the public realm, such as streets, pedestrian passageways and country parks, are beyond this report’s scope.

It is hoped that the figures and analysis contained within this report will give the public some basic tools gain a better understanding of their neighbourhoods in and to advocate for better open space provision on a local scale. It is also our aim that government agencies, property developers and professional planners can use this newly mapped out data in the future planning.

1.3 Data Gaps

The patchwork of open space statistics routinely published by the government do not provide a comprehensive picture. The statistics released by the Planning Department, Lands Department and Leisure and Cultural Services Department serve different purposes, cover different subcategories, and use different definitions. Statistics on certain types of open space, such as open space in public housing estates and private open space in large residential developments are partial or absent.

Under the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG), the government is supposed to ensure a certain level of provision of open space per person. The HKPSG are a set of administrative guidelines for planning purposes, which do not explicitly require the government to report open space statistics according to the definition that the HKSPG uses. There has been only one occasion on which the government has published such figures – in 2008, due to a public controversy over public open space in private developments (POSPD), the Development Bureau provided the figures in a report to the Legislative Council.17 Several problematic cases surfaced, including one where it was discovered that part of an upstairs podium – adjacent to the private clubhouse and housings blocks of the Metro Harbour View residences in Kowloon – was actually designated as public open space under the land lease conditions. It is challenging to compile a comprehensive and consistent picture of the open space existing in Hong Kong. Appendix 2 lists the figures which currently exist, their definitions, and level of detail at which they are available.

Section 3 of this report will explain the methodology used to compile and analyse the available statistics, but first, we turn to Section 2 for an explanation of the HKPSG’s standards and definitions.

10

2 The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG)

Historically, the provision of open space in Hong Kong was a low priority for the government. Academics have identified rapid population growth, a pro-growth planning ideology, lack of public representation, an inefficient division of governmental responsibilities and a revenue-maximizing land sale policy as factors leading to an ungenerous provision of open space.18 In 1981, the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) were introduced. Chapter 4 of the Guidelines provided the first set of official standards for the provision of open space and recreational facilities on a per capita basis. The HKPSG are not legally enforceable standards; they are administrative guidelines whose purpose is to guide planning and policy implementation.

The HKSPG sought to regularize the definition of open space as space for recreational use. At that time, some parcels of unsuitable land on hill slopes and road medians had been zoned as open space in Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs). Policymakers also hoped that going forward, the private sector would play a significant role in its provision as large scale comprehensive developments started to become more common. The 1981 edition of the HKPSG stated that private open space, including on rooftops and podiums, would “contribute to the overall provision of facilities” even though access to the general public was not allowed “as of right”,19 because they would help “reduce the pressure on publicly-provided facilities”.20

2.1 The Definition of Open Space

The term “open space” is very broad and has been used to describe spaces as varied as parks, playing fields, streets, pedestrian walkways, roadside verges, farmland and wilderness. However, as this report’s aim is to evaluate how well Hong Kong open space standards have been fulfilled, it will use the same definition of open space as the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG).

In the HKPSG, open space is defined as space that serves a recreational purpose in urban and populated rural areas. In order to count towards the open space standards, the HKPSG sets out certain conditions (see Appendix 1 for details). The main points are summarized below:

• Countable Open Space (COS) is located in urban and populated rural areas. It excludes the country parks, green belts, and coastal protection areas.

• COS is outdoor space managed for recreational purposes by a responsible public or private body. Unmanaged, informal spaces that people use for recreation are 11

not included, nor are green amenity areas that are not accessible for recreation.

 Since 2002, countable open space must serve “an identifiable residential or worker population”. Members-­­only recreation clubs, which do not serve a “residential or worker population” are no longer included. Private open space in large residential developments continues to be included.

 There is a “slope correction factor” for open spaces built on sloping land to account for the fact that sloping land is less usable than flat land. See Appendix 1 for details.

2.2 Open Space Standards

Initially, the HKPSG introduced a standard of 1.5m2 of open space per person in urban areas, and 2m2 per person in New Towns. There was also a requirement for 0.5m2 per worker in industrial areas. In 2002, the standards were revised upwards, to 2m2 in urban areas and new towns, 0.5 m2 per worker in commercial and industrial areas, and 1 m2 per person in rural areas. In discussions for the 2030+ Planning Vision and Strategy,21 the Government is currently proposing to raise the standard for urban areas and new towns from 2 m2 to 2.5 m2.

Local, District and Regional Open Space

The HKPSG distinguishes between local, district and regional open space to serve different purposes and population catchments.

 Local Open Space (LOS) is defined as small spaces, “where possible at least 500m2 is intended to serve the neighbourhood population.” 22 It is intended to fulfil mainly passive recreational needs, such as walking and relaxing, but also includes children’s playgrounds. It should be located within walking distance (around 400m) of people’s homes. It can be included within large residential developments, both public and private.

 District Open Space (DOS) is defined as medium-­­sized sites, ideally of at least 1 ha to “meet the needs of a district population”. 23 It is intended to serve both passive and active recreational needs, meaning it should include some sports facilities. The catchment radius of district open space is not explicitly defined. The HKPSG 24 states that district open spaces should be “easily accessible and not isolated”.

 Regional Open Space (ROS) is defined as large sites, preferably at least 5 ha in size, which are intended to serve all Hong Kong residents as well as tourists.25 They are meant to serve as the city’s “green lungs” and should be sited 26 prominently in relation to landscape features and public transport routes.

The HKPSG sets out standards for LOS and DOS, while ROS is regarded as bonus. Urban and New Town residents should have at least 1 m2 of each of LOS and DOS. The HKPSG also states that public housing estates and large private developments should offer

12 residents at least 1m2 of LOS within their developments, meaning that large developments should be self-sufficient in LOS.

Rural villages are only required to have 1m2 of local open space, as their proximity to the countryside is assumed to compensate for DOS. District Open Space requirements also do not apply to commercial and industrial areas.

ROS is counted as bonus on top of the 2m2 requirement, however, half of the available ROS can be counted towards a district’s DOS. See Table 1 and Figure 1 for summary.

Table 1: HKPSG Open Space Standards

Year Urban Areas New Towns and Rural Commercial and Rural Villages and Townships Industrial Areas Small Rural Developments 1.5 m2 per person 2 m2 per person 0.5 m2 per worker N/A 1981- - 0.9 m2 LOS - 1 m2 LOS - LOS only 2001 - 0.6 m2 DOS - 1 m2 DOS 2 m2 per person 2 m2 per person 0.5 m2 per worker 1 m2 per person - 1 m2 LOS - 1 m2 LOS - LOS only - LOS only - 1 m2 DOS - 1 m2 DOS 2002 to present Public housing estates and large private developments: 1m2 LOS Proposed 2.5 m2 per person 2.5 m2 per person TBA TBA 2030+ - LOS/DOS split - LOS/DOS split TBA Planning TBA Vision and Strategy

13

Figure 1: Open Space As Defined by HKPSG (2012)27

2.3 Providers of Open Space

Both the public and the private sector play a role in providing Countable Open Space (COS). As Figure 2 shows, the largest amount of open space, 1048.8 ha (54%), is provided by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) and a few other government departments. The Housing Authority is another major player, supplying 670.8 ha (35%) of open space within public rental housing and Home Ownership Scheme estates.

The private sector supplies about 213.1 ha of COS (54%), primarily in large scale comprehensive developments. This is the result of the government imposing conditions for the provision of open space (and often other types of community facilities) on developers during the town planning or land lease modification process. The conditions are written into the terms of the lease, which serves as a contract between the government and the developer over the usage of the land.28

14

Figure 2: Existing Countable Open Space by Provider as of 2012

Note: Figures may not add up due to rounding errors

Of the COS provided by the private sector, about 40.7 ha (2% of the total) is classified as Public Open Space in Private Developments (POSPD), which is managed in the long term by the property owner. The general public has legal access rights to this space under the terms of the land lease.29 POSPDs are found mainly in commercial or mixed-use developments but also occasionally in residential developments.30 One major example is the podium roof garden of the International Finance Centre (IFC) in Central.

The remainder, comprising 172.4 ha (9%) is private open space, which the government requires within large residential developments to meet the needs of the residents. Both public housing estates and private housing estates are expected provide at least 1m2 of open space per resident.31 Essentially, they are supposed to be self-sufficient in LOS.32 The public does not have the legal right to use private open space, and in most cases the open space is located at podium level and access is physically restricted to residents and guests.

As Figure 3 shows, the Housing Authority and the Private Sector’s role is primarily in providing Local Open Space (LOS). 97% of District Open Space (DOS) is provided by the LCSD.

15

Figure 3: Countable, Local and District Open Space by Provider (Percentage)

Countable Open Space by Provider

2% 9% LCSD

Housing Authority 35% 54% Public Open Space in Private Developments Private Open Space

Local Open Space by Provider

LCSD 2% 14% 27% Housing Authority

Public Open Space in 57% Private Developments Private Open Space

District Open Space by Provider

3% 1% LCSD

Public Open Space in Private Developments

96% Private Open Space

16

3 Methodology

The open figures presented in this report are based on two different datasets.

District level open space figures (including those presented in the previous section) are from the Planning Department’s 2012 figures for Countable Open Space, which were obtained by Civic Exchange by request. The Planning Department’s figures, which show the number of hectares (ha) of existing Countable LOS, DOS, Public Open Space, Private Open Space, and HA Open Space in each district, can be found in Appendix 3. Appendix 4 presents district-level Countable Open Space per person calculations based on 2011 population figures, which was the closest available census year.

The second dataset was compiled by the author from different publicly available government sources in order to reconstruct as closely as possible Countable Open Space figures at the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) level. This was done because district level figures lack sufficient detail: there are only 18 districts, which are large and diverse in terms of demographics and urban form. For example, Southern District stretches from to Aberdeen to Stanley, which are vastly different in character. On the other hand, there are 69 urban OZPs and 70 rural OZPs. For the most part, OZPs correspond to recognisable neighbourhoods, such as Mong Kok and Tin Shui Wai, and are therefore a more reasonable basis for evaluation.

Below is a brief description of the methodology used to reconstruct these figures and its limitations. For a fuller methodology, please see Appendix 5.

3.1 Calculating Open Space at the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) level

As explained in the previous section, there are several different providers of Countable Open Space. Therefore, OZP-level open space figures were assembled from several different sources:

LCSD-managed Open Space

Compilation of government-managed open space was done using the LCSD’s March 2013 list of Public Pleasure Grounds under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance as well as the list of gazetted beaches. The areas of each of these open spaces were individually logged or measured.

17

POSPD

Figures for POSPD were obtained from the Lands Department’s list of public facilities provided in private developments under land lease.33

Housing Authority

Due to limited data availability, it was only possible to roughly estimate HA open space per OZP area. District-level figures provided by the Planning Department were divided up among the OZPs located in each district based on the number of public housing units in each OZP.

Private Open Space

Due to limited data availability, it was only possible to roughly estimate private open space per OZP area. District-level figures provided by the Planning Department were divided up among the OZPs located in each district based on the number of flats in large private residential developments (with more than 1,000 households or 3,000 people) in each OZP. The estimates for private open space should be regarded as less accurate than those for HA open space due to greater variability among private developers and because it is unknown exactly which private developments provide private open space.

Local, District and Regional Open Space

In order to estimate the amount of local, district and regional open space, individually open spaces whose sizes were known were categorized by size based on the HKPSG guidelines. Spaces of less than 1ha were deemed “local”, spaces between 1 and 5 ha were deemed “district,” and those of 5 ha or more were deemed “regional”. This is not fully accurate since other factors also affect the Planning Department’s designations; however the actual designations are not always available to the public. The method here errs on the side of over-counting ROS, resulting in an under-counting of DOS.

Following Planning Department practice, all HA open space was counted as LOS. The vast majority of private open space is also designated as LOS by Planning Department, with the exception of 9.8 ha of DOS in Islands District, which was assumed to be located in Discovery Bay, which is an exceptional case of an entire community including the infrastructure being constructed by one developer.

Demographic Statistics

OZP demographic statistics were obtained from the 2011 Census at the Tertiary Planning Unit (TPU) level. A TPU is the smallest area for which census figures are reported. In urban areas, several TPUs usually make up one OZP. Demographic statistics on age, monthly household income, and three other indicators of deprivation (male labour force participation, education, and marital status) were also compiled.

18

3.2 Geographical Scope

The district-level Planning Department data covers all of Hong Kong. However, it should be noted that the district level Countable Open Space per person figures in this report somewhat simplifies the situation because it was not possible to carve out the rural areas, commercial areas, and industrial areas to which the 2m2 standard does not apply.

The OZP figures in this report cover only the urban OZPs. Of the 69 urban OZPs, 57 were analysed, with the rest being omitted due to not yet existing in 2012, not yet being developed, or having no or very low residential populations. Two OZPs, Tai Po and Pak Shek Kok (Science Park) were merged in order to align with TPU demographic data boundaries.

It was not possible to include the rural OZPs as their boundaries were inconsistent with TPU boundaries, making demographic analysis impossible. However, the urban OZPs analysed had a combined population of 6.72 million people, which was about 94% Hong Kong’s total population of 7.08 million in 2011.

3.3 Analysis

Open space and demographic data were compiled at the OZP level and translated into colour-shaded maps using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software. This enabled visual comparisons to be made between the level of Countable Open Space, LOS and DOS provision, and the demographic composition of OZPs in terms of the percentage of children, the percentage of elderly people, median household income and deprivation (poverty) concentration.

The analysis of LOS availability by housing type in Section 5 uses only the Planning Department district level figures, as the OZP level figures for HA and private open space are estimates and not sufficiently reliable.

19

4 Overall Provision of Open Space in Hong Kong

4.1 Per Person Countable Open Space Provision by District (2012)

According to figures obtained from the Planning Department for 2012, which are the most recent available figures, Hong Kong fulfilled the main 2m2 per person planning standard. On the whole, there were 2.7 m2 of Countable Open Space per person, including 1.6 m2 of LOS and 1.1 m2 of DOS. If the estimated bonus ROS were included in the calculation, the total level of provision would rise to 3m2 per person. This report’s OZP estimation methodology obtains a slightly lower figure of 2.6m2 COS per person, including 1.6 m2 of LOS and 1.0 m2 of DOS per person.

According to the Planning Department’s figures, 11 out of 18 districts also fulfilled the separate standards for LOS and DOS, as shown by Figure 4. Wan Chai and Central & Western did not have sufficient LOS, while , Kwai Tsing, North, Yuen Long and Sai Kung did not have sufficient DOS.

Figure 4: Existing Countable Open Space Provision by District, 2012

7.0

6.0 6.0

5.0 2.7

4.0 per person 3.4 3.3

3.0 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 metres 2.7 2.7 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.2 1.4 2.3 1.1 0.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.2 0.9 0.7 2.1 2.1 1.1 2.0 1.4 0.4 0.7

Square 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 3.3 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.0

LOS DOS

20

Countable Open Space Provision by Outline Zoning Plan Area (2012)

The district level figures conceal a lot of variation on a smaller geographical scale. Maps 1 to 3 show the OZP-level provisions of Countable Open Space, Local Open Space, and District Open Space respectively.

Map 1: Countable Open Space Per Person

21

Abbreviation Name of OZP Abbreviation Name of OZP Ab & ALC Aberdeen & QB Quarry Bay CB Causeway Bay SKT Sai Kung Town CKL , , Lei Yue SYP Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan Mun CW Chai Wan ST Sha Tin CC Cheung Chau SKW Shau Kei Wan CSW Cheung Sha Wan SKM Shek Kip Mei DB Discovery Bay SH & RB & FL & SS Fanling/Sheung Shui SLC South Lantau Coast HMT Ho Man Tin SWKln South West Kowloon HH Hung Hom Stly Stanley JL Jardine's Lookout & Wong Nai TP & PSK Tai Po and Pak Shek Kok Chung Gap KnT Kennedy Town & Mount Davis TaiO Tai O Town Centre KT Kowloon Tong TT & KC Kwai Chung PK The Peak Area KT(N) Kwun Tong (North) TSW Tin Shui Wai KT(S) Kwun Tong (South) TKO Tseung Kwan O LCK Lai Chi Kok TST Tsim Sha Tsui Lm Lamma Island TY Tsing Yi MOS Ma On Shan TW Tsuen Wan MTK Ma Tau Kok TWW Tsuen Wan West MW Ma Wan TWS Tsz Wan Shan, & San Po Kong MLE Mid-levels East TM Tuen Mun MLW Mid-levels West TCTC Tung Chung Town Centre Area MK Mong Kok WC Wan Chai NCW Ngau Chi Wan WTH Wang Tau Hom & Tung Tau NTK & WNC Wong Nai Chung NP YMT Yau Ma Tei PC Peng Chau YL Yuen Long PFL Pok Fu Lam

22

Local Open Space per Person

Map 2:

23

Map 3: District Open Space per Person

24

Table 2 below lists the 20 OZPs which do not meet the 2m2 standard. For a full list of all OZPs, please see Appendix 7.

Table 2: 20 Below-standard OZPs (2012)

Rank OZP name Existing COS Existing LOS Existing DOS open space per per person per person person m2 m2 m2 1 Mong Kok 0.6 0.6 0.1 2 Wan Chai 0.7 0.5 0.2 3 Mid-levels West 0.9 0.5 0.4 4 Causeway Bay 1.0 0.6 0.4 5 Kennedy Town & Mount Davis 1.0 0.8 0.2 6 Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan 1.1 0.6 0.5 7 Hung Hom 1.3 0.8 0.4 8 Kwun Tong (North) 1.3 1.3 0.0 9 Cheung Sha Wan 1.4 0.9 0.5 10 Yau Ma Tei 1.5 0.7 0.8 11 Mid-levels East 1.6 1.6 0.0 12 Shau Kei Wan 1.6 1.1 0.5 13 North Point 1.6 0.8 0.9 14 Ma Tau Kok 1.7 0.4 1.3 15 Ho Man Tin 1.9 1.2 0.7 16 Ma Wan 1.9 1.9 0.0 17 Ngau Chi Wan 1.9 1.5 0.4 18 Pok Fu Lam 1.9 1.6 0.3 19 Quarry Bay 1.9 1.3 0.6 20 Yuen Long 1.9 1.3 0.6 Figures may not add up due to rounding

The areas with below 2m2 per person of Countable Open Space are mostly in the heavily built-up old urban areas on the north side of Hong Kong Island and the core of the Kowloon Peninsula. Most of these areas were laid out in a tight street grid in the pre-war era, with very little land allocated to open space. (A small number of these 20 neighbourhoods are exceptional, such as the affluent Mid-Levels West and Mid-Levels East, which are located on hillsides and have plenty of green belt land, despite low COS.)

OZPs on the northeast and northwest sides of Kowloon, e.g. Kwai Chung, Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin, generally have somewhat higher levels of open space provision, between 2m2 and 5m2 per person. These areas were developed during Hong Kong’s industrial expansion in the 1960s and 1970s and are composed of industrial areas and many public housing estates. Also comparatively well-served are the New Towns in the New Territories, which were developed from the 1970s and 1980s onwards. The areas with the highest provision of Countable Open Space (over 5 m2 per person) are areas of low population density, such as the south of Hong Kong Island, The Peak, Kowloon Tong, Discovery Bay, and the outlying islands.

25

Map 2 shows that the distribution of LOS is quite similar to that of COS. However, Map 3 shows that more OZPs fall below the DOS 1m2 per person standard, including many of the New Towns. However, it should be noted that the OZP DOS figures err on the conservative side compared to the official Planning Department figures, so the situation may be better than it appears (see Appendix 5).

The maps also show the location of country parks, which can take on a compensatory role for the lack of DOS, however the substitution effect is partial as the health benefits of open space depend on close proximity and daily exposure.

4.2 Geographical Variability within Districts

Figures 5 and 6 below use Central and Western District and Yau Tsim Mong District to illustrate how the district level COS figures conceal considerable variation within them. The district averages are pulled up by areas with low residential populations but with large open spaces. Looking closer at Central and Western in Map 6, we can see that the largest District and Regional Parks are found mainly on eastern end of the district, and on The Peak.

Map 4: Variability in COS in Central and Western District

Note: Although Central District and Central District Extension are shown here, they are omitted from the main analysis as it is primarily a commercial district with few residents. Taken at face value, its COS per person ratio is misleading as the worker population (figures unavailable) has not been included. However, it has major regional open spaces (e.g. Hong Kong Park) that contribute significantly to Central and Western District’s overall DOS provision.

26

Map 5: Variability in COS in Yau Tsim Mong

Note: While Tsim Sha Tsui does have a significant residential population, its open spaces also serve a substantial number of workers and tourists.

Map 6: District and Regional Open Spaces in Central and Western District

Among the 57 OZPs analysed, the variance in DOS per person is greater than that for LOS. This is also the case within Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories, as shown in Table 3. DOS is less evenly distributed between OZPs as larger spaces are more challenging to site.

27

Table 3: Standard Deviations in LOS and DOS by Region

Region Number of OZPs Standard Deviation Standard Deviation for covered for LOS (m2 per DOS (m2 per person) person) Hong Kong Island 18 OZPs 0.56 3.26 Kowloon 18 OZPs 0.57 1.44 New Territories & 21 OZPs 0.64 6.75 Islands

Policy Implications

District level statistics give an inadequate picture of open space availability at the neighbourhood level. While Hong Kong does have an efficient transportation system, on a day-to-day basis, people are more likely to use open spaces within walking distance of their homes. The government should therefore publish Countable Open Space figures at the OZP level.

Additionally, while there is a defined catchment radius for LOS (400m from residents’ homes), there is no defined catchment radius for DOS. Implementing a defined catchment radius would encourage planners to consider accessibility more explicitly and to site DOS more evenly in relation to where people live. For example, Seoul’s defined catchment for medium-sized “walking parks” (parks of between 3 ha and 10 ha for use by people within a walkable distance) is 1 km.34 Singapore has set a goal to ensure that 90% of households live within 10 minutes’ walk of a park by 2030.35 As Hong Kong’s terrain is hilly, catchment radius should be defined by actual travel distance rather than by straight line distance. A tentative catchment of 15 minutes’ walking distance is suggested. Further study of actual park usage patterns and willingness to travel is needed.

4.3 International Comparisons

The standard of 2m2 is in fact very low by international standards, even when compared to other densely populated Asian cities such as Seoul and Shanghai. In Table 3, only Mumbai sets an open space standard as low as Hong Kong’s, which it does not currently achieve.

Table 3 below shows recreational open space figures per capita, defined on a roughly comparable basis for five selected Asian cities. The figures presented are for Urban Park Space per person, which excludes country parks, private open space and amenity greening.36

There are two figures for Hong Kong, due to idiosyncrasies in how the government calculates open space here. The second figure of 2.8 m2 – which includes ROS (like large urban parks) and the HA (public Housing Authority complexes) but excludes private residential compounds – is the one most comparable to overseas figures.

28

Table 3: “Urban Park Space” per Person in Selected Major Asian Cities

Selected Major Asian Cities Open Space Actual Urban Park Space Standard Per Per Person m2 (most Person m2 recent available) Hong Kong (Countable Open Space) 2 2.7 (2012) Hong Kong (Urban Park Space – including ROS - 2.8 (2012) and HA, excluding Private) Mumbai37 2 1.1-1.2 (2015) Tokyo38 - 5.8 (2013) Seoul39 6 6.1 (2010) Singapore40 8 7.4 (2015) Shanghai41 - 7.6 (2015)

4.4 Would Raising the Standard to 2.5m2 per Person Lead to Meaningful Improvement?

The 2030+ Planning and Vision Strategy study proposes to raise the Countable Open Space standard from 2 m2 to 2.5 m2 per person. Although this would still be low by international standards, Hong Kong arguably faces unique land supply and topographical constraints which make it unrealistic to achieve the same levels of open space found in say, Singapore. However, given that Hong Kong already provides 2.7 m2 per person on average, it is worth asking whether 2.5 m2 is sufficiently ambitious. How many people would be affected by this change?

Currently, 1.84 million people live in 20 OZPs that are below the current standard of 2 m2 per person. Another 2.06 million live in 10 OZPs with between 2 m2 and 2.5 m2 of Countable Open Space per person and would stand to benefit if the standard were raised to 2.5 m2 (see Appendix 7 for list of OZPs). Together, they make up 58% of Hong Kong’s urban population. However, this is probably an overestimate as the OZP-level COS estimates were on the conservative side.

Policy Implications

Raising the standard from 2 m2 to 2.5 m2 would be a meaningful change because although the overall standard of provision already stands at 2.7 m2 per person, this is highly unevenly distributed, and a solid majority of the population (58%) still currently live in OZPs with less than 2.5 m2 per person. However, the 2030+ Planning Vision and Strategy should be seen as an opportunity to make ambitious improvements in Hong Kong’s quality of life. Setting a higher target of 3 m2 per person would affect an additional 1.3 million people living in New Towns such as Ma On Shan, Tsing Yi, Sha Tin, Fanling / Sheung Shui, affecting 77% of the urban population overall (see Table 4.)

29

Table 4: Population of OZPs according to Countable Open Space Provision

Countable Open Space per Population % Person in OZP (to the nearest 100) Cumulative population < 2m2 per person 1,842,300 27% 1,842,300 2 m2 to 2.4 m2 2,056,700 31% 3,899,000 2.5 m2 to 2.9 m2 1,297,000 19% 5,196,000 3 m2 to 3.4 m2 778,900 12% 5,974,900 3.5 m2 or more 742,200 11% 6,717,000 Total* 6,717,000 100% 6,717,000 *This is the total population for urban OZPs. The total population of Hong Kong in 2011 was 7,079,400.

4.5 Should Regional Open Space (ROS) be Included in the Standard?

Hong Kong appears to be unique in excluding half of its Regional Open Space from the Countable Open Space (COS) standard. There are some valid reasons for excluding it at the district or local level, as ROS is intended to serve the entire city’s population and tourists. Additionally, large regional open spaces are frequently used for other purposes, such as fairs, exhibitions, performances and political protests in Causeway Bay’s Victoria Park. However, bonus ROS figures are not reported at the territorial scale either. It is estimated that there are around 224 ha of “bonus” ROS, but the exact quantity is unknown.

Policy Implications

Due to the practice of regarding ROS as “bonus”, the official open space figures understate the total amount of open space available. It is estimated that the figure of 2.7m2 per person would rise to 3m2 per person if bonus ROS were included.

Additionally, the practice of regarding ROS as “bonus” can lead to odd situations in which adding a smaller district park to an OZP would boost its total COS more than a slightly larger regional park would. By extension, reducing ROS has little cost in planning terms since only half of the reduction would be reflected in the DOS figures. This makes regional open spaces vulnerable to resumption for other infrastructural projects such as road works.

In its review of open space standards for the 2030+ Planning Vision and Strategy, the government should consider whether a separate standard for ROS should be set in addition to LOS and DOS. If ROS were included, the overall proposed Countable Open Space standard could be raised to 3.5 m2 per person. This would make ROS more valuable from a planner’s perspective and less vulnerable to appropriation or resumption for other uses. It would give given priority in its own right, rather than being treated as an optional extra. Singapore, for example, has put policy emphasis on creating world-class parks such as Gardens by the Bay, which opened in 2012.

30

Whether or not an ROS standard is set, the government should report the amount of ROS available at the territorial level in order to give a more accurate picture of the full amount of available open space.

4.6 Summary of Policy Recommendations

The Government should report Countable Open Space statistics at the OZP level to give a more meaningful and detailed picture of open space availability at the local level.

The Government should also report ROS figures, at least at the territorial level in order to give a more accurate picture of the full amount of open space available.

To promote a more even distribution of DOS, Government should consider adopting a defined catchment travel distance for DOS. Further study of actual park usage patterns and willingness to travel is needed to determine a reasonable catchment, but a walking distance of 15 minutes is tentatively suggested here.

While raising the COS standard to 2.5 m2 per person would be a good step forward, the Government should consider setting a more ambitious target of 3 m2 per person, or 3.5m2 per person if ROS were included.

The Government should consider setting a standard for ROS in addition to LOS and DOS so that large regional parks are given more value from a planning perspective and treated as more of a priority rather than an extra.

31

5 What Type of Housing Offers Better Access to Local Open Space (LOS)?

5.1 The Role of the Housing Authority and Private Open Space

As mentioned in Section 2, the Housing Authority and the private sector both play a significant role in providing Countable Open Space (COS), particularly LOS. According to Planning Department figures, the Housing Authority provides 35% of COS and 57% of LOS, while private open space in large residential developments (excluding Public Open Space in Private Development, or POSPD) makes up 9% of COS and 14% of LOS.

The role of the Housing Authority and the private sector varies greatly from district to district. Figure 5 shows that in 6 districts, the HA provides over 60% of LOS, while the private sector provides over 20% of LOS in 5 districts. Maps A and B in Appendix 9 show the estimated percentage of Countable Open Space that is made up of Housing Authority and Private Open Space, at the OZP level respectively.

Figure 5: HA Open Space as a percentage of LOS

90% 83% 77% 80% 75% 68% 64% 70% 61% 60% 59% 57% 60% 53% 48% 50% 50% 45% 38% 40% 26% 30% 23% 20% 11% 10% 1% 0% 0%

32

Figure 6: Private Open Space as a percentage of LOS

45% 42% 40% 35% 32% 28% 30% 25% 24% 25% 20% 17% 15% 15% 15% 12% 14% 15% 11% 10% 8% 8% 8% 10% 6% 4% 5% 1% 0%

The Housing Authority’s open space plays the largest role in the New Towns, particularly in Tin Shui Wai and Ma On Shan where it is estimated to make up over 60% of all Countable Open Space. It also provides over 60% of COS in Ngau Chi Wan as well as Kwun Tong North in East Kowloon. (Kwun Tong North is an anomaly as its population currently consists of a single public housing estate. The rest of the OZP which covers mainly the Anderson Road Quarry is still under construction).

Private Open Space plays the biggest role in Discovery Bay, Quarry Bay and Ma Wan where it is estimated to make up between 41% and 70% of all Countable Open Space. These are OZPs that are dominated by large private developments. It also plays a significant role in Tseung Kwan O, Tsuen Wan West (Gold Coast), South West Kowloon (Elements & Olympic), Hung Hom (Whampoa Gardens), Lai Chi Kok (Mei Foo Sun Chuen) and Pok Fu Lam (). Please see Appendix 8 for more details.

5.2 Local Open Space (LOS) Access Varies Based on Housing Type

LOS is supposed to be provided within easy walking distance of people’s homes (400m). The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) require that public housing estates and large private residential developments provide at least 1m2 of LOS within them, essentially making them self-sufficient in LOS.

Public housing residents and residents of large private developments therefore enjoy dedicated open space, whereas those living in other private housing including small developments, individual buildings and village houses do not. HA open space is open to

33

the public but in practice often feels semi-private. Only residents and authorised guests have the right to use private open space. Those living in other private housing can only use non-dedicated public open spaces, which may or may not be conveniently located. As all three types are countable, a generous supply of “dedicated” LOS may mask under- provisioning for those who do not live in public housing or large residential developments.

Figure 7: Local Open Space Enjoyed by Residents of Different Housing Types (All Hong Kong)

2.5 2.1 2 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.3

1 Square metres

0.5

0 Public housing Large private Other private housing All residents* development residents (estimated)

% of HK’s pop living in: 46% 16% 38% 100% Public housing Large private Other private housing All developments Ratio (m2 LOS 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.7 per person) Numerator HA LOS Private LOS Public LOS All LOS (PlanD, 2012) (PlanD, 2012) (including LCSD and POSPD) Denominator Number of people Number of people Number of people living Total living in public rental living in large in other private housing population housing or HOS developments with of Hong estates (Census, over 1,000 Kong 2011) households or (Census, 3,000 residents 2011) (Census, 2011)

Figure 7 shows that residents of other private housing on average enjoy the least LOS. Residents of large private developments enjoy somewhat more (although this figure is probably an overestimate as smaller developments which may have some private open space were left out of the denominator due to limited data availability.) Public housing residents enjoy the most.

34

The disparities between the three groups vary by region. Figure 8 shows those living in other private housing on Hong Kong Island are especially worse off compared to those living in large developments or public housing. In the New Territories and Islands District, living in a large private development offers no advantage over those in other private housing.

Figure 8: Local Open Space per Person Enjoyed by Residents of Different Housing Types by Region

35

Figure 9 shows that there are significant variations from district to district.

Figure 9: LOS per Person Enjoyed by Residents of Different Housing Types by District

Islands 3.1 2.1 4.4

Sai Kung 1.8 1.5 1.1

Yuen Long 1.9 1.4 1.6

Tuen Mun 3.0 1.3 1.0

North 2.0 3.1 1.6

Tai Po 2.4 2.8 1.1

Sha Tin 2.6 0.7 1.4

Tsuen Wan 1.6 1.1 1.4

Kwai Tsing 1.8 1.7 3.5

Sham Shui Po 2.0 1.2 0.7

Wong Tai Sin 2.0 1.6 1.8

Kwun Tong 1.8 1.3 2.2

Kowloon City 1.3 0.6 1.0

Yau Tsim Mong 1.4 3.3 0.7

Southern 1.7 1.7 1.7

Eastern 1.8 1.7 0.7

Wanchai 0.8

Central and Western 1.0 1.4 0.6

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Public housing Large private developments Other private housing

5.3 Policy Implications

Both the Housing Authority and private developers do a good job of providing LOS to residents, however the needs of those living in other private housing in parts of Hong Kong, mainly though not exclusively in heavily built-up urban districts, have been neglected in comparison.

The Housing Authority

The Housing Authority has done an excellent job of providing a generous quantity of LOS to residents. It can afford to be more generous than private developers because it is not constrained by profit considerations.42 It should now focus on improving the quality of its open spaces in older public housing estates by introducing more greening and seating.

36

However, the government’s current housing strategy risks undermining this achievement. In 2013, the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee in 2013 proposed using open space in existing public housing estates to build more housing blocks to address the demand for public housing.43 This came about due to the 2011-12 Policy Agenda, in which the Chief Executive proposed to “appropriately increase the densities” in new public rental housing estates and to redevelop existing old estates to higher densities.44 The government should not increase housing densities unless compensatory open space can be provided.

Figure 10: Low quality LOS in a 1970s public housing estate

Photo credit: Debbs, Flickr.com

The Private Sector

The private sector also does a reasonably good job of providing open space to residents in large developments due to planning and building requirements, which are summarised in Table 5 below. While not as generous as the Housing Authority due to profit considerations, with the introduction of the Sustainable Building Design Guidelines in 2011, the HKPSG requirement for 1m2 of LOS per person is easily exceeded in new developments.

However, there is limited scope to apply these policies to smaller developments. Small to medium sized developments often need neither Town Planning Board approval nor lease modification, which rules out the main policy tools used to impose planning requirements. Developers may provide some private open space voluntarily, or government may ask developers to provide some private open space when they submit their building plans to the Buildings Department. However without entering the requirements into the lease, the

37 continued quality or existence of the open space is unenforceable. These spaces are would therefore not be considered countable.

Table 5: Planning and Building Regulations and Requirements Affecting Private Provision of LOS

Requirement Comment HKPSG45 1 m2 per person of LOS within This a lenient requirement that is (2002) comprehensive residential developments easily fulfilled.

Buildings For a residential building of 50m or taller, Between 60% and 66.66% of the site (Planning) site coverage above the podium level is above podium level must be left Regulations46 limited to between 33.33% and 40%, empty, so developers have the (1976) depending on the site. incentive to use this space for private gardens, which enhance property values. Sustainable Green Coverage: The greening requirements are now Building Design For developments of 2 ha or more, 30% imposed on all new leases. Guidelines47 of the overall site area must be set aside Fulfilling the greening requirement (2011) for green planting. In the “primary zone”, usually leads to in excess of 1m2 of (i.e. street level up to a height of 15 LOS per person. metres), 15% of the area must be planted. For developments between 0.1 ha and 2 ha, 20% of the overall site area must be reserved for green planting; 10% of the primary zone must be planted.

Building Separation and Setback: Required ventilation gaps and To promote better air ventilation, the setbacks may be used as public or length of a podium cannot exceed more private open space. This is mainly than 5 times the width of a street relevant to large sites. The impact on canyon. small sites (e.g. around 1000m2- Setbacks 7.5m deep are required on 1500m2) is relatively minor. streets less than 15m wide. For sites of less than 1,000m2, 50% of the setback area must be planted.

When large private developments are planned, the quantities of private and public open space to be included are calculated based on different criteria. The size of the former is calculated based on the number of flats and the expected population of the development. The latter is usually only requested if the surrounding area is below-standard in LOS, and the amount provided depends on site constraints.48

Applying this standard practice has led to residents of large developments enjoying considerably more LOS than residents of other private housing in some parts of Hong Kong. Large redevelopment projects that introduce private LOS into heavily built-up urban areas bring limited community benefits, because most of that LOS will be enjoyed exclusively by that development’s residents. Developers prefer to locate private open space at podium level to reserve the ground level and the first few floors for valuable retail space, or for car parking and clubhouse facilities. Neighbouring residents cannot

38 even enjoy the visual amenity or microclimate benefits of the private open space. This type of urban design creates segmented neighbourhoods.

Dense urban areas therefore need special consideration. As the supply of land is so limited, new open space has to come from redevelopment to a large degree. Developers working in these areas should therefore have a special obligation to improve the environment through planning gain. This can be implemented through several measures:

• OZP notes are sometimes used to impose design requirements for smaller or no podiums in certain areas (e.g. Kai Tak). This practice should be extended to more areas. For residential projects, OZPs could be used to impose design requirements for smaller or no podiums with more public open space at ground level instead of private podium gardens.

• Car parking requirements should be waived in urban areas with good access to the MTR in order to reduce traffic and encourage sustainable transport. Any car parks should be built underground. Developers would then likely put their buildings up on stilts as higher flats command higher prices, freeing up the ground level for more public open space.

• Wherever possible, the government should continue to ask developers to build alienable public open spaces which are handed over to the government after completion.

Where this is not practical, the government should revive the policy of asking for POSPDs in commercial/mixed developments, but require them to be built at ground level in addition to adhering to the Development Bureau’s new Design and Management Guidelines for POSPDs.49 In the past, POSPDs placed at podium level have often been underutilised or misappropriated for commercial use due inconvenient access.

The Public Sector (Excluding the Housing Authority)

As noted above, people who live in neither public housing nor large private developments in densely built-up urban areas are underserved in LOS. These cover people living in small developments, stand-alone buildings, and low-rise homes e.g. village houses.

While the private sector can be induced to provide more public LOS through redevelopment, the government also has a role to play through its redevelopment policies and direct provision.

The Urban Renewal Authority is the government body responsible for urban redevelopment. Part of its mission is to improve the urban environment, including through the provision of open space. However, its current mode of operation is not sustainable. It is limited in its ability to provide open space as it relies on increasing development densities to generate revenue. In the long term, Hong Kong’s urban renewal policies should be reviewed. A shift to a non-profit making model will likely become necessary.

Direct provision of more open space in already built-up areas is challenging due to limited land availability and high land costs. The Lands Resumption Ordinance does empower the government to resume privately-owned land for a public purpose, but it is required to

39 purchase it at the open market value.50 This is expensive, and outside of urban renewal, resumption is used mainly for infrastructure projects such as roads, sewerage works, and new public housing. However, alternative sources of open space may be found, some of which are already being implemented, such as:

• New major district and regional open spaces are being planned on the Central- Wan Chai reclamation, West Kowloon and Kai Tak. Due to legal restrictions on any further reclamation in , these sites are the last chance to create new major parks in the urban core. They can partly compensate for a shortage of LOS in adjacent OZPs; however in order to serve that purpose, pedestrian connections must be extremely convenient. This is a challenge as major roads separate the old and new neighbourhoods. The Planning Department must work with the Highways Department and the Transport Department to address pedestrian connectivity.

• The Drainage Services Department is currently taking steps to rehabilitate the Kai Tak River in Kowloon City District, as well as the Tsui Ping Nullah, Tin Shui Wai Channel, Ng Tung River, Sheung Yu River, and Yuen Long Nullah in the New Territories.51 The 2030+ Green and Blue Strategy Conceptual Framework also proposes to explore similar opportunities elsewhere. The revitalisation of urban streams and nullahs would significantly enhance the urban open space supply as well as the microclimate and biodiversity.

• Out-of-the-box solutions should be considered, for example: o Street closures. Effectively managed pedestrianisation schemes or the complete conversion of low-traffic streets into public parks can add to urban open space on a temporary or permanent basis. o Decking over major roads. The Government should support and implement proposed projects such as Polytechnic University’s proposal to build a green deck over the entrance to the Cross Harbour Tunnel between Causeway Bay and Hung Hom.52 o Government, Institution or Community (G/IC) facilities, such as schools or religious institutions should be incentivised to open their open spaces to the public some or all of the time. University campuses are already being used as open space by neighbourhood residents on a de facto basis. These should be officially included in Hong Kong’s countable open space.

5.4 How Should the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) Handle Private Open Space?

The post-2002 version of the HKPSG states that the guidelines “have been formulated to provide an equitable basis for the reservation of land for recreation facilities and open space” (emphasis added). However, as explained above, it sometimes leads to inequitable outcomes. In some respects, the post-2002 version was an improvement over the 1981 version in that it no longer counted private recreational clubs. However, it other respects

40 it obscured the distinction between private and public open space. The terms “public open space” or “private open space” were no longer defined. Meanwhile, adopting the criteria of accessibility to “an identifiable residential or worker population” sidestepped the issue of public access.

There are valid reasons for continuing to include private open space. In the New Towns, where development is larger scale and more spread out, private open space is often the most efficient way of ensuring that people have access to LOS near their homes. Simply excluding it from Countable Open Space would also fail to address the inequality problem and might even lead to the over-provision of public LOS in areas where there is already a lot of private LOS.

To better ensure equitable access to LOS, the Government should follow the recommendation of the World Health Organization to measure and report figures for both public and private open space. space. 53 The Planning Department currently does collect figures on the amount of public and private open space, but it does not report their underlying population bases. We know how much private open space there is, but we do not know exactly how many people it serves, which is why this report had to rely on estimates. The Planning Department should release a comprehensive list of the private housing developments that include private open space, or at least, the number of residents served in each OZP area.

When new developments are planned, the LOS benefits accruing to the development’s own residents versus the surrounding neighbourhood (e.g. within the 400m catchment area) should be evaluated. It should not matter if the private LOS figure for the private development falls below that for the surrounding neighbourhood because the development’s residents can always use nearby public open space as well, but the reverse is not true.

5.5 Summary of policy recommendations

The HA should focus on improving the quality of its open spaces in older estates.

The government should refrain from undermining the HA’s achievements in providing open space. Development densities of existing public housing estates should only be increased if compensatory LOS can be provided.

Policies that encourage developers to provide private open space need a more geographically nuanced approach to avoid creating divided neighbourhoods in built-up urban areas. Private developers should be encouraged to provide more public open space at ground level.

The government should review its urban renewal policies in the long term in order to improve the urban environment more sustainably.

The government should proactively adopt more ambitious and creative approaches to improving access to open space in densely built-up urban areas.

The Planning Department should report private open space figures at the OZP level, including the population base served.

41

6 Demographic Analysis of Open Space Provision

How well-served are different demographic groups in terms of open space in Hong Kong? This section will examine the distribution of Countable Open Space in relation to population characteristics including median income, deprivation concentration, and the child and elderly populations.

6.1 Median Household Income and Multiple Deprivation

Equitable access to recreational open space is important from a public health perspective. People of lower socio-economic status have fewer resources to dedicate to recreation and exercise (e.g. gym memberships) and are therefore more reliant on neighbourhood public facilities such as parks. As mentioned in Section 1, the neighbourhood green open space disproportionately benefits low income residents and other disadvantaged groups in terms of physical and mental health.

In this subsection, median monthly household income figures are compared with Countable Open Space (COS) figures at the OZP scale. Please see Map 3 in Appendix 9 for an OZP map of monthly median household income in Hong Kong.

Median income figures provide no information about the income distribution within an OZP, so to provide a more well-rounded measure of poverty, a composite Multiple Deprivation Index was constructed using four indicators: the percentage of households with monthly incomes of less than HKD $10,000, the percentage of adults with lower secondary education or below, the percentage of adult males not in the labour force, and the percentage of adults who are widowed, separated or divorced. A full explanation of the methodology can be found in Appendix 6. Please also see Map D in Appendix 9 for an OZP map of Multiple Deprivation Index rankings.

In 2011, Hong Kong’s median monthly household income was HKD $20,500 in 2011 (nominal) dollars. Of the 57 OZP examined, median monthly household income ranged from HKD $8,000 in Tai O, to HKD $155,500 in Shouson Hill and Repulse Bay.

Many (but not all) of Hong Kong’s wealthiest areas enjoy a generous provision of Countable Open Space per person. These OZPs, including The Peak, Shouson Hill and Repulse Bay, Tai Tam, Kowloon Tong and Discovery Bay, had more than 5m2 per person of COS. At the other end of the income scale, the picture is more mixed. As Map 7 and Table 6 show, the OZPs which fall below the current HKPSG COS standard are all over the income spectrum. Many are OZPs like Ho Man Tin, Wan Chai, Hung Hom, Sai Ying Pun and

42

North Point which have median monthly household incomes that are in the middle to upper middle range.

Thanks to the Housing Authority, most low-income OZPs such as Kwun Tong, Ngau Tau Kok and Shek Kip Mei, Kwai Chung and Tin Shui Wai do have adequate COS provision. The exceptions, Shau Kei Wan, Ngau Chi Wan and Kwun Tong (North), do not have adequate COS because they are deficient in DOS, with only 0.5m2 and 0.4 m2 of DOS per person, respectively. (Kwun Tong (North) is an exceptional case because most of it is still under construction.)

However, while the Housing Authority does an excellent job of providing LOS to those who live in public housing, it is important not to neglect the needs of poor people living in private housing. Mong Kok and Ma Tau Kok (in To Kwa Wan) are areas which are below- standard in COS with relatively high concentrations of deprivation and little to no public housing. Cheung Sha Wan, which is even poorer, has somewhat more of its population in public housing (30.4%), but most of its residents live in the old urban area of Sham Shui Po, which has very little open space.

Map 7: COS per Person Versus Median Monthly Household Income in the Urban Core

Countable Open Space per person Median monthly household income

By quintile

43

Table 6: Income, Poverty, and Percentage Living in Public Housing in the 20 OZPs That Do Not Meet the COS Standard

Median % of DOS Multiple Countable LOS per monthly population COS per Deprivation OZP name OS per person household living in Rank 2 2 person Index 2 income public person m m Ranking (1) m (nominal HKD) housing 1 Mong Kok 0.6 0.6 0.1 18,200 13 0% 2 Wan Chai 0.7 0.5 0.2 24,400 26 0% Mid-levels 3 0.9 0.5 0.4 82,600 52 0% West Causeway 4 0.6 0.4 36,600 39 0% Bay 1.0 Kennedy Town & 5 1.0 0.8 0.2 26,900 37 8.1% Mount Davis Sai Ying Pun & 6 1.1 0.6 0.5 27,200 36 0% Sheung Wan 7 Hung Hom 1.3 0.8 0.4 29,300 41 7.9% Kwun Tong 8 1.3 1.3 0.0 14,000 7 99.2% (North) Cheung 9 1.4 0.9 0.5 14,500 4 30.4% Sha Wan 10 Yau Ma Tei 1.5 0.7 0.8 19,600 19 2.8% Mid-levels 11 1.6 1.6 0.0 109,500 49 0% East Shau Kei 12 1.6 1.1 0.5 20,100 16 57.3% Wan North 13 1.6 0.8 0.9 31,700 35 10.1% Point Ma Tau 14 1.7 0.4 1.3 19,100 15 14.5% Kok Ho Man 15 1.9 1.2 0.7 24,900 18 44.4% Tin 16 Ma Wan 1.9 1.9 0.0 43,500 57 0% Ngau Chi 17 1.9 1.5 0.4 17,600 11 82.5% Wan 18 Pok Fu Lam 2.0 1.6 0.3 24,100 22 54.8% 19 Quarry Bay 1.9 1.3 0.6 37,600 42 4.4% 20 Yuen Long 1.9 1.3 0.6 20,800 30 21.5% Hong Kong 2.7 1.6 1.1 20,500 N/A 46% (all) OZPs are ranked from 1 to 57, with 1 being the least deprived and 57 being the most deprived.

44

Policy Implications

With the exception of a few wealthy areas, Hong Kong does not have a strong relationship between an area’s income and its open space provision level. This is thanks to the generous provision of LOS by the Housing Authority. However, there are a few areas that are in the highest two quintiles for deprivation who do not live in public housing lack sufficient open space:

• Cheung Sha Wan • Mong Kok • Ma Tau Kok

Policymakers should focus on improving open space provision in these areas. Since these are heavily built-up areas with limited land supply, improving the quality of existing open spaces and improving pedestrian connections to open spaces in neighbouring OZP should also be prioritised.

Additionally, there are some high deprivation OZPs where residents have enough LOS because of public housing, but lack sufficient DOS. This means that while they may live in an estate with courtyards (LOS), there might not be sufficient medium-sized recreational sites like sports playgrounds (DOS). Policymakers should focus on increasing access to DOS in the following areas:

• Ngau Chi Wan • Shau Kei Wan • Ho Man Tin • Pok Fu Lam

Note that areas like Ho Man Tin and Pok Fu Lam are not low-income overall, but do have a significant number of low-income people living in them.

6.2 Children

Overall, in 2011, 11.6% of Hong Kong’s population was under the age of 15. Throughout the 57 urban OZPs examined, the percentage of the population under age 15 varies from as low as 8.9% in Wang Tau Hom and Tung Tau (in Lok Fu/Wong Tai Sin) to as high as 18.5% in Discovery Bay (an affluent enclave on an outlying island). Please see Map E in Appendix 9 for details.

Overall, areas with a higher than average percentage of children also have adequate open space according to the current HKPSG standard. As Table 7 shows, more children tend to live in New Towns such as Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung, affluent areas such as Tai Tam and Kowloon Tong, and Outlying Island areas such as the South Lantau Coast and Lamma Island.

45

Table 7: Percentage of population under age 15 by COS provision

Below 11% under age 11% to 13% under age 15 Over 13% under age 15 15 Below 2m2 of Causeway Bay Hung Hom Ma Wan COS Cheung Sha Wan Kennedy Town & Mount Mid-levels East Ho Man Tin Davis Ma Tau Kok Kwun Tong (North) Ngau Chi Wan Mid-levels West North Point Mong Kok Pok Fu Lam Quarry Bay Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Yau Ma Tei Wan Yuen Long Shau Kei Wan Wan Chai 2 to 2.4 m2 of Aberdeen & Ap Lei Jardine's Lookout & Cha Kwo Ling, Yau COS Chau Wong Nai Chung Gap Tong, Chai Wan Kwai Chung Kwun Tong (South) Tseung Kwan O Tin Shui Wai Tsuen Wan Wong Nai Chung

2.5 m2 or more Lai Chi Kok Cheung Chau Discovery Bay of COS Peng Chau Fanling/Sheung Shui Kowloon Tong Sai Kung Town Ma On Shan Lamma Island Sha Tin Ngau Tau Kok & Kowloon Shouson Hill & Tai O Town Centre Bay Repulse Bay Tai Po and Pak Shek Shek Kip Mei South Lantau Coast Kok Stanley South West Kowloon Tsim Sha Tsui The Peak Area Tai Tam & Shek O Tsing Yi Tuen Mun Tsuen Wan West Tsz Wan Shan, Tung Chung Town Diamond Hill & San Po Centre Area Kong Wang Tau Hom & Tung Tau

There are only a few areas of OZP with large child populations but low levels of Countable Open Space. As Table 8 shows, this is because they lack sufficient DOS. Except for of Mid- Levels East which is close to Hong Kong Park in Central District, none are adjacent to other OZPs with a surplus of DOS.

46

Table 8: OZPs with a Child Population over 13% and COS below 2.5 m2 per person

% of LOS per person DOS per COS per person population person under age 15 Ma Wan 13.1 1.9 0* 1.9 Mid-•‐Levels East 13.1 1.6 0 1.6 Cha Kwo Ling, 13.9 1.7 0.6 2.3 Yau Tong & Lei Yue Mun Tin Shui Wai 14.5 1.8 0.6 2.4

*Ma Wan’s beach was counted as LOS due to its small size. However, it effectively functions as DOS.

Policy Implications

The Government should focus on increasing the supply of DOS in Ma Wan, Tin Shui Wai and Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tong and Lei Yue Mun.

While LOS, which includes children’s playgrounds, can fulfil the recreational needs of young children, DOS, which includes larger facilities, becomes more important as children grow older, outgrow playground equipment, and need more space for ball games, cycling, and other activities. While some of the demand for active recreation can be fulfilled in indoor sports centres and formal sports grounds used by schools (which are not included in open space calculations), children and teenagers still need outdoor space for less structured play.

Besides these three OZPs with large child populations, there is also a case for increasing open space availability across the board in light of Hong Kong’s low total fertility rate, which stood at 1.2 children per woman per lifetime in 2014.54 A survey by Civic Exchange on urban wellbeing in late 2015 found that two-­­thirds of respondents said that Hong Kong was “not so good” or “not good at all” as a place for children to live.55 If policymakers want to increase Hong Kong’s fertility rate, Hong Kong must be perceived as a child-­­ friendly city, and open space is part of that.

6.3 Elderly People

In 2011, 13.3% of Hong Kong’s overall population was aged 65 and over. Among the 57 urban OZPs examined, the percentage of the population aged 65 and over ranged from just 6.4% in Discovery Bay to 36.0% in Tai O. (Tai O, a fishing village from which many younger residents have left, is an anomaly; the next oldest OZP is Shek Kip Mei with 19.7% of its population aged 65 and over). Please see Map F in Appendix 9 for details.

If the outlying islands of Peng Chau and Cheung Chau, which have similar but less extreme population dynamics to Tai O are excluded from the analysis, then the OZPs with the highest elderly populations are located in the old urban core as well as the first generation “satellite towns” of East Kowloon, Kwai Chung and Pok Fu Lam. These were among the first major public housing estates built during Hong Kong’s industrial expansion during the 1960s and 1970s. Their elderly residents likely moved there decades ago and never left.

47 These areas encompass those most deficient in open space. The old urban core on the north of Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula have the least open space per capita, while East Kowloon and Kwai Chung are better off. Table 9 shows the breakdown of open space in OZPs with below average, average and above average-sized populations of elderly people.

Table 9: Percentage of population aged 65 and over by COS provision

Below 12% aged 65 12% to 15% aged Over 15% aged 65 and over and over 65 and over Below 2m2 of COS Ma Wan Hung Hom Causeway Bay Mid-levels West Kennedy Town & Cheung Sha Wan Yuen Long Mount Davis Ho Man Tin Mid-levels East Kwun Tong (North) Quarry Bay Ma Tau Kok Yau Ma Tei Mong Kok Ngau Chi Wan North Point Pok Fu Lam Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan Shau Kei Wan Wan Chai

2 to 2.4 m2 of COS Jardine's Lookout & Aberdeen & Ap Lei Kwai Chung Wong Nai Chung Chau Kwun Tong (South) Gap Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tin Shui Wai Tong, Lei Yue Mun Tseung Kwan O Chai Wan Tsuen Wan Wong Nai Chung

2.5 m2 or more of Discovery Bay Sai Kung Town Cheung Chau COS Fanling/Sheung Shui Sha Tin Kowloon Tong Lamma Island Lai Chi Kok Ma On Shan Ngau Tau Kok & Kowloon Shouson Hill & Bay Repulse Bay Peng Chau South Lantau Coast Shek Kip Mei South West Kowloon Tai O Town Centre Stanley Tsim Sha Tsui Tai Po and Pak Shek Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill Kok & San Po Kong Tai Tam & Shek O Wang Tau Hom & Tung Tau The Peak Area Tsing Yi Tsuen Wan West Tuen Mun Tung Chung Town Centre Area

48

Policy Implications

Open space is important for the social and physical wellbeing of the elderly. As mentioned in Section 1, elderly people are among the biggest beneficiaries of neighbourhood green open space, which promotes longevity, physical fitness and social interaction. LOS located within easy walking distance of homes is especially important to them, as ageing brings more physical mobility challenges.

Table 10: OZPs with an elderly population of 15% and COS below 2.5 m2 per person

OZP % of population aged LOS per DOS per COS per 65 and over person (m2) person (m2) person (m2) Causeway Bay 17.1 0.6 0.4 1.0 Cheung Sha Wan 18.2 0.9 0.5 1.4 Ho Man Tin 19.3 1.2 0.7 1.9 Kwai Chung 16.5 1.9 0.4 2.3 Kwun Tong (North) 15.1 1.3 0.0 1.3 Kwun Tong (South) 18.0 1.6 0.6 2.2 Ma Tau Kok 17.1 0.4 1.3 1.7 Mong Kok 16.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 Ngau Chi Wan 17.3 1.5 0.4 1.9 North Point 16.8 0.8 0.9 1.6 Pok Fu Lam 15.8 1.6 0.3 1.9 Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan 16.4 0.6 0.5 1.1 Shau Kei Wan 16.9 1.1 0.5 1.6 Wan Chai 16.9 0.5 0.2 0.7

Table 10 shows the OZPs that have less than 2.5m2 of COS and over 15% of their populations aged 65 and over. The bolded names are those that are below standard in LOS. The government should focus on improving access to LOS to those areas in particular.

These are all old urban areas where it is challenging to create more open space. Section 5 provided some recommendations for doing so in densely built-up areas. Beyond this, it is important to improve walkability, for example through traffic calming and demand management. More urban greening and seating can make streets more comfortable for the elderly. It is also important to improve the quality of existing open spaces. For example, better quality greening can be introduced, and seating can be redesigned to facilitate social interaction.

6.4 Summary of Policy Recommendations

A number of OZP areas where significant populations of low income residents, children, and elderly people lack sufficient open space were identified (see Table 10). Access to open space is especially important for the wellbeing of these demographic groups. The government should target these OZPs for improvements.

49

Table 10: High priority OZPs

Highest 2 More than More than 15% quintiles for 13% of of population deprivation population aged 65 and over under age 15 Causeway Bay X Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tong & Lei Yue X Mun Cheung Sha Wan X X Ho Man Tin X Ma Tau Kok X X Ma Wan X Mid-Levels East X Mong Kok X X Ngau Chi Wan X North Point X Pok Fu Lam X Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan X Shau Kei Wan X Tin Shui Wai X X Wan Chai X

50

7 Potential for Improvement

Sections 5 and 6 identified areas of deficiency in open space provision by housing type, income, and age. However, Hong Kong is a very space-constrained city. This section will analyse the potential for improvement.

7.1 What are “O” Zones?

The government’s traditional method of reserving land for open space is for the Planning Department to zone certain plots of land “O” for “Open Space” on Outline Zoning Plans. The purpose of an OZP is to designate intended land uses. They cannot be enforced against non-conforming land uses. A plot of land must wait until it is redeveloped before the zoning can be implemented. In the case of “O” zones, the land is not developed into existing Countable Open Space until the LCSD puts together a concrete plan and acquires the funding to do so. In some cases, a private developer building on an adjacent plot of land may be tasked to develop the open space, which is often handed over to the LCSD after completion.

Not all existing open space is located within “O” zones. As mentioned in Section 2, the Housing Authority and private sector play a significant role in providing Countable Open Space. Those open spaces are usually part of “R” (Residential), “CDA” (Comprehensive Development Area), “C” (Commercial) and sometimes “OU” (Other Specified Uses) zones. In rural areas, open space is also provided within “V” (Village) zones. Therefore, “O” zones both exclude some existing COS and include land that is not yet usable as recreational open space.

7.2 Future Open Space Potential

Researchers have found that since the 1980s, open space has been increasingly incorporated into large developments at the expense of “O” zones.56 However, unrealised “O” zones are still a major source of future open space. According to the author’s calculations, in 2012 there were approximately 1116 ha of undeveloped “O” zone land.57

Undeveloped “O” zones are not necessarily located where they are most needed. Most are located in New Territories OZPs where open space provision is already comparatively high (see Table 11). Nevertheless, 29% of “O” zones on Hong Kong Island and 35% in Kowloon remain undeveloped.

51

Table 11: Undeveloped “O” Zones by Region

Undeveloped “O” Total zoned “O” (ha) % of “O” zones zones (ha) undeveloped Hong Kong Island 75.8 263.4 29% Kowloon 163.9 471.5 35% New Territories 811.1 1252.0 65% Islands 53.9 92.4 58%

If all 1,116 ha of undeveloped “O” zones were developed for recreational use, it would increase the area of Hong Kong’s total open space (including bonus ROS) by 52%. How would this affect open space provision on a per capita basis at the OZP level?

To calculate the potential open space provision under this hypothetical scenario, all of the undeveloped “O” zone was added to the 2012 Total Open Space (TOS) figure for each OZP. “Total Open Space” including bonus ROS was used as the basis for comparison because it is not possible to predict the future breakdown of local, district and regional open space in order to calculate potential COS. The potential open space figure was then divided by the planned population for each OZP58 in order to account for projected population growth.

“Before” and “after” maps can be found in Maps G and H in Appendix 9. Overall, total open space would increase from an estimated 2.9 m2 per person to 3.9 m2 per person. Out of 57 urban OZPs, the number of OZPs with less than 2m2 of total open space falls from 16 to 12. The number of OZPs with less than 2.5m2 of total open space would fall from 25 to 17. However, although the overall standard improves significantly, due to projected population growth, the per person provision of total open space would actually decrease in 20 OZPs. For detailed figures, please see Appendix 10.

Table 12 below shows the number of people that will be affected.

Table 12: OZP Population by Total Open Space per Person Provision Before and After Development of All “O” Zones.

Number of people living in Before: After: OZPs with: 2012 Total Open Space Potential Open Space per Person per Person Below 2 m2 per person 1,324,408 1,299,130 (19.7%) (16.3%) 2-2.4 m2 per person 1,498,951 727,890 (22.3%) (9.1%) 2.5-3.5 m2 per person 2,493,493 2131,231 (37.1%) (26.7%) Over 3.5 m2 per person 1,400,146 3,809,530 (20.8%) (47.8%) Total 6,716,998 7,967,781 (100.0%) (100%) Total Open Space Per 2.9-3.0 3.9 Person (m2) 52

Because the OZPs with the lowest provision of open space have the least amount of unused land available, developing all the remaining “O” zones would only bring the percentage of the population living in OZPs with less than 2m2 of TOS slightly down from 19.7% to 16.3%. However, the percentage of people living in OZPs with less than 2.5m2 would drop considerably, from 42% to just 25.4%, a decrease of nearly 40%. The proportion of people living in OZPs with more than 3.5m2 of total open space would more than double, from 20.8% to 47.8%. In Section 4, it was proposed that the government set a new total open space standard of 3.5 m2 per person. Fully utilising all existing “O” zones, without zoning any more land “O” and excluding any open space to be developed in other zones (i.e. in comprehensive developments), would achieve this standard for nearly half the urban population.

7.3 Obstacles to “O” Zone Development

Unfortunately, there are obstacles to the full utilisation of “O” zones. As a result, “O” zones can lie undeveloped for years or even decades. These include:

• Budget limitations. The development of “O” zones for recreational use depends mainly on the LCSD, which does not have sufficient budget to develop and maintain many new open spaces. Like all infrastructure projects, the construction of new parks is paid for from the Capital Works Reserve Fund, into which government land premiums are paid. Major projects costing over HKD $30 million must be approved by the Legislative Council Finance Committee,59 and therefore require policy support at a high level. For smaller projects, government departments must apply for funding under one of 11 block allocations for various types of minor works.60 Different departments therefore must compete for the same pool of funding, and low priority projects may not be funded for years. Recurrent spending for the long-term maintenance of open spaces is also seen as an issue. The prevailing practice of the Hong Kong Government is to keep recurrent spending low in order to avoid running deficits. • Private ownership of “O” zoned land. Some land which is zoned as open space is currently privately owned. In order to develop it as open space, the government would need to resume it. As mentioned in Section 4, the government must pay open market prices in order to do so. This makes resumption for open space unlikely unless it occurs within the context of a large scale development such as New Town development or Urban Renewal. • Other (temporary) uses. Some “O” zoned land is currently being used for other purposes, such as car parking, vehicle pounds, and open storage yards (the latter being prevalent in the New Territories). There are also zoned open spaces that are occupied by non-indigenous village settlements. • Unsuitability for recreation. Some “O” zoned land may not actually be suitable for recreational use, such as poorly accessible hill slopes and land under flyovers (see Figure 12).

53

Figure 11: Undeveloped “O” zone on an empty lot in Yuen Long, June 2011

Image courtesy of Google Street View61

Figure 12: Undeveloped “O” zone on inaccessible land under flyover in Yau Ma Tei, February 2011

Image courtesy of Google Street View 62

7.4 Policy Implications

If all remaining undeveloped “O” zones were developed into recreational open space, about 75% of Hong Kong’s urban population would live in an OZP with more than 2.5m2 of total open space. Although this is something of an over-estimate since it includes bonus ROS which is normally excluded from Countable Open Space calculations, it indicates that the proposed new open space standard in the 2030+ Planning and Vision Strategy would be achievable for a large majority of Hong Kong’s population.

However, in order to put more “O” zoned land to its intended use, the Government should conduct a review of “O” zones in order to assess obstacles such as private ownership and other current uses, remove unsuitable land from the pool (hill slopes should be rezoned “Green Belt”), and to identify plots of land that can be fast-tracked for open space development in areas where it would produce the most benefit. Table 13 shows the top

54

10 OZPs that are currently below 2.5m2 in Countable Open Space where developing all the remaining “O” zones would produce the greatest improvement.

Table 13: Top 10 Most Improvable OZPs with Less than 2.5 m2 per Person of COS in 2012

OZP Countable OS Total OS per Potential OS Increase per person person 2012 per person per person 2012 (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2) 1 Tseung Kwan O 2.2 2.4 8.3 5.9

2 Tsuen Wan 2.2 2.7 5.6 3.0 3 Kwai Chung 2.3 2.6 4.9 2.3 4 Kwun Tong (North) 1.3 1.3 3.2 1.9 5 Pok Fu Lam 1.9 1.9 3.3 1.4 6 Yuen Long 1.9 2.2 3.6 1.4 7 Jardine's Lookout & 2.2 2.2 2.9 0.7 Wong Nai Chung Gap 8 Yau Ma Tei 1.5 1.9 2.6 0.6 9 Ho Man Tin 1.9 1.9 2.4 0.5 10 Quarry Bay 1.9 2.5 2.9 0.4

The Government also needs to make open space a higher funding priority. At the policy level, regional open space initiatives should be seen as having the potential to raise Hong Kong’s profile as a world city as much as mega-infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and railways. Upcoming regional open space, e.g. on the Central-Wan Chai reclamation, Kai Tak, and the West Kowloon Cultural District, should be given enough funding for design and maintenance to world class standards on par with Singapore’s Gardens by the Bay. For smaller open space projects, the Chief Executive should designate funding for their development and improvement in his or her next policy address. Similar to the Universal Accessibility Programme for the construction of lifts and barrier-free access facilities which has received about HKD $2.3 billion in capital works funding between 2012 and 2017,63 a block of funding should be made available for minor local and district open space projects. District Councils can also play a role in identifying areas where constituents demand more open space and suggest suitable sites.

However, first the Government needs to halt the current policy of rezoning open space for housing development. In 2015, the government identified 151 potential sites for housing requiring OZP amendments, of which 13 were located in “O” zones.64 (Three have already been rezoned as of the time of writing in early 2017). While housing is a major priority, and the sites chosen are generally not located in OZPs that are below the current HKPSG standard (see Appendix 11 for details), the loss of open space zones will make it more difficult to make significant improvements in order to achieve the proposed higher standard. The government should also reconsider the addition of more housing sites in districts that are already very densely populated, such as Ma Tau Kok, Sham Shui Po and Yau Tsim Mong because the increase in population will generate more demand for open space.

55

7.5 Summary of Policy Recommendations

• Developing all of Hong Kong’s remaining undeveloped “O” zones for recreational use would increase Hong Kong’s total open space per person figure (including ROS) from around 2.9 m2 per person to 3.9 m2 per person. It would cut the number of people living in OZPs with less than 2.5m2 of total open space from 42% to just 25.4%, a decrease of nearly 40%.

• The Government should conduct a review of unutilized “O” zones to identify land that can be fast-tracked for development into usable open space.

• The Government must make funding for open space a higher policy priority in order to ensure sufficient resources to build and maintain sufficient high quality open space.

• The Government should stop rezoning Open Space sites for housing development and refrain from adding housing sites to already congested neighbourhoods.

56

8 Conclusion and Summary of Policy Recommendations

Although the HKPSG’s 2m2 standard for Countable Open Space had been met as of 2012, Hong Kong’s level of urban open space provision is still low compared to other major Asian cities. Moreover, Hong Kong’s open space is unevenly distributed and some 1.8 million people still live in OZPs with less than 2m2 of COS per person.

• Residents of “other private housing” (e.g. not large residential developments) in many districts of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, as well as a few in the New Territories, have less access to LOS than do residents of public housing and large private developments.

• Elderly people are more likely to live in OZP areas with less open space.

• While overall, low-income residents have generally good access to open space as a result of the Housing Authority’s building practices, those who live in private housing are concentrated in neighbourhoods with very little open space, such as Sham Shui Po, Mong Kok, and Ma Tau Kok.

This report has identified OZPs that are in most need of intervention and made a number of policy recommendations to raise standards and improve access to urban open space. Additionally, this report identified some major gaps in the publicly available open space data. As a result, recommendations for greater transparency and disclosure were also made. The key policy recommendations are summarised below.

Revising the HKPSG

• The HKPSG standard should be revised from 2 m2 per person to 3 m2 per person. If Regional Open Space is included, the standard can be as high as 3.5m2 per person. The standard of 2.5m2 proposed in the 2030+ Planning Vision and Strategy is meaningful, but insufficiently ambitious. Some areas of Hong Kong will never achieve a standard of 3.5 m2 per person, but making use of the remaining “O” zones will make it achievable for almost half of Hong Kong’s urban OZP population.

• Instead of regarding Regional Open Space as “bonus”, the Government should consider setting a per capita standard for it to ensure that it is equally valued by government planners and to make it less vulnerable to appropriation for other purposes.

• The Government should consider defining a catchment distance for District Open Spaces, as most districts are too large and district boundaries end up being given

57

arbitrary significance. For example, Seoul defines a catchment of 1km walking distance for medium sized parks.

Open Space Planning

• The government should put a moratorium on plans to rezone “O” 10 zones to meet housing demand, and avoid inserting more housing sites into already congested neighbourhoods. While meeting housing demand is important, it should not cut off avenues for future quality of life improvements. Likewise, the Housing Authority should not build additional housing blocks open space in existing housing estates. Development densities of existing public housing estates should only be increased if compensatory LOS can be provided.

• The Government needs to make a financial commitment to raising the standard of open space in Hong Kong. New major regional open spaces should be designed and maintained at a world class level. An Open Space Improvement Programme, similar to the Universal Accessibility Programme, should be launched for the construction and improvement of local and district open spaces throughout the city. If funded at an equivalent level to the Universal Accessibility Programme, it would cost HKD 2.3 billion over 5 years.

• The Planning Department should conduct a review of undeveloped “O” zones in order to identify sites that can be fast-tracked for open space development in the OZPs where it would make the most difference. Areas with large elderly populations, low-income people living in private housing, and children without sufficient access to DOS should be prioritised.

• While the private sector does have a valid role to play in the provision of local open space, especially in the New Territories where development is more spread out, dense urban areas need more nuanced and sensitive urban design policies in order to provide more equitable access to open space. Design requirements in Outline Zoning Plans, waiving car parking requirements, and more judicious Public Open Space in Private Development (POSPD) requirements should be used to eliminate or reduce the size of podiums and require developers to provide public open space at ground level instead.

• In the long term, the Government needs to review its policies, as the Urban Renewal Authority’s (URA’s) current revenue-driven model is not sustainable. As the sites with the most potential for plot ratio increases are used up, the URA will have an increasingly limited ability to deliver improvements in urban planning including the provision of more open space.

• The government should adopt more creative approaches to providing open space in dense urban areas, making greater use of waterways, streets, green decks and Government, Institution or Community (G/IC) facilities. This will require interdepartmental collaboration and therefore needs policy support and coordination from the Development Bureau, the Transport and Housing Bureau, the Home Affairs Bureau and perhaps the Education Bureau.

58

Data Transparency

In order for community groups, NGOs, and residents to be able to advocate for better open space provision in their own neighbourhoods, the Planning Department should release the following statistics.

• Countable Open Space figures at the Outline Zoning Plan level. These should be updated at least once every five years, during Census and By-census years (2016, 2020, 2026).

• Separate figures for Housing Authority and private open space, preferably at the level of individual housing estates and developments, but at the Outline Zoning Plan level at minimum. The underlying population bases for these types of open space should also be released, particularly for large private developments.

• Bonus regional open space figures should be reported, at least at the territorial scale. This would give a more accurate picture of the full amount of open space available.

The Broader Context

This report has dealt with a fairly narrow issue – the quantity of open space available in different parts of Hong Kong, defined according to the Planning Department’s own criteria. However, the issue of open space is in fact much broader. Accessibility, quality and management of open space are equally important issues which were beyond the scope of this report.

As Hong Kong is such a densely built-up city that it will probably never be able to match, say, Singapore in terms of the quantity of open space, so it is imperative to make the most of what we have. To that end, the accessibility and quality of Hong Kong’s urban open spaces must be maximized.

New major open spaces being developed on waterfront sites in Central-Wan Chai, Kai Tak and West Kowloon will do much to alleviate the shortage of open space in the adjacent old neighbourhoods, but only if pedestrian access to these areas is excellent. However, major roads separate these sites from the planned new open spaces. Providing access to pedestrians that are convenient, welcoming and comfortable (i.e. not simply by building standard pedestrian footbridges and tunnels) should be a matter of high priority.

Quality is also a major issue. The LCSD’s capacity is limited by funding, which has resulted in a predilection for standardized spaces designed for ease of maintenance rather than the comfort and enjoyment of users. Many urban pocket parks, for example, are sparsely planted, lack adequate seating, and are laid out in ways that do not allow flexible use of the space or are inconvenient for social interaction. Overly restrictive management rules designed for the convenience of park management and to avoid potential complaints also affects the public’s ability to fully take advantage of existing open spaces. In addition to increasing funding, the Public Pleasure Grounds Ordinance, which is the source of many of the LCSD’s restrictions, should be reviewed.

59

Finally, Hong Kong does in fact have recreational open space resources that lie beyond the scope of the HKPSG Countable Open Space criteria. These should be valued, measured, and reported. For example, in many urban areas, there are hilly areas (usually zoned Green Belt or Open Space) that are too sloped to be considered countable and which are not managed by the LCSD. However, they do have some recreational value and are often used by strollers and joggers. While they should not be formally included as Countable Open Space for good reason, these slopes should be recognised as part of Hong Kong’s open space network in some capacity. One way of doing so would be to designate them as urban walking trails and measure them in linear kilometres rather than area.

Hong Kong is also a coastal city with great assets for water-based recreation. The water, or “blue space” is not being utilized to the fullest extent. The Green and Blue Space Conceptual Framework for the 2030+ Planning and Vision Strategy65 proposes to integrate the planning of green and blue space and proposes to enhance blue space through activating the harbourfront and revitalising urban stream and nullahs. The Planning Department has no per capita standards for water sports centres since the availability of suitable sites is highly variable, however it should report figures for Water Recreation Areas at the territorial level alongside COS figures.

In other words, there is much more work to be done. More research is needed – on accessibility, on user habits and aspirations, and on quantifiable benefits. It is hoped that the basic that the data and recommendations in this report provide a first step towards informing the community on open space and empowering policymakers and residents alike to push for a better quality of life in Hong Kong.

60

Appendix 1: Countable Open Space (COS) as Defined by the HKPSG (2016)66

Section 1.10.1

a) COS should include the land that has been identified or reserved for open space use in town plans; b) COS should provide open-air outdoor recreation to a clearly identifiable residential or worker population. As such, areas reserved for open space in comprehensive residential developments, public housing developments and some private residential and commercial/residential developments, as required in approved planning briefs, lease conditions and/or conditions of planning permission, should normally be countable; c) COS should be functional and usable for active recreation (e.g. games courts and pitches) and/or passive recreation (e.g. sitting-out areas, children's playgrounds and landscape planting areas); d) COS should be accessible to the residential or worker population it is meant to serve, including open space both at ground level and on podiums; e) COS should be of a size and physical nature capable of supporting active and/or passive recreation facilities including landscaping with trees and shrub planting; f) COS should be managed and maintained by a responsible agent, including a government department or a private body; and g) Sloping terrain may or may not be included subject to a slope correction factor.

Section 1.10.2

The slope correction factor recognises that the sloping parts of a site may not be useful for recreational use. The following modifications are applied to the space standard :

Table: Slope Correction Factors

Slope Gradient % to count as standard Remarks Nil (i.e. flat) 100% Slope correction factor not necessary Slope<1:5 60% Site suitable for active recreation use if site formation works undertaken to form flat platform Slope between 30% Site suitable for passive recreation use, 1:5 and 1:3 but not for the elderly Slope>1:3 Nil Do not zone as public open space

61

Appendix 2: Publicly Available Open Space Data in Hong Kong

Land Utilization in Hong Kong

Provided by: Planning Department

Reporting Period: Updated semi-regularly on Planning Department’s website

Historical versions: Historical versions not available online

Geographical scale: Territorial

The Planning Department’s website has figures for land utilization in Hong Kong in 2015.67 This states that approximately 25km2 (2,500) of land was used for open space, which is defined as “parks, stadiums, playgrounds and recreational facilities”. Divided by the year-end 2015 population of 7,324,80068, this works out to 3.41m2 per person. However, this figure does not adhere to the HKPSG’s definition of countable open space. For example, it does not take into account the slope correction factor. The COS standards also exclude stadiums and sports grounds because they are not generally accessible to the public on a day to day basis.

Administered Open Space

Provided by: Leisure and Cultural Services Department via Census and Statistics Department

Reporting Period: Provided annually in the Hong Kong Annual Digest of Statistics

Historical versions: Historical versions available on Census and Statistics Department’s website

Geographical Scale: Territorial

The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) annually reports the total amount of public open space it administers in the Hong Kong Annual Digest of Statistics.69 In 2015, the LCSD administered 1,994 ha of open space – significantly less than the Planning Department’s figure. The LCSD’s figure is both an undercount and an overcount – it does not include open space administered by other entities, but it does include roadside amenity areas which it manages, but which are not usable for recreation.

Zoned Open Space

Provided by: Planning Department

Reporting Period: Updated whenever an Outline Zoning Plan is amended

Historical Versions: Available for public inspection by request at the Planning Enquiry Counter at government offices in North Point and Sha Tin

Geographical Scale: Outline Zoning Plan area 62

Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) prepared by the Planning Department delineate the intended land uses of plots of land throughout urban and much of rural Hong Kong. There are 69 urban OZPs covering Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, and 70 rural OZPs. The notes for each OZP states how much land has been zoned for various purposes, including open space (“O” zones). These are the only open space figures available at a detailed geographical scale. However, these figures are also over- and undercount actual available open space because not all zoned open space has actually been developed into existing open space, as zoning only indicates the intended use of a piece of land to be carried out upon redevelopment. Not all existing open space is located in “O” zones. Much of it is located in residential “R” zones, village “V” zones, and government/institution & community “G/IC” zones.

Public Open Space in Private Developments

Provided by: Lands Department

Reporting period: Updated semi-regularly on Lands Department website

Historical versions: N/A

Geographical scale: Individual open spaces listed with size and location

Since 2011, the Lands Department has provided a public list of public facilities and open space provided in private developments constructed after 1980 by land lease agreement.70 This arose in response to a public controversy over the mismanagement or misuse of privately managed public open spaces at Times Square in Causeway Bay and other locations. The list was published in order for the public to help ensure that property owners abide by the terms of their land leases. As of 2016, 78 POSPDs or public promenades are listed.

Areas within Private Properties Dedicated for Public Use

Provided by: Buildings Department

Reporting Period: Updated semi-regularly on Buildings Department website

Historical versions: N/A

Geographical scale: Individual open spaces listed with size and location

Since 2011, the Buildings Department has provided a public list of areas within private properties dedicated for pedestrian passage under deed of dedication. These areas come about due to an incentive system under the Buildings Ordinance whereby private developers can dedicate part of the ground floor area to public use in return for bonus Gross Floor Area. It is a separate mechanism from land lease agreements administered by the Lands Department.

The vast majority of dedicated areas are for pedestrian passage only – e.g. setbacks sidewalk widening. The only two exceptions are Times Square in Causeway Bay and Mansion in Yau Tsim Mong which are also set aside for public recreation.

63

Countable Open Space

Provided by: Planning Department

Reporting Period: 2008 only. 2012 figures obtained from Planning Department by request.

Historical versions: Not available

Geographical Scale: District

There has been one occasion on which the Development Bureau has reported countable open space figures to the Legislative Council (LegCo). This occurred on 8 December 2008 in a paper on the “Provision of Public Facilities in Private Developments” presented to the Legislative Council Panel on Development in the wake of the public controversy over POSPD.71 This document presented the amount of local and district open space in each of Hong Kong’s 18 districts. It is also the only document to report the amount of open space provided by the Housing Authority, and to provide comprehensive figures for private open space.

While not as detailed as the OZP level, these figures are the best available basis for evaluating the provision of open space according to HKPSG standards. Civic Exchange was able to obtain more updated figures for the year 2012.

Private Open Space

Provided by: Various sources including Master Layout Plans, Outline Zoning Plan notes, Town Planning Board approval documents, Land Leases

Reporting period: N/A

Historical versions: N/A

Geographical Scale: Individual developments

There is no systematic, comprehensive database of private open space. It is possible to find the private open space figures for some individual developments in planning documents such as master layout plans, Outline Zoning Plan notes, Town Planning Board (TPB) approvals, and land lease terms (land leases cannot be accessed by the public free of charge). Relevant documents for older and smaller developments are very difficult to obtain or perhaps non-existent as many of these are “as of right” developments where neither TPB approval nor lease modification was necessary. Moreover, there is no publicly available comprehensive list of which developments have private open space.

64

Appendix 3: Provision of Open Space as of 2012, According to The Planning Department

Provision of Open Space (as at 2012)

District Council Local Open Space (LO) District Open Space Provided by (ha.) (DO) Housing Authority (ha.) (ha.) 15.7 38.7 1. Central and Western (Pub.: 13.9) (Pub.: 38.7) 0.2 (Pri.: 1.7) (Pri.: 0.0) 13.3 17.9 2. Wan Chai (Pub.: 12.8) (Pub.: 17.9) 0.0 (Pri.: 0.5) (Pri.: 0.0) 40.3 60.2 3. Eastern (Pub.: 18.4) (Pub.: 60.2) 37.0 (Pri.: 21.8) (Pri.: 0.0) 26.1 33.6 4. Southern (Pub.: 14.1) (Pub.: 33.6) 21.7 (Pri.: 12.0) (Pri.: 0) 26.2 44.3 5. Yau Tsim Mong (Pub.: 16.7) (Pub.: 44.3) 3.2 (Pri.: 9.5) (Pri.: 0.0) 28.1 52.1 6. Kowloon City (Pub.: 24.4) (Pub.: 52.1) 8.2 (Pri.: 3.7) (Pri.: 0.0) 36.2 56.6 7. Kwun Tong (Pub.: 27.5) (Pub.: 56.6) 76.1 (Pri.: 8.7) (Pri.: 0.0) 13.9 46.9 8. Wong Tai Sin (Pub.: 13.1) (Pub.: 46.9) 67.1 (Pri.: 0.8) (Pri.: 0.0) 19.9 52.1 9. Sham Shui Po (Pub.: 11.5) (Pub.: 52.1) 29.9 (Pri.: 8.5) (Pri.: 0.0) 38.7 29.3 10. Kwai Tsing (Pub.: 30.1) (Pub.: 29.3) 69.0 (Pri.: 8.6) (Pri.: 0.0) 29.6 30.4 11. Tsuen Wan (Pub.: 12.9) (Pub.: 30.4) 10.6 (Pri.: 16.7) (Pri.: 0.0)

65

30.2 78.6 12. Sha Tin (Pub.: 22.3) (Pub.: 78.6) 92.3 (Pri.: 7.8) (Pri.: 0.0) 23.4 43.0 13. Tai Po (Pub.: 14.7) (Pub.: 43.0) 33.3 (Pri.: 8.7) (Pri.: 0.0) 28.0 21.8 14. North (Pub.: 18.7) (Pub.: 21.8) 32.2 (Pri.: 9.3) (Pri.: 0.0) 23.9 64.4 15. Tuen Mun (Pub.: 15.8) (Pub.: 64.4) 80.2 (Pri.: 8.1) (Pri.: 0.0) 49.7 23.0 16. Yuen Long (Pub.: 37.7) (Pub.: 23.0) 50.2 (Pri.: 12.1) (Pri.: 0.0) 26.9 31.5 17. Sai Kung (Pub.: 9.9) (Pub.: 31.5) 42.1 (Pri.: 16.9) (Pri.: 0.0) 29.0 38.6 18. Islands (Pub.: 21.8) (Pub.: 28.8) 17.5 (Pri.: 7.2) (Pri.: 9.8) Notes： According to HKPSG, slope area, which is not suitable for development, has been deducted from open space area, and the sports grounds, water body of beaches, water sports centres, camp sites and holiday villages managed by Leisure and Cultural Services Department were not counted as open space. However, open space within private developments has been included. “Public (Pub.)” represents public open space on Government land and those provided within large private developments for public use, while “Private (Pri.)” includes private open space within large private developments. Figures of open space “Provided by Housing Authority (HA)" were provided by Housing Department in July 2012. Due to rounding, the summation of “Pub.” and “Pri” may be different from the total area.

66

Appendix 4: Existing Per Person Countable Open Space by District, 2012

Sources: Planning Department, 2012 and 2011 Census

District LOS LOS LOS LOS DOS DOS DOS DOS Total per required actual surplus/ per required actual surplus/ District person (ha) (ha) deficit person (ha) (ha) deficit Population (m2) (ha) (m2) (ha) 2011 (1) (2)

Central 0.6 25.1 15.9 -9.3 1.5 25.1 38.7 13.6 251,519 and Western Wan 0.9 15.2 13.3 -1.9 1.2 15.2 17.9 2.7 152,608 Chai Eastern 1.3 58.8 77.3 18.5 1.0 58.8 60.2 1.4 588,094 Southern 1.7 27.9 47.8 19.9 1.2 27.9 33.6 5.7 278,665

Yau Tsim 1.0 30.8 29.4 -1.4 1.4 30.8 44.3 13.5 307,878 Mong Kowloon 1.0 37.7 36.3 -1.4 1.4 37.7 52.1 14.4 377,351 City Kwun 1.8 62.2 112.3 50.3 0.9 62.2 56.6 -5.6 622,152 Tong Wong 1.9 42.0 81.0 39 1.1 42.0 46.9 4.9 420,183 Tai Sin Sham 1.3 38.1 49.8 11.7 1.4 38.1 52.1 14 380,855 Shui Po Kwai 2.1 51.1 107.7 56.6 0.6 51.1 29.3 -21.8 511,167 Tsing Tsuen 1.3 30.4 40.2 9.8 1.0 30.4 30.4 0 304,637 Wan Sha Tin 1.9 63.0 122.5 59.5 1.2 63.0 78.6 15.6 630,273 Tai Po 1.9 29.7 56.7 29.0 1.4 29.7 43.0 13.3 296,853 North 2.0 30.4 60.2 29.8 0.7 30.4 21.8 -8.6 304,134 Tuen 2.1 48.8 104.1 55.3 1.3 48.8 64.4 15.6 487,546 Mun Yuen 1.7 58.8 99.9 41.1 0.4 58.8 23.0 -35.8 587,529 Long Sai Kung 1.6 43.7 69.0 25.3 0.7 43.7 31.5 -12.2 436,627 Islands 3.3 14.1 46.5 32.4 2.7 14.1 38.6 24.5 141,327 Total 1.7 707.9 1169.9 462.0 1.1 707.9 763.0 55.1 7,079,398

67

District COS COS required COS actual COS Total District per (ha) (ha) surplus/ Population 2011 person deficit (ha) (3) Central 2.2 50.3 54.5 4.2 251,519 and Western Wan 2.0 30.5 31.2 0.7 152,608 Chai Eastern 2.3 117.6 137.4 19.8 588,094 Southern 2.9 55.7 81.4 25.7 278,665 Yau Tsim 2.4 61.6 73.7 12.1 307,878 Mong Kowloon 2.3 75.5 88.4 12.9 377,351 City Kwun 2.7 124.4 168.9 44.5 622,152 Tong Wong 3.0 84.0 127.9 43.9 420,183 Tai Sin Sham 2.7 76.2 102.0 25.8 380,855 Shui Po Kwai 2.7 102.2 137.0 34.8 511,167 Tsing Tsuen 2.3 60.9 70.6 9.7 304,637 Wan Sha Tin 3.2 126.1 201.0 74.9 630,273 Tai Po 3.4 59.4 99.7 40.3 296,853 North 2.7 60.8 82.0 21.2 304,134 Tuen 3.5 97.5 168.5 71 487,546 Mun Yuen 2.1 117.5 123.0 5.5 587,529 Long Sai Kung 2.3 87.3 100.4 13.1 436,627 Islands 6.0 28.3 85.1 56.8 141,327 Total 2.7 1415.9 1932.7 516.8 7,079,398

(1) Total LOS including LCSD, POSPD, HA and Private Open Space divided by total district population (2) Total DOS including LCSD, POSPD, and Private Open Space divided by total district population (3) Total Countable Open Space from all providers divided by total district population

68

Appendix 5: Methodology for Calculating Countable Open Space (COS) at the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) Scale

An attempt was made to reverse-engineer COS figures at the OZP scale from a variety of different government sources. Due to limited data availability described in Appendix 2, a number of estimates and assumptions had to be made. The sources, methodology and limitations of the approach are outlined below.

OZP-level open space figures were assembled from several different sources:

LCSD-managed Open Space

Compilation of government-managed open space was done using the LCSD’s March 2013 list of Public Pleasure Grounds under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance as well as the list of gazetted beaches. March 2013 was chosen in order to include open spaces that existed by the end of 2012. The West Kowloon Cultural District Park, a major exception which is managed by the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority rather than the LCSD, was added to the list. Following the Planning Department’s methodology, sports grounds, water sports centres, camp sites and holiday villages managed by the LCSD were excluded as they are not accessible to the general public for free on a day to day basis. Indoor sports centres were also not included since they are categorised as community facilities rather than open space.

Where the actual boundaries of the open space aligned closely with a zoning area (usually “O”), the area was taken from the Planning Department’s Statutory Planning Portal. Where the actual open space was part of a larger zone or if its boundaries did not align well with the marked zone, the area had to be measured. This was done using the Lands Department’s online GeoInfo Map.

Out of the 1,716 open spaces, 138 could not be located on a map. These were mainly small sitting out areas, lookout points, or children’s playgrounds, many of them located in rural areas. A few were open spaces located on rooftops of municipal buildings which proved impossible to measure. Some open spaces which existed in 2012 turned out to no longer exist. In such cases, a good faith effort was made to measure their former dimensions based on Google Street View images (which were taken in 2011) and satellite photos.

Public Open Space in Private Developments (POSPD)

Figures for POSPD were obtained from the Lands Department’s 2016 list of public facilities provided in private developments under land lease.72 All developments completed before or by 2012 were included. It is possible that the current list provided is not yet complete, as between 2014 and 2016, the Lands Department added new entries which were constructed before that time period.

69

A few of POSPDs which are not listed on the Lands Department’s list were also included. These included two areas (Times Square and Shun Lee Mansion) dedicated for recreational use under the

Buildings Ordinance, as well as five which are mentioned in Outline Zoning Plan notes. Altogether, there were 87 POSPDs identified.

Housing Authority

Due to limited data availability, it was necessary to make estimates of the quantity of Housing Authority Open Space in each OZP area. The Planning Department’s district-level figures for HA were divided up and allocated to each OZP based on the number of public housing units located in each OZP in 2012.

The number of housing units rather than the estate/housing development population was used because planners base the planned population, and hence the needed amount of open space, on the number of housing units.

The table and scatter graph below show a strong linear relationship between the number of public housing flats in a district and the amount of HA Open Space reported by the Planning Department. This shows that the Housing Authority has planned housing estates according to standards which remain fairly consistent from district to district. The Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient is 0.96. Therefore, the method of estimation described above is likely to be fairly accurate.

Number of Public Housing HA Open Space in 2012 Average m2 of Units in 2012 Source: Planning HA open space Source: Housing Authority Department per housing unit Central and 600 0.2 3.33 Western Wan Chai 0 0 N/A Eastern 73,209 37 5.05 Southern 46,512 21.7 4.67 Yau Tsim Mong 7,337 3.2 4.36 Kowloon City 21,764 8.2 3.77 Kwun Tong 178,185 76.1 4.27 Wong Tai Sin 137,344 67.1 4.89 Sham Shui Po 61,459 29.9 4.87 Kwai Tsing 133,248 69 5.18 Tsuen Wan 21,700 10.6 4.88 Sha Tin 136,182 92.3 6.78 Tai Po 54,890 33.3 6.07 North 58,747 32.2 5.48 Tuen Mun 116,655 80.2 6.87 Yuen Long 92,871 50.2 5.41 Sai Kung 78,484 42.1 5.36 Islands 18,852 17.5 9.28

70

Housing Authority Open Space by Number of Public Housing Units

100 90 Sha Tin 80 Tuen Mun Kwun Tong 70 Kwai Tsing 60 Wong Tai Sin 50 Yuen Long North 40 Sai Kung Tai Po Eastern 30 Yau Tsim Mong Sham Shui Po HA Open Space (ha) Southern 20 Islands Wan Chai Tsuen Wan 10 Kowloon City 0 Central and Western 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Number of public housing units

Private Open Space

Due to limited data availability, a similar method for allocating HA open space to each OZP was also applied to the Planning Department’s figures for private open space.

However, in this case, there is no comprehensive record of exactly which developments provide private open space which is considered countable. Therefore, proxy figures were used: The Census and Statistics Department provides demographic statistics of every major housing estate in Hong Kong, defined as those with at least 1,000 households or 3,000 residents.73 A list of large private housing developments existing in 2011 (the closest available census year) was therefore culled from this source.

Information on their year of completion and their number of residential units was obtained from the websites of major real estate agencies such as Centaline and Midland Realty. Developments completed before or around 1980, and which were built in an architectural style that obviously does not provide any private open space (e.g. 1960s-style composite buildings, early cruciform towers) were excluded.

This method may overstate the actual amount of private open space per flat because it has excluded smaller to medium-sized developments with less than 1,000 flats but which may nevertheless provide some private open space. For example, the Planning Department’s figures state that there is about 0.5 ha of private open space in Wan Chai District, yet there are no large private developments there according to the Census list.

The table below shows the number of housing units in large developments and the amount of private local open space in each district. (District Open Space was omitted because only Islands District has any due to Discovery Bay, an anomalous case). The scatter graph shows that the correlation between the two variables is still linear, but somewhat weaker (0.78). Private developers appear to be less consistent than the HA. The standard deviation for the average m2 of private LOS per private housing unit is 2.09, as opposed to 1.34 for HA Open Space per public housing unit.

The OZP level estimates for private open space should therefore be considered less accurate than the estimates for HA open space.

71

Number of Housing Units in Private LOS in 2012 Average m2 of Large Private Developments in Source: Planning Private LOS open 2011 Department space per housing Source: Census and Statistics unit Department Central and 4,544 1.7 3.74 Western Wan Chai 0 0.5 Unknown Eastern 44,779 21.8 4.87 Southern 23,390 12 5.13 Yau Tsim Mong 10,190 9.5 9.32 Kowloon City 23,305 3.7 1.59 Kwun Tong 24,087 8.7 3.61 Wong Tai Sin 1,684 0.8 4.75 Sham Shui Po 26,584 8.5 3.20 Kwai Tsing 18,819 8.6 4.57 Tsuen Wan 52,588 16.7 3.18 Sha Tin 43,804 7.8 1.78 Tai Po 10,309 8.7 8.44 North 11,874 9.3 7.83 Tuen Mun 25,592 8.1 3.17 Yuen Long 33,442 12.1 3.62 Sai Kung 38,677 16.9 4.37 Islands 19,068 7.2 3.78

Private LOS by Number of Housing Units in Large Private Developments

25

Eastern 20

Sai Kung Tsuen Wan 15

Yau Tsim Mong Southern Yuen Long 10 North Kwai Tsing Kwun Tong Tai Po Sham Shui Po Private LOS (ha) Sha Tin Islands Tuen Mun 5 Central and Western Kowloon City Wong Tai Sin 0 Wan Chai 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Number of housing units in large private developments

72

Local, District and Regional Open Space

The Planning Department administratively designates open spaces as local, district or regional on Outline Development Plans which are not always available to the public.

Therefore, assumptions were made on the basis of size. Open spaces with known sizes (LCSD and POSPD spaces) were assigned to a category based on HKPSG criteria (See “Open Space Standard” in Section 2). Spaces of less than 1ha were deemed “local”, spaces of between 1 and 5 ha were deemed “district” and of 5 ha or more were deemed “regional”. This is not fully accurate since other less quantifiable factors, such as location, facilities, landscape and attractions also affect the Planning Department’s designations. The reconstructed DOS figures probably somewhat understate the true amount since some larger district parks may have been inaccurately counted as regional open space.

Slope Correction Factor

It was not possible to apply the Planning Department’s slope correction factor, which applies a formula to reduce the countable site area for open spaces built on slopes.

Geographical Coverage

This report focuses only on the urban OZPs. It was not possible to include the rural OZPs as their boundaries were inconsistent with census tracts, making demographic analysis impossible. The urban OZPs covered 6.72 million people, which was about 94% of Hong Kong’s total population of 7.08 million in 2011.

There are 69 urban OZPs in total. However, the following ones were omitted or merged with neighbouring OZPs. 57 OZPs were used for analysis.

Omitted/Merged Reason OZPs Omitted Commercial or industrial district Central District, Central District with low or no residential Extension and Wan Chai North, population Omitted Infrastructural uses with no Stonecutter’s Island, Chek Lap Kok residential population Omitted Remote locations with no or low North-east Lantau, Shek Kwu Chau residential population Omitted Not yet developed Fanling North, Kwu Tung North, Tung Chung Extension Area, Kai Tak* Merged To match TPU demographic data Pak Shek Kok boundaries * Existing open spaces within Kai Tak boundaries were attributed to adjacent OZPs.

73

Accuracy Check

As the table below shows, the author’s estimate for LOS and DOS are somewhat lower than the Planning Department’s figures, which could be partly explained by lack of coverage of rural areas. Additionally, some of the open space attributed to bonus ROS may in actuality be DOS.

The estimated per person open space estimates come very close to the official figures.

Planning Department figures (All Author’s estimate (Urban of HK) OZPs only) Countable Open Space 1932.9 ha 1722.8 ha (ha) LOS excluding HA and 336.3 ha 245.6 Private All LOS 1169.9 1073.8

DOS 763 ha 648.9 Bonus ROS Unknown 223.7 ha Countable OS per person 2.7 2.6

LOS person 1.6 1.6 DOS per person 1.1 1.0

74

Appendix 6: Methodology for the Compilation of Demographic Data

Tertiary Planning Units

OZP demographic statistics were compiled from the 2011 Census at the Tertiary Planning Unit (TPU) level. A TPU is the smallest geographical areas for which comprehensive demographic statistics are published, and TPU level data is only made available during census and by-census years (every 5 years).

In urban areas, several TPUs usually make up one OZP. In some cases, the boundaries of OZPs did not align with those of TPUs. Where possible, the proportion of a TPU’s population that fell on either side of the OZP boundary was obtained from street block level figures from Centamap.74 The demographic characteristics of the whole TPU (e.g. education level, age, household income) were ascribed to the populations on either side. If street block population figures could not be used, then the OZP was merged with the neighbouring one, e.g. Central & District Extension, and Tai Po & Pak Shek Kok.

Because the TPU-level monthly household income data only gives the number of households falling into each income bracket, it was not possible to know the true median when several TPUs were assembled into an OZP. Linear interpolation was therefore performed in order to estimate the median income of the entire OZP.

Multiple Deprivation Index

Median household income on its own does not reflect the distribution of income in an area. In order to more fully explore the issue of poverty in relation to open space provision, a simple Index of Multiple Deprivation, which measures poverty concentration, was constructed based on a methodology previously used by Hong Kong researchers to study the relationship between air pollution and socioeconomic deprivation.75

Poverty or deprivation is better understood as a multidimensional phenomenon rather than simply as a lack of money. For example, a young university graduate working in an entry-level job may have a low income, but is not considered “poor” in other ways due to her educational background and career potential.

Four indicators which are available at the TPU level were selected. (The selected indicators are different from those used in the previous air quality research due to demographic shifts since that research was published.) The chosen indicators are:

• Proportion of households earning less than HKD $10,000 a month. The HKSAR Government officially sets the poverty line at ½ the median household income. In 2011, the median nominal household income was HKD $19,200.76 HKD $10,000 was therefore the closest income bracket to half that amount. In practice, the poverty line is adjusted based on household size (poorer households tend to be smaller), but TPU level figures

75

were not sufficiently detailed to allow this.

• Proportion of population aged 15 or above with lower secondary education or less. Nowadays, those who completed lower secondary education or less can be considered comparatively deprived. Hong Kong has provided 9 years of compulsory education since 1974, which was extended to 12 years in 2008-9. Those with even less education – with only primary education or below – are primarily in their 60s or older.

• Male non-participation in the labour force. The labour force participation rate is the proportion of the population aged over 15 not engaged in the workforce. The male labour non-participation rate was used in order to avoid the influence of homemakers, who are still overwhelmingly women. As the figure does include retirees, it would have been preferable to use labour non-participation rate for only prime working aged adults (15- 65), but such data was not available.

• Percentage of adult population widowed, separated, or divorced. Internationally, the research consensus is that married people enjoy significant benefits in terms of social status, health and subjective wellbeing in comparison to those divorced, separated or widowed.77 In Hong Kong, since the 2000s, divorce and separation has become a phenomenon increasingly seen in lower socio-economic groups and the less educated.78 Including the widowed does mean that this indicator partly reflects population ageing, since the longer people live, the more likely they are to become widowed. However, widows do experience more loneliness and lower levels of social engagement compared to the divorced, so their inclusion is justified.79

The percentages for each OZP were converted into Z-scores, which expresses values in terms of their number of standard deviations away from the mean. This normalizes all four indicators to the same scale and reduces the influence of outliers. The Z-scores were averaged to create a multiple deprivation index. For greater ease of understanding, the average Z-scores were converted into rankings which rank each OZP from most to least deprived.

76

Appendix 7: Countable, Local and District Open Space per Person and Selected Demographic Variables in Urban OZP Areas

OZP COS/ LOS/ DOS/ Median % of % of Multiple Multiple Pop. in person person person monthly pop. pop. Deprivation Deprivation 2011 (m2) (m2) (m2) household under aged Index Index income age 15 65+ (Z-Score) (Ranking) Less than 2 m2 COS per person 1 Mong Kok 0.6 0.6 0.1 18,200 11.4 16.1 0.58 13 136,679 2 Wan Chai 0.7 0.5 0.2 24,400 9.0 16.9 0.13 26 60,689 3 Mid-levels West 0.9 0.5 0.4 97,400 12.9 10.5 -1.16 52 71,218 4 Causeway Bay 1.0 0.6 0.4 36,600 10.0 17.1 -0.28 39 31,553 5 Kennedy Town & 1.0 0.8 0.2 26,900 11.5 14.4 -0.23 37 75,347 Mount Davis 6 Sai Ying Pun & Sheung 1.1 0.6 0.5 27,200 10.1 16.4 -0.22 36 97,539 Wan 7 Hung Hom 1.3 0.8 0.4 29,300 12.0 12.7 -0.36 41 113,108 8 Kwun Tong (North) 1.3 1.3 0.0 14,000 12.4 15.1 1.10 7 23,670

9 Cheung Sha Wan 1.4 0.9 0.5 14,500 11.0 18.2 1.16 4 198,030 10 Yau Ma Tei 1.5 0.7 0.8 19,600 12.3 15.0 0.33 19 65,316 11 Mid-levels East 1.6 1.6 0.0 109,500 13.1 13.2 -0.87 49 8,621 12 Shau Kei Wan 1.6 1.1 0.5 20,100 10.1 16.9 0.42 16 125,845 13 North Point 1.6 0.8 0.9 31,700 10.2 16.8 -0.14 35 159,418 14 Ma Tau Kok 1.7 0.4 1.3 19,100 11.0 17.1 0.46 15 131,491 15 Ho Man Tin 1.9 1.2 0.7 24,900 10.4 19.3 0.36 18 92,335 16 Ma Wan 1.9 1.9 0.0 43,500 13.1 7.1 -1.57 57 13,056 17 Ngau Chi Wan 1.9 1.5 0.4 17,600 10.3 17.3 0.80 11 84,465 18 Pok Fu Lam 1.9 1.6 0.3 24,100 10.9 15.8 0.27 22 79,911 19 Quarry Bay 1.9 1.3 0.6 37,600 11.4 14.4 -0.36 42 126,312 20 Yuen Long 1.9 1.3 0.6 27,800 12.6 10.7 0.09 30 147,683 Between 2 m2 and 2.5 m2 COS per person 21 Wong Nai Chung 2.0 0.8 1.2 60,500 11.9 14.1 -0.74 48 32,895 22 Jardine's Lookout & 2.2 0.2 1.9 11,200 11.9 10.3 -1.15 51 9,944 Wong Nai Chung Gap 23 Aberdeen & Ap Lei 2.2 1.6 0.6 24,200 10.2 14.6 0.11 27 159,364 Chau 24 Tseung Kwan O 2.2 1.6 0.6 28,000 12.8 9.1 -0.47 45 371,348 25 Tsuen Wan 2.2 1.2 1.0 22,600 12.8 13.8 0.09 29 254,600 26 Kwun Tong (South) 2.2 1.6 0.6 15,200 10.8 18.0 1.13 5 307,852 27 Cha Kwo Ling, Yau 2.3 1.7 0.6 18,900 13.9 14.3 0.55 14 132,565 Tong, Lei Yue Mun 28 Kwai Chung 2.3 1.9 0.4 16,800 12.0 16.5 0.97 9 321,189

77

29 Tin Shui Wai 2.4 1.8 0.6 16,000 14.5 7.5 0.27 21 287,901 30 Chai Wan 2.4 2.0 0.4 21,900 10.4 14.6 0.20 24 179,025 Between 2.5 m2 and 3 m2 COS per person 31 Ma On Shan 2.5 1.8 0.7 27,600 11.7 9.3 -0.61 46 202,431 32 Tsz Wan Shan, 2.6 1.7 0.9 18,200 11.0 16.8 0.79 12 216,863 Diamond Hill & San Po Kong 33 Tsing Yi 2.6 2.0 0.6 21,000 10.2 11.5 0.06 31 191,739 34 Sha Tin 2.7 1.8 0.9 22,200 10.7 12.5 0.10 28 433,803 35 Fanling/Sheung Shui 2.8 2.1 0.7 19,300 12.4 9.7 0.16 25 252,163 3m2 COS per person or more 36 Tuen Mun 3.3 2.3 1.0 18,200 11.0 9.8 0.27 23 454,290 37 South West Kowloon 3.3 2.0 1.3 36,000 15.4 9.9 -0.44 44 120,884 38 Lai Chi Kok 3.4 1.3 2.1 36,300 10.4 16.5 -0.11 34 45,624 39 Ngau Tau Kok & 3.4 1.8 1.7 16,000 11.4 16.5 0.89 10 158,065 Kowloon Bay 40 Tsuen Wan West 3.5 2.3 1.2 38,900 13.5 8.7 -1.18 53 33,800 41 Wang Tau Hom & 3.7 2.1 1.6 16,700 8.9 19.3 1.11 6 118,855 Tung Tau 42 Tai Po and Pak Shek 3.7 2.0 1.7 22,300 9.6 10.9 -0.05 32 251,281 Kok 43 Cheung Chau 3.9 1.7 2.2 16,000 12.3 15.0 0.39 17 22,740 44 Stanley 4.4 1.3 3.0 28,000 12.2 8.6 0.31 20 15,710 45 Shek Kip Mei 4.5 2.0 2.4 14,200 11.2 19.7 1.46 2 78,889 46 Tung Chung Town 4.6 2.8 1.8 22,000 15.8 6.9 -0.32 40 78,504 Centre Area 47 Sai Kung Town 5.1 1.9 3.2 23,800 11.0 12.4 -0.41 43 11,909 48 Peng Chau 5.3 2.8 2.4 13,500 10.7 17.7 1.03 8 5,980 49 Tsim Sha Tsui 5.9 0.9 5.0 28,100 10.8 17.0 -0.27 38 35,569 50 Lamma Island 6.3 3.1 3.1 20,100 13.7 11.0 -0.10 33 6,013 51 Kowloon Tong 7.7 2.5 5.2 70,800 13.6 15.1 -0.64 47 27,203 52 Shouson Hill & 8.0 1.2 6.9 155,000 16.0 6.7 -1.56 56 16,000 Repulse Bay 53 The Peak Area 9.3 2.2 7.1 141,000 12.9 10.7 -1.27 54 8,743 54 Tai Tam & Shek O 14.4 1.9 12.5 100,000 16.6 7.2 -1.02 50 7,564 55 Tai O Town Centre 15.2 4.1 11.2 8,000 9.6 36.0 3.09 1 2,257 56 Discovery Bay 16.5 2.5 14.0 57,500 18.5 6.4 -1.56 55 12,383 57 South Lantau Coast 31.4 1.7 29.7 20,900 15.1 11.5 1.33 3 3,950

78

Appendix 8: Open Space by Provider in Urban OZP Areas

Countable Open Space LCSD Housing Authority Private POSPD Total ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % Central District and Central District 18.1 88% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.4 12% 20.4 100% Extension Wan Chai North 2.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.5 100% Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau 14.3 41% 13.7 40% 6.5 19% 0.0 0% 34.5 100% Causeway Bay 2.7 90% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.3 10% 3.0 100% Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tong, Lei Yue 12.6 42% 12.4 41% 4.4 15% 0.5 2% 29.8 100% Mun Chai Wan 15.0 35% 22.7 53% 5.4 13% 0.0 0% 43.1 100% Cheung Chau 8.0 91% 0.8 9% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 8.9 100% Cheung Sha Wan 15.1 55% 12.5 45% 0.0 0% 0.1 0% 27.7 100% Discovery Bay 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 12.8 63% 7.5 37% 20.4 100% Fanling/Sheung Shui 29.8 42% 32.2 45% 9.3 13% 0.0 0% 71.3 100% Ho Man Tin 11.7 68% 5.4 32% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 17.1 100% Hung Hom 7.0 49% 2.0 14% 3.1 21% 2.2 16% 14.3 100% Jardine's Lookout & Wong Nai 2.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.1 100% Chung Gap Kennedy Town & Mount Davis 5.7 74% 0.2 3% 1.3 17% 0.5 7% 7.7 100% Kowloon Tong 20.5 99% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.3 1% 20.8 100% Kwai Chung 26.5 36% 44.2 60% 1.3 2% 2.3 3% 74.2 100% Kwun Tong (North) 0.0 0% 3.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.2 100% Kwun Tong (South) 28.2 41% 40.3 59% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 68.5 100% Lai Chi Kok 10.5 68% 0.5 3% 4.6 29% 0.0 0% 15.6 100% Lamma Island 3.8 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.8 100% Ma On Shan 17.5 34% 31.3 61% 2.4 5% 0.0 0% 51.2 100% Ma Tau Kok 20.7 94% 0.8 4% 0.4 2% 0.2 1% 22.0 100% Ma Wan 0.8 32% 0.0 0% 1.7 68% 0.0 0% 2.5 100% Mid-levels East 1.4 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.4 100% Mid-levels West 6.3 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 6.3 100% Mong Kok 7.9 89% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.0 11% 8.8 100% Ngau Chi Wan 3.8 24% 12.3 76% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 16.1 100% Ngau Tau Kok & Kowloon Bay 29.8 55% 20.2 37% 4.3 8% 0.0 0% 54.3 100% North Point 20.7 80% 1.5 6% 3.0 12% 0.8 3% 26.1 100% Peng Chau 2.7 87% 0.4 13% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.2 100% Pok Fu Lam 3.4 22% 6.9 45% 5.0 33% 0.0 0% 15.3 100% Quarry Bay 9.3 38% 1.4 6% 13.4 55% 0.3 1% 24.3 100% Sai Kung Town 4.5 73% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.6 27% 6.1 100% Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan 9.3 87% 0.0 0% 0.4 4% 0.9 9% 10.7 100% Sha Tin 43.2 37% 61.0 53% 5.8 5% 5.2 4% 115.2 100% Shau Kei Wan 8.9 44% 11.5 56% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 20.4 100% Shek Kip Mei 22.5 64% 11.6 33% 1.1 3% 0.0 0% 35.2 100% Shouson Hill & Repulse Bay 12.3 96% 0.0 0% 0.5 4% 0.0 0% 12.8 100% South Lantau Coast 12.4 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 12.4 100% South West Kowloon 15.7 39% 8.5 21% 12.3 31% 3.8 9% 40.3 100% Stanley 5.8 85% 1.0 15% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 6.9 100% Tai O Town Centre 2.7 79% 0.7 21% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.4 100% Tai Po and Pak Shek Kok 51.0 55% 33.3 36% 8.2 9% 0.4 0% 93.0 100% Tai Tam & Shek O 10.9 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 10.9 100%

79

LCSD Housing Authority Private POSPD Total ha % ha % ha ha % ha % Tin Shui Wai 20.0 29% 42.2 61% 6.8 10% 0.0 0% 69.0 100% Tseung Kwan O 24.0 29% 40.4 49% 16.9 21% 0.4 0% 81.6 100% Tsim Sha Tsui 20.9 99% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.1 1% 21.1 100% Tsing Yi 18.6 37% 24.8 49% 7.3 14% 0.0 0% 50.8 100% Tsuen Wan 33.0 59% 10.6 19% 11.6 21% 1.2 2% 56.4 100% Tsuen Wan West 7.5 63% 0.0 0% 3.5 29% 0.9 8% 11.9 100% Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill & 25.2 45% 30.1 54% 0.8 1% 0.0 0% 56.1 100% San Po Kong Tuen Mun 62.2 41% 80.2 53% 7.6 5% 1.2 1% 151.2 100% Tung Chung Town Centre Area 9.4 26% 15.2 42% 4.2 11% 7.8 21% 36.5 100% Wan Chai 3.6 88% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.5 12% 4.1 100% Wang Tau Hom & Tung Tau 18.9 43% 24.7 57% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 43.6 100% Wong Nai Chung 6.0 90% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.7 10% 6.7 100% Yau Ma Tei 8.8 92% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.8 8% 9.5 100% Yuen Long 17.1 60% 8.0 28% 3.5 12% 0.0 0% 28.6 100% Total 841.1 49% 668.7 39% 169.3 10% 43.7 3% 1722. 100% 8

80

Local Open Space LCSD Housing Private POSPD Total Authority ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % Central District 2.1 47% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.4 53% 4.5 100% and Central District Extension Wan Chai North 2.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.5 100% Aberdeen & Ap 5.2 20% 13.7 54% 6.5 25% 0.0 0% 25.4 100% Lei Chau Causeway Bay 1.5 82% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.3 18% 1.8 100% Cha Kwo Ling, Yau 5.0 22% 12.4 56% 4.4 20% 0.5 2% 22.3 100% Tong, Lei Yue Mun Chai Wan 7.3 21% 22.7 64% 5.4 15% 0.0 0% 35.3 100% Cheung Chau 3.1 79% 0.8 21% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.9 100% Cheung Sha Wan 5.6 31% 12.5 69% 0.0 0% 0.1 0% 18.2 100% Discovery Bay 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.0 100% 0.0 0% 3.0 100% Fanling/Sheung 12.0 22% 32.2 60% 9.3 17% 0.0 0% 53.5 100% Shui Ho Man Tin 5.6 51% 5.4 49% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 11.0 100% Hung Hom 3.3 35% 2.0 22% 3.1 33% 0.9 10% 9.3 100% Jardine's Lookout 0.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.2 100% & Wong Nai Chung Gap Kennedy Town & 4.0 67% 0.2 3% 1.3 21% 0.5 8% 6.0 100% Mount Davis Kowloon Tong 6.4 96% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.3 4% 6.7 100% Kwai Chung 14.9 24% 44.2 72% 1.3 2% 1.2 2% 61.6 100% Kwun Tong 0.0 0% 3.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.2 100% (North) Kwun Tong 8.6 18% 40.3 82% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 48.9 100% (South) Lai Chi Kok 0.9 15% 0.5 8% 4.6 77% 0.0 0% 6.0 100% Lamma Island 1.9 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.9 100% Ma On Shan 2.8 8% 31.3 86% 2.4 7% 0.0 0% 36.5 100% Ma Tau Kok 4.2 76% 0.8 14% 0.4 6% 0.2 3% 5.5 100% Ma Wan 0.8 32% 0.0 0% 1.7 68% 0.0 0% 2.5 100% Mid-levels East 1.4 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.4 100% Mid-levels West 3.6 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.6 100% Mong Kok 6.7 87% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.0 13% 7.7 100% Ngau Chi Wan 0.2 1% 12.3 99% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 12.4 100% Ngau Tau Kok & 3.2 11% 20.2 73% 4.3 16% 0.0 0% 27.7 100% Kowloon Bay North Point 6.6 55% 1.5 12% 3.0 25% 0.8 7% 12.0 100% Peng Chau 1.3 76% 0.4 24% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.7 100% Pok Fu Lam 0.7 5% 6.9 55% 5.0 40% 0.0 0% 12.6 100% Quarry Bay 1.3 8% 1.4 8% 13.4 82% 0.3 2% 16.3 100% Sai Kung Town 2.3 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.3 100% Sai Ying Pun & 4.3 76% 0.0 0% 0.4 8% 0.9 16% 5.7 100% Sheung Wan

81

LCSD Housing Private POSPD Total Authority ha % ha % ha ha % ha % ha Sha Tin 8.1 11% 61.0 80% 5.8 8% 1.2 2% 76.1 100% Shau Kei Wan 2.7 19% 11.5 81% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 14.2 100% Shek Kip Mei 3.5 22% 11.6 72% 1.1 7% 0.0 0% 16.1 100% Shouson Hill & 1.3 73% 0.0 0% 0.5 27% 0.0 0% 1.8 100% Repulse Bay South Lantau 0.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.7 100% Coast South West 1.9 8% 8.5 34% 12.3 50% 2.1 8% 24.8 100% Kowloon Stanley 1.1 50% 1.0 50% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.1 100% Tai O Town Centre 0.2 23% 0.7 77% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.9 100% Tai Po and Pak 7.8 16% 33.3 67% 8.2 17% 0.4 1% 49.7 100% Shek Kok Tai Tam & Shek O 1.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.5 100% The Peak Area 1.9 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.9 100% Tin Shui Wai 2.1 4% 42.2 83% 6.8 13% 0.0 0% 51.1 100% Tseung Kwan O 2.5 4% 40.4 67% 16.9 28% 0.4 1% 60.1 100% Tsim Sha Tsui 3.1 96% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.1 4% 3.3 100% Tsing Yi 6.3 16% 24.8 64% 7.3 19% 0.0 0% 38.5 100% Tsuen Wan 6.8 22% 10.6 35% 11.6 38% 1.2 4% 30.2 100% Tsuen Wan West 3.4 44% 0.0 0% 3.5 45% 0.9 12% 7.7 100% Tsz Wan Shan, 5.9 16% 30.1 82% 0.8 2% 0.0 0% 36.9 100% Diamond Hill & San Po Kong Tuen Mun 17.2 16% 80.2 75% 7.6 7% 1.2 1% 106.2 100% Tung Chung Town 1.3 6% 15.2 68% 4.2 19% 1.8 8% 22.4 100% Centre Area Wan Chai 2.6 84% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.5 16% 3.1 100% Wang Tau Hom & 0.5 2% 24.7 98% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 25.2 100% Tung Tau Wong Nai Chung 1.9 73% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.7 27% 2.6 100% Yau Ma Tei 3.7 83% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.8 17% 4.5 100% Yuen Long 8.0 41% 8.0 41% 3.5 18% 0.0 0% 19.5 100% Total 225.2 21% 668.7 62% 159.5 15% 20.5 2% 1073.8 100%

82

District Open Space LCSD Private POSPD Total ha % ha % ha % ha % Central District and 16.0 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 16.0 100% Central District Extension Wan Chai North 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau 9.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 9.1 100% Causeway Bay 1.3 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.3 100% Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tong, 7.6 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 7.6 100% Lei Yue Mun Chai Wan 7.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 7.7 100% Cheung Chau 5.0 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 5.0 100% Cheung Sha Wan 9.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 9.5 100% Discovery Bay 0.0 0% 9.8 57% 7.5 43% 17.3 100% Fanling/Sheung Shui 17.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 17.7 100% Ho Man Tin 6.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 6.1 100% Hung Hom 3.7 74% 0.0 0% 1.3 26% 5.0 100% Jardine's Lookout & 1.9 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.9 100% Wong Nai Chung Gap Kennedy Town & Mount 1.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.7 100% Davis Kowloon Tong 14.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 14.1 100% Kwai Chung 11.6 92% 0.0 0% 1.0 8% 12.6 100% Kwun Tong (North) 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Kwun Tong (South) 19.6 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 19.6 100% Lai Chi Kok 9.6 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 9.6 100% Lamma Island 1.9 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.9 100% Ma On Shan 14.8 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 14.8 100% Ma Tau Kok 16.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 16.5 100% Ma Wan 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Mid-levels East 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Mid-levels West 2.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.7 100% Mong Kok 1.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.2 100% Ngau Chi Wan 3.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.7 100% Ngau Tau Kok & 26.6 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 26.6 100% Kowloon Bay North Point 14.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 14.1 100% Peng Chau 1.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.5 100% Pok Fu Lam 2.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.7 100% Quarry Bay 8.0 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 8.0 100% Sai Kung Town 2.2 58% 0.0 0% 1.6 42% 3.8 100% Sai Ying Pun & Sheung 5.0 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 5.0 100% Wan Sha Tin 35.1 90% 0.0 0% 4.0 10% 39.1 100% Shau Kei Wan 6.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 6.2 100% Shek Kip Mei 19.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 19.1 100% Shouson Hill & Repulse 11.0 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 11.0 100% Bay South Lantau Coast 11.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 11.7 100% 83

LCSD Private POSPD Total ha % ha % ha % ha % South West Kowloon 13.9 89% 0.0 0% 1.7 11% 15.6 100% Stanley 4.8 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 4.8 100% Tai O Town Centre 2.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.5 100% Tai Po and Pak Shek Kok 43.3 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 43.3 100% Tai Tam & Shek O 9.4 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 9.4 100% The Peak Area 6.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 6.2 100% Tin Shui Wai 17.9 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 17.9 100% Tseung Kwan O 21.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 21.5 100% Tsim Sha Tsui 17.8 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 17.8 100% Tsing Yi 12.3 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 12.3 100% Tsuen Wan 26.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 26.2 100% Tsuen Wan West 4.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 4.2 100% Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond 19.2 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 19.2 100% Hill & San Po Kong Tuen Mun 44.9 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 44.9 100% Tung Chung Town 8.1 57% 0.0 0% 6.1 43% 14.1 100% Centre Area Wan Chai 1.0 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.0 100% Wang Tau Hom & Tung 18.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 18.5 100% Tau Wong Nai Chung 4.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 4.1 100% Yau Ma Tei 5.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 5.1 100% Yuen Long 9.1 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 9.1 100% Total 615.9 95% 9.8 2% 23.2 4% 648.9 100%

84

Bonus Regional Open Space LCSD POSPD Total ha % ha % ha % Central District and Central 3.7 100% 0.0 0% 3.7 100% District Extension Wan Chai North 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Causeway Bay 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tong, Lei 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Yue Mun Chai Wan 3.3 100% 0.0 0% 3.3 100% Cheung Chau 2.7 100% 0.0 0% 2.7 100% Cheung Sha Wan 3.3 100% 0.0 0% 3.3 100% Discovery Bay 0.0 0% 2.5 100% 2.5 100% Fanling/Sheung Shui 5.4 100% 0.0 0% 5.4 100% Ho Man Tin 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Hung Hom 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Jardine's Lookout & Wong Nai 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Chung Gap Kennedy Town & Mount 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Davis Kowloon Tong 6.6 100% 0.0 0% 6.6 100% Kwai Chung 8.2 100% 0.0 0% 8.2 100% Kwun Tong (North) 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Kwun Tong (South) 3.1 100% 0.0 0% 3.1 100% Lai Chi Kok 9.6 100% 0.0 0% 9.6 100% Lamma Island 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Ma On Shan 6.4 100% 0.0 0% 6.4 100% Ma Tau Kok 2.8 100% 0.0 0% 2.8 100% Ma Wan 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Mid-levels East 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Mid-levels West 2.7 100% 0.0 0% 2.7 100% Mong Kok 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Ngau Chi Wan 3.7 100% 0.0 0% 3.7 100% Ngau Tau Kok & Kowloon Bay 3.0 100% 0.0 0% 3.0 100% North Point 9.1 100% 0.0 0% 9.1 100% Peng Chau 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Pok Fu Lam 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Quarry Bay 6.8 100% 0.0 0% 6.8 100% Sai Kung Town 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan 3.6 100% 0.0 0% 3.6 100% Sha Tin 13.0 77% 4.0 23% 17.0 100% Shau Kei Wan 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Shek Kip Mei 4.1 100% 0.0 0% 4.1 100% Shouson Hill & Repulse Bay 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - South Lantau Coast 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - South West Kowloon 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Stanley 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Tai O Town Centre 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Tai Po and Pak Shek Kok 22.1 100% 0.0 0% 22.1 100% 85

LCSD POSPD Total ha % ha ha % ha Tai Tam & Shek O 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - The Peak Area 4.9 100% 0.0 0% 4.9 100% Tin Shui Wai 11.2 100% 0.0 0% 11.2 100% Tseung Kwan O 6.2 100% 0.0 0% 6.2 100% Tsim Sha Tsui 5.6 100% 0.0 0% 5.6 100% Tsing Yi 10.1 100% 0.0 0% 10.1 100% Tsuen Wan 11.6 100% 0.0 0% 11.6 100% Tsuen Wan West 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill 4.7 100% 0.0 0% 4.7 100% & San Po Kong Tuen Mun 17.2 100% 0.0 0% 17.2 100% Tung Chung Town Centre 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Area Wan Chai 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Wang Tau Hom & Tung Tau 11.5 100% 0.0 0% 11.5 100% Wong Nai Chung 4.1 100% 0.0 0% 4.1 100% Yau Ma Tei 3.1 100% 0.0 0% 3.1 100% Yuen Long 3.8 100% 0.0 0% 3.8 100% Total 217.3 97% 6.5 3% 223.8 100%

Notes: LCSD Open Space includes the West Kowloon Cultural District Park which is governed by the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority HA and Private Open Space are estimated based on the methodology described in Appendix 6.

86

Appendix 9:

Additional Maps

A: Estimated Percentage of Countable Open Space (COS) Made up of Housing Authority Open Space

Map Map 87

ap B: Estimated Percentage of COS Made up of Private Open Space M

88

level data from the 2011 Census through -

) level median income figures were derived from TPU - OZP Note: linear interpolation. Income categories on map are by quintiles. Map C: Median Monthly Household Income (2011

89

Deprivation rankings on map are divided by quintiles. Note: Map D: Multiple Deprivation Index Ranking (2011)

90

Map E: Percentage of Population under Age 15 (2011)

91

: Percentage of Population Aged 65 and Over (2011) Map F

92

: Percentage of “O” Zones Undeveloped Map G

93

: Total Open Space per Person (2012) Map H

94

: Potential Open Space per Person (Future Planned Population) I Map

95

Appendix 10: Potential Open Space

OZP Total Open Population Total Potential Planned Potential Per Person Space 2012 2011 OS/Person Open Population OS/Person Increase or (m2) (m2) Space (m2) decrease (m2) (m2) Central District and 241,122 2,594 93.0 332,517 3,290 101.1 8.1 Central District Extension Wan Chai North 24,668 2,223 11.1 93,817 0 0.0 -11.1 Aberdeen & Ap Lei 344,984 159,364 2.2 376,431 159,200 2.4 0.2 Chau Causeway Bay 30,350 31,553 1.0 59,089 43,920 1.3 0.4 Cha Kwo Ling, Yau 298,491 132,565 2.3 394,754 186,800 2.1 -0.1 Tong, Lei Yue Mun Chai Wan 463,720 179,025 2.6 523,055 178,510 2.9 0.3 Cheung Chau 115,263 22,740 5.1 126,415 23,200 5.4 0.4 Cheung Sha Wan 311,218 198,030 1.6 401,194 277,700 1.4 -0.1 Discovery Bay 228,776 12,383 18.5 291,676 25,200 11.6 -6.9 Fanling/Sheung 766,694 252,163 3.0 992,573 290,300 3.4 0.4 Shui Ho Man Tin 170,860 92,335 1.9 254,097 106,840 2.4 0.5 Hung Hom 143,307 113,108 1.3 209,189 155,150 1.3 0.1 Jardine's Lookout 21,447 9,944 2.2 33,800 11,700 2.9 0.7 & Wong Nai Chung Gap Kennedy Town & 76,614 75,347 1.0 97,461 90,600 1.1 0.1 Mount Davis Kowloon Tong 274,557 27,203 10.1 322,079 30,990 10.4 0.3 Kwai Chung 823,834 321,189 2.6 1,643,612 338,400 4.9 2.3 Kwun Tong (North) 31,604 23,670 1.3 306,904 96,000 3.2 1.9 Kwun Tong (South) 716,645 307,852 2.3 873,726 318,700 2.7 0.4 Lai Chi Kok 252,101 45,624 5.5 252,072 49,000 5.1 -0.4 Lamma Island 37,703 6,013 6.3 75,850 8,900 8.5 2.3 Ma On Shan 576,867 202,431 2.8 742,659 248,891 3.0 0.1 Ma Tau Kok 248,293 131,491 1.9 232,709 144,470 1.6 -0.3 Ma Wan 24,763 13,056 1.9 28,931 15,000 1.9 0.0 Mid-levels East 13,708 8,621 1.6 14,700 8,700 1.7 0.1 Mid-levels West 90,927 71,218 1.3 97,710 78,450 1.2 0.0 Mong Kok 88,427 136,679 0.6 101,388 149,200 0.7 0.0 Ngau Chi Wan 197,522 84,465 2.3 204,552 93,750 2.2 -0.2 Ngau Tau Kok & 573,115 158,065 3.6 787,863 188,900 4.2 0.5 Kowloon Bay North Point 351,502 159,418 2.2 417,253 181,300 2.3 0.1

96

OZP Total Open Population Total Potential Planned Potential Per Person Space 2012 2011 OS/Person Open Population OS/Person Increase or (m2) (m2) Space (m2) decrease (m2) (m2) Peng Chau 31,613 5,980 5.3 38,859 6,900 5.6 0.3 Pok Fu Lam 153,310 79,911 1.9 332,699 99,760 3.3 1.4 Quarry Bay 311,019 126,312 2.5 350,861 121,900 2.9 0.4 Sai Kung Town 61,029 11,909 5.1 78,820 19,900 4.0 -1.2 Sai Ying Pun & 142,675 97,539 1.5 149,183 118,400 1.3 -0.2 Sheung Wan Sha Tin 1,322,050 433,803 3.0 3,422,989 518,750 6.6 3.6 Shau Kei Wan 203,570 125,845 1.6 255,538 134,000 1.9 0.3 Shek Kip Mei 393,127 78,889 5.0 511,919 104,000 4.9 -0.1 Shouson Hill & 128,215 16,000 8.0 180,803 16,000 11.3 3.3 Repulse Bay South Lantau Coast 124,060 3,950 31.4 124,060 8,450 14.7 -16.7 South West 403,318 120,884 3.3 781,785 184,200 4.2 0.9 Kowloon Stanley 68,643 15,710 4.4 125,569 17,500 7.2 2.8 Tai O Town Centre 34,390 2,257 15.2 34,692 2,300 15.1 -0.2 Tai Po and Pak 1,150,742 251,281 4.6 1,251,182 292,500 4.3 -0.3 Shek Kok Tai Tam & Shek O 109,019 7,564 14.4 109,008 6,700 16.3 1.9 The Peak Area 130,298 8,743 14.9 132,609 9,300 14.3 -0.6 Tin Shui Wai 801,584 287,901 2.8 920,428 306,400 3.0 0.2 Tseung Kwan O 878,242 371,348 2.4 3,726,035 451,000 8.3 5.9 Tsim Sha Tsui 266,201 35,569 7.5 278,353 91,000 3.1 -4.4 Tsing Yi 608,611 191,739 3.2 842,969 211,950 4.0 0.8 Tsuen Wan 679,477 254,600 2.7 1,582,023 281,100 5.6 3.0 Tsuen Wan West 118,893 33,800 3.5 123,713 34,400 3.6 0.1 Tsz Wan Shan, 608,026 216,863 2.8 647,967 247,470 2.6 -0.2 Diamond Hill & San Po Kong Tuen Mun 1,665,325 454,290 3.7 2,153,807 543,500 4.0 0.3 Tung Chung Town 364,996 78,504 4.6 784,576 120,800 6.5 1.8 Centre Area Wan Chai 41,251 60,689 0.7 44,330 83,540 0.5 -0.1 Wang Tau Hom & 551,224 118,855 4.6 583,122 126,700 4.6 0.0 Tung Tau Wong Nai Chung 108,185 32,895 3.3 111,596 40,000 2.8 -0.5 Yau Ma Tei 126,850 65,316 1.9 206,225 80,600 2.6 0.6 Yuen Long 324,139 147,683 2.2 663,264 185,700 3.6 1.4 Total Open Space includes existing countable local and district open space plus bonus regional open space in 2012.

Potential Open Space includes Total Open Space plus undeveloped “O” zones. Sports grounds which were located in “O” zones were subtracted from the figures for ‘undeveloped “O” zones’ because although they and not normally considered countable, they are also not available for development. Planned Population is the planned population written in the most recent version of each OZP’s notes.

97

Appendix 11: Future Housing Sites Identified by Government on “O” Zoned Land

Location OZP Status (as of COS Per February 2017) person in 2012 1 Junction of Chai Wan Rd, Wing Chai Wan Rezoned from 2.4 Ping St and San Ha Street “O” to R(A) Nov 2016 2 Wah Fu North Pok Fu Lam Not yet rezoned 1.9 3 Wah King Street Pok Fu Lam Not yet rezoned 1.9 4 LCSD Lower Shouson Hill Shouson Hill & Not yet rezoned 8.0 Nursery, San Wan Village, Repulse Bay 5 Opposite Richland Gardens Ngau Tau Kok & Not yet rezoned 3.4 Kowloon Bay 6 Near Wonderland Villas Kwai Chung Not yet rezoned 2.3 7 Junction of Tsing Yi Road and Tsing Yi Rezoned R(A) 2.6 Tsing Hung Road, Tsing Yi Area August 2015 22B 8 Near Estate, Tsuen Wan Not yet rezoned 2.2 Tsuen Wan 9 Junction of Hang Kin Street Ma On Shan Not yet rezoned 2.5 and Hang Ming Street, Area 90B, Ma On Shan 10 Shek Mun “O” site near Shek Sha Tin Rezoned R(A) 2.7 Mun Business Area, Sha Tin January 2017 11 Tuen Mun Kau Hui and Tin Tuen Mun Not yet rezoned 3.3 Hau Road, Tuen Mun 12 Long Bin Interim Housing Tong Yan San Not yet rezoned Excluded from Phase 1, Yuen Long Tsuen analysis - Rural OZP 13 Long Bin Interim Housing Tong Yan San Not yet rezoned Excluded from Phase 2, Yuen Long Tsuen analysis Rural OZP

98

Endnote Greening, v.4 i.3-4, 3 April 2006, pp. 115-123, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ 1. World Health Organization (2010), “Urban pii/S1618866706000173 (accessed 23 October planning, environment and health: From 2015). evidence to policy action – Meeting report”, 13. Ng, E. (2009), “Policies and technical guidelines World Health Organisation Regional Office for for urban planning of high-density cities – air Europe, ventilation assessment (AVA) of Hong Kong, http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_fi Building and Environment, v.44, i.7, July 2009, le/0004/114448/E93987.pdf?ua=1, accessed pp.1478-1488, 12 January 2017. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ 2. Ibid. pii/S0360132308001455 (accessed 23 October 3. Takano, T., Nakamura, K. and Watanabe, M. 2015). (2002), “Urban residential environments and 14. http://ijlct.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2 senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the 013/12/27/ijlct.ctt050 importance of walkable green spaces”, Journal 15. Shen, T., Chow, D. H. C., & Jarkwa, J. (2013), of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol. 56, “Simulating the influence of microclimactic pp. 913-918, design on mitigating the Urban heat island http://jech.bmj.com/content/56/12/913.short, effect in the Hangzhou Metropoitan Area of (accessed 23 October 2015). China”, International Journal of Low Carbon 4. Maas, J. et al., “Morbidity is related to a green Technologies, July 14 2013, living environment,” Journal of Epidemiology https://www.kth.se/social/upload/4ea53de1f2 and Community Health, December 2009, 7654240a000000/Bolund%20and%20Hunham 63(12), pp. 967-73, mar%201999.pdf (accessed 23 October 2013). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19833 16. Yeh, A. G. O. (2011), “High-Density Living In 605/, accessed 12 January 2017. Hong Kong”, LSE Cities, 5. World Health Organization, (2010). https://lsecities.net/media/objects/articles/hig 6. Beyer, K. et al., “Exposure to Neighborhood h-density-living-in-hong-kong/en-gb/, accessed Green Space and Mental Health: Evidence from 12 January 2017. the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin”, 17. Development Bureau (2008), HKSAR International Journal of Environmental Government, “Provision of Public Facilities in Research and Public Health, March 2014, 11(3) Private Developments”, CB(1)319/08-09(03), pp.3453–3472, www.legco.gov.hk/yr08- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P 09/english/panels/dev/papers/dev1208cb1- MC3987044/, accessed 12 January 2017 319-3-e.pdf, accessed 3 January 2017. 7. White, M. et al. (2013), “Would you be happier 18. Tang, B.S. and Wong S.W. (2008), “A living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects longitudinal study of open space zoning and analysis of panel data”, Psychological Science, development in Hong Kong”, Landscape and April 23 2013, Urban Planning, v. 87, pp. 258–268. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/0 19. HKPSG (1981), Chapter 4, Section 2. 4/23/0956797612464659.abstract (accessed 20. HKPSG (1981), Chapter 4, Para. 6.3 23 October 2015). 21. http://www.hk2030plus.hk/document/Green% 8. Maas, J. M., van Dillen, S. M. E., Jrheij, R. A., 20and%20Blue%20Space%20Conceptual%20Fr and Groenewegen, P. P., (2009), “Social amework_Eng.pdf contacts as a possible mechanism behind the 22. HKPSG, 2016, Para. 1.61. relation between green space and health”, 23. Ibid. Health and Place, v. 15 i.2, June 2009, pp. 586- 24. HKPSG, 2016, Para. 1.12.3 595, 25. HKPSG, 2016, Para. 1.61. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ 26. HKPSG, 2016, Para. 1.12.2 pii/S1353829208001172 (accessed 22 October 27. Sources for Figure 1 are as follows: Local and 2015). District open space – Planning Department 9. World Heal (2012), “Provision of Open Space as at 2012”, 10. Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W. C. and Wiley, A. R. provided to author by Planning Department, 8 (1998), “Green common spaces and the social October 2015. See Appendix 3 for integration of inner-city older adults”, details.Regional open space: Author’s Environment and Behavior, v.30 no.6, pp. 832- calculation. See Appendix 5 for details. Country 858, parks: GovHK (2016), “Hong Kong: The Facts – http://eab.sagepub.com/content/30/6/832 Country Parks and Conservation”, May 2016, (accessed 23 October 2015). http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factshe 11. Beyer, K. et al. ets/docs/country_parks.pdf, accessed 5 12. Novak, D., Crane, D. and Stevens, J. (2006), “Air January 2017. Green Belts and Agricultural: pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in Leung, J.C.F., Director of Planning (2012), the United States”, Urban Forestry and

99

“Examination of Estimates of Expenditure public housing makes up a much smaller 2012-13: Controlling Officer’s reply to Initial proportion of the housing stock in these cities Written Question”, Reply Serial No. than it is in Hong Kong. If HA open space is DEVB(PL)19, 27 February 2012, excluded from Hong Kong’s urban park space http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11- figure, there would only be 1.9 m2 per person. 12/english/fc/fc/w_q/devb-pl-e.pdf, accessed 37. Rajadhyaksha, M. (2012), “You have just 1.1 13 January 2017.Conservation Areas: Tang, Bo square metres of open space”, Times of India, Sin (2012), “Land Use Zoning and Land Supply http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumb in Hong Kong”, presented at the Bauhinia ai/You-have-just-1-1-square-metres-of-open- Seminar on Rethinking Land Supply Strategy, space/articleshow/13585198.cms. Also see 15 March 2012, Pintol, R. (2015), “2sqm open space per person http://www.bauhinia.org/assets/pdf/events/2 in Mumbai? Number jugglery, sneer activists”, 0120315/3rd_Presentation_Prof%20Tang%20B Times of India, o-sin.pdf, accessed 13 January 2017. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumb 28. Pong, Y.Y., interview with author, 10 January ai/2sqm-open-space-per-person-in-Mumbai- 2017. Number-jugglery-sneer- 29. HKPSG, 2016, Para. 1.12.2. activists/articleshow/46291639.cms. Includes 30. The policy of requiring POSPD has been largely “gardens, parks, recreation grounds and discontinued due to controversies over the playgrounds”. management of POSPDs. Commercial landlords 38. Tokyo Bureau of Construction (2013), “Parks in were found to have been using POSPD for Tokyo”, private commercial purposes, while http://www.kensetsu.metro.tokyo.jp/english/ji homeowners in residential developments gyo/park/01.html. Definition includes “Urban objected to the financial burdens and privacy parks” specified by the Urban Parks Act and risks of having to provide public access. In “Parks Other than Urban Parks” which are 2008, the Development Bureau decided it “deemed equivalent to urban parks”. Excludes would no longer ask developers to provide “Natural Parks”, which are more akin to Hong POSPD in private developments, especially Kong’s country parks. residential developments unless there is a 39. Ahn, Tong Mahn & Kim, Nam Choon (2013), shortfall in open space in the area or “Adding and Connecting More Pieces of Urban exceptional justifying circumstances, such as Wildlife Habitats”, presented at URBIO 2013 waterfront promenade developments or Urban Workshop, Erfurt, Germany. Defined as “Urban Renewal Authority projects. Development Park Area”. Categories include mini-parks, Bureau (2008), HKSAR Government, “Provision children’s parks, neighbourhood parks, historic of Public Facilities in Private Developments”, parks, waterfront parks, cemeteries, sports CB(1)319/08-09(03), www.legco.gov.hk/yr08- complexes and “others”. Excludes suburban 09/english/panels/dev/papers/dev1208cb1- mountainous and forested parks. 319-3-e.pdf, accessed 3 January 2017. http://urbionetwork.org/data/documents/201 31. HKSPG (2017), Section 2.7.2 3-07-22_3- 32. Kwan, H. (2015), on behalf of the Planning 3_Kim_more_pieces_urban_wildlife_habitats.p Department of the HKSAR Government, df, accessed 10 January 2017. personal communication to author, 13 July 40. Singapore Ministry of the Environment and 2015. Water Resources (2015), “Our Home, Our 33. Lands Department (2016), “Provision of Environment, Our Future: Sustainable Facilities and/or Open Space required under Singapore Blueprint 2015”, lease for the use by the public in private http://www.mewr.gov.sg/ssb/files/ssb2015.pd developments completed in or after 1980 (as f, accessed 12 January 2017. Includes” Park at June 2016)”, space open to recreational activity”. Excludes http://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/legco/gic.htm, nature reserves. accessed 17 January 2017. 41. Shanghai Statistical Yearbook 2015, “Public 34. Nam, J. and Kim, H. (2016), “Studies on Usage Green Space” figure from Table 11.16, “Urban Patterns and Use Range of Neighbourhood Green Space in Main Years”. , Parks: Focused on ‘Regional Area Parks’ in http://www.stats- Seoul, Korea”, Journal of Asian Architecture sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nje16.htm?d1=2016tjnje/E1116. and Building Engineering, vol. 15 no. 3, htm, accessed 12 January 2017. Includes September 2016, pp. 495-501. “public green space”. 35. Singapore Ministry of the Environment and 42. Pong, Y.Y., (2017), interview with author, 10 Water Resources (2015) January 2017 36. It is unclear whether other cities define open 43. Anonymous,〈長策會倡公屋覓地 「插針」 spaces within public housing estates as “park 起樓目標單幢 40 層高 加快單身上樓〉, space”, but with the exception of Singapore, Hong Kong Economic Times, 23 July 2013,

100

http://ps.hket.com/content/26144, accessed 52. Hong Kong Polytechnic University (2015), 24 January 2017. “Green Deck – An Innovative Solution to 44. Transport and Housing Bureau (2011), Enhance the Environment”, “Legislative Council Panel on Housing – https://www.polyu.edu.hk/cpa/greendeck/, Housing-related Initiatives in the 2011-12 accessed 25 January 2017. Policy Agenda”, CB(1) 40/11-12(01), 53. World Health Organization (2010), “Urban http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11- planning, environment and health: From 12/english/panels/hg/papers/hg1018cb1-40-1- evidence to policy action - Meeting e.pdf, accessed 24 January 2017. report”, http://www.euro.who.int/__data/ass 45. HKPSG, Chapter 4, Section 1.8.4 ets/pdf_file/0004/114448/E93987.pdf?ua=1 http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/ 54. Census and Statistics Department (2015), hkpsg/full/ch4/ch4_text.htm “Monthly Digest of Statistics Feature Article - 46. Building (Planning) Regulations, L.N. 110 of The Fertility Trend in Hong Kong, 1981 to 2005, “Schedule 1 – Percentage Site Coverages 2014”, and Plot Ratios”, http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B71512FB20 http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/cur 15XXXXB0100.pdf, accessed 31 January 2017. allengdoc/425AAFD4AFAE2256482579C900301 55. DeGolyer, M. E. (2016), Asian Urban-Wellbeing 80D?OpenDocument Indicators Hong Kong Report (2016 First 47. Buildings Department (2016), “Practice Note Report), October 2016, Hong Kong: Civic for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Exchange. Engineers and Registered Geotechnical 56. Tang, B.S. and and Wong S.W. (2008). Engineers – Sustainable Building Design 57. Undeveloped “O” zones were defined as land Guidelines”, APP-152, January 2016, zoned for open space which was not available http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/pna for recreational use in 2012. Sports grounds p/APP/APP152.pdf were considered available for recreational use 48. If it is a mixed-used development, the public even though they are not included in COS open space may be a POSPD – developers are figures due to being ordinarily inaccessible to generally willing to include them in commercial the public because it would be misleading to developments because they attract customers. consider them as undeveloped “O” zoned land. If it is a residential development, the parties 58. The notes of each OZP list both the current and will try to place the public open space on an planned population of the OZP area. alienable portion of the site so that it can be 59. Legislative Council Secretariat, Council Business handed over the LCSD after completion. (This is Division 1, (2015), “Information note prepared not always possible. For example, if the open by the Legislative Council Secretariat on the space is located over an underground car park, practices of the Finance Committee in management problems may arise due to water examining Government's Estimates of seepage, tree roots, etc.) Homeowners are Expenditure and approving public reluctant to shoulder the burden of expenditure”, LC Paper No. FC123/14-15(01), maintaining an open space for public use, but a 12 March 2015, neighbouring park maintained by the http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr14- government enhances property values. 15/english/fc/fc/papers/fc20150316fc-123-1- 49. Development Bureau (2011), Public Open e.pdf, accessed 2 February 2017. Space in Private Developments Design and 60. Financial Services and Treasury Bureau (2017), Management Guidelines, 14 January 2011, “Capital Works Reserve Fund – Memorandum http://www.devb.gov.hk/FILEMANAGER/EN/C Note”, ONTENT_582/GUIDELINES_ENGLISH.PDF, http://www.budget.gov.hk/2016/eng/pdf/cwrf accessed 25 January 2017. -mem.pdf, accessed 2 February 2017. 50. Pang, L.H.C., “Resumption & Valuation in Hong 61. Google Street View Image, June 2011, Kong”, presented 13 August 2011, GPD APC https://www.google.com.hk/maps/@22.44904 Revision Workshop on (1) Land Resumption 26,114.0283669,3a,90y,60.66h,96.51t/data=!3 and (2) Agency Practice, Hong Kong Institute of m6!1e1!3m4!1sa4fg0Li8W6lKMRDjIRZchQ!2e0 Surveyors, !7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en, accessed 1 http://www.hkis.org.hk/hkis/general/events/c February 2017. pd-2011086.pdf, accessed 25 January 2017. 62. Google Street View Image, February 2011, 51. Planning Department (2016), “Hong Kong https://www.google.com.hk/maps/@22.30809 2030+ Green and Blue Space Conceptual 69,114.1792306,3a,75y,101.89h,81.26t/data=! Framework”, October 2016, 3m6!1e1!3m4!1s64ce_sY- http://www.hk2030plus.hk/document/Green% hhCZN22JwO32Pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1 20and%20Blue%20Space%20Conceptual%20Fr e1?hl=en, accessed 1 February 2017. amework_Eng.pdf, accessed 25 January 2017. 63. Highways Department (2016), “Universal Accessibility Programme”,

101

http://www.hyd.gov.hk/barrierfree/eng/, Perspectives, October 2008, DOI: accessed 3 February 2017. 10.1289/ehp.10850 64. Development Bureau, (2015), “Annex D: 76. HKSAR Government (2011), Hong Kong Poverty Potential Housing Sites Requiring Plan Situation Report, 2015, Amendments As At February 13, 2015” in http://www.povertyrelief.gov.hk/pdf/poverty_ “Increasing Land Supply”, LegCo Paper No. report_2015_e.pdf, 19 January 2017 CB(1)407/14-15(01), January 2015, updated 77. Wilson, C. M. and Oswald, A. J. (2006), “How February 13 2015, Does Marriage Affect Physical and http://gia.info.gov.hk/general/201502/25/P20 Psychological Health? A Survey of the 1502250451_0451_142634.pdf, accessed 3 Longitudinal Evidence”, IZA Discussion Paper February 2017. No. 1619, 65. Planning Department (2016). See note 51. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abst 66. HKPSG, 2002, Para. 1.10 ract_id=735205, accessed January 19, 2017. 67. Planning Department (2015), HKSAR 78. Census and Statistics Department, (2015), Government, “Land Utilization in Hong Kong “Marriage and Divorce Trends in Hong Kong, 2015”, 1991-2013”, January http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/ 2015http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B71501 statistic/landu.html, accessed 3 January 2017. FA2015XXXXB0100.pdf, accessed 19 January 68. Census and Statistics Department (2017), 2017 HKSAR Government, “Population – Overview”, 79. Ben-Zur, H. “Loneliness, Optimism, and Well- http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/so20.j Being Among Married, Divorced, and Widowed sp, accessed 3 January 2017. Individuals”, Journal of Psychology, Volume 69. Census and Statistics Department (2016), 146, 2012, HKSAR Government, “Major recreation and http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.548 amenity facilities by type of facility”, p. 440, 414, accessed 19 January 2017. Also see Hong Kong Annual Digest of Statistics – 2016 Bennett, K. M. (2005), “Psychological wellbeing Edition, in later life: the longitudinal effects of http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp140 marriage, widowhood and marital status .jsp?productCode=B1010003, accessed 3 change”, International Journal Of Geriatric January 2017. Psychiatry, i.20, pp. 280-284, 70. Lands Department (2016), “Provision of https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kate_Be Facilities and/or Open Space required under nnett2/publication/8016536_Psychological_we lease for the use by the public in private llbeing_in_later_life_The_longitudinal_effects_ developments completed in or after 1980 (as of_marriage_widowhood_and_marital_status_ at June 2016)”, change/links/0deec5277f520b3468000000.pdf, http://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/legco/pfpd.htm, accessed 19 January 2017. accessed 18 January 2016. 71. Development Bureau (2008), HKSAR Government, “Provision of Public Facilities in Private Developments”, CB(1)319/08-09(03), www.legco.gov.hk/yr08- 09/english/panels/dev/papers/dev1208cb1- 319-3-e.pdf, accessed 3 January 2017. 72. Lands Department (2016), “Provision of Facilities and/or Open Space required under lease for the use by the public in private developments completed in or after 1980 (as at June 2016)”, http://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/legco/gic.htm, accessed 17 January 2017. 73. Census and Statistics Department (2011), “2011 Population Census District Profiles – Major Housing Estates”, http://www.census2011.gov.hk/en/major- housing-estates.html 74. Centamap.com, 2011 Census population figures at the street block level, http://hk.centamap.com/gc/home.aspx 75. Wong, C.M. et al., “The Effects of Air Pollution on Mortality in Socially Deprived Urban Areas in Hong Kong, China”, Environmental Health

102 © Civic Exchange, February 2017 The views expressed in this report are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Civic Exchange.

23/F, Chun Wo Commercial Centre, 23-29 Wing Wo Street, Central, Hong Kong. T (852) 2893 0213 F (852) 3105 9713 www.civic-exchange.org