Abstract
Public–private partnerships formed to carry out urban renewal activities are often criticized as property-led initiatives with little respect for the community and individuals concerned. Partnerships need participation from the partners, but in the course of participation, power politics emerge and evolve, leading to potential problems for the partnership governance structure. A more interesting issue is whether individual property owners at the renewal site can actually participate in this partnership and contribute to the renewal outcome. This paper shows that despite the call for more public/community involvement, most property owners are risk-averse. That is, when the monetary compensation meets their expectations, there is little incentive for them to participate, especially when the scheme is geared towards the investment profit of the scheme. The paper finds, based on a case study in Hong Kong, that individual owners tend to choose not to participate, with a view to maximizing their benefits. On the other hand, the request for further participation by owners never ceases. This leads to a demand for different forms of participation, such as the flat-for-flat model; the results are yet to be seen.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call