|
The value of the heritage resources capital stock is less tangible than that of the natural, ecological and assimilative capacity capital stock in terms of providing valuable resources and environmental functions. It is more difficult to argue, for example, that the loss or erosion of the resource directly threatens life or ecosystem support functions or the stock of usable natural materials.
However, heritage resources have integral value by providing a means of interpreting social, cultural and economic changes and human understanding in the past. The scientific and anthropological interpretation of such resources can yield important information about historical events and lifestyles and palaeontological evidence from such sites also provides important information on changes in the natural environment. Importantly, heritage resources are closely linked to other elements of capital stock, for example by contributing to landscape, landform and aesthetic values in urban and rural locations, by providing important educational and recreational functions, and indirectly helping to preserve important habitats (for example fung shui woods whose cultural and traditional significance may have contributed to their preservation). Heritage resources also have significant economic potential for example as visitor attractions.
Since the extent of the heritage resource in Hong Kong is presently undefined, it is not possible to quantify the significance of the current environmental baseline. The definition of the quality of the stock is complicated by the fact that whilst the absolute number of designated sites may increase (for example as new artefacts are uncovered or previously ungraded buildings become candidates for designation), the overall value of the resource does not necessarily follow suit. This could be the case for example if a number of 'new' sites are designated but one or two particularly important sites are unavoidably sterilised by development.
Although the Home Affairs Bureau has started a number of initiatives since 1998 to publicise Hong Kong's heritage, there appears to be a generally low appreciation of the value of the heritage resource, and in turn poor recognition of the need for heritage protection. Whilst greater efforts have been made recently to survey the cultural heritage resource and document the extent of the known baseline, effective protection of the natural capital stock is not being afforded through current policy or legislation. In particular, urban regeneration and development schemes have not been sensitive to the cultural and aesthetic benefits that could be afforded through restoration and preservation of historic buildings and other monuments. The current stock of historical buildings is a shrinking resource in urban areas and proposals for future renewal in long established areas such as Wan Chai and many parts of Kowloon should take account of the few remaining historical features. Similarly, development pressures in rural and country areas pose a significant threat to the integrity of archaeological resources and their aesthetic value, whilst reclamation projects continue to sterilise areas which have high potential archaeological value.
Whilst the capital costs of preservation and adaptation of older buildings may be greater than new development the additional investment may be returned over time through users' preferences for culturally interesting or significant buildings. The designation of heritage trails in both urban and rural locations is a recent initiative which can help to enhance the value of the capital stock in Hong Kong through promoting its cultural importance and raising awareness about cultural heritage resources.
The Home Affairs Bureau is currently reviewing the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance to assess its effectiveness in preserving, protecting and promoting cultural heritage. Trends in the heritage resources capital stock, and the limited protection available for the majority of Hong Kong's heritage resources, suggest that strengthening of the system of protection may be appropriate, together with mechanisms to fund excavations and surveys in cases where preservation of heritage features is not practicable.
|
