University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Social Sciences - Research Master in Urban Studies.
Understanding How to Propel the Decision-Making Processes Surrounding Transit-Oriented Development
Abstract: Transit-oriented development (TOD) is the idea of promoting the development of high density mixed used buildings around a transit station. The aim is to promote greater usage of public transit, while making the community a more livable one.
Implementation of TOD is complex and challenging as a multitude of stakeholders with a variety of visions need to come to an agreement and many factors need to be taken into account. To make matters more complex, there is no set formula in implementing TOD because it is context dependent. Existing literature covers the effects of TOD and the conditions that help lead to TOD, but rarely touches upon the dynamics involved between stakeholders in a TOD debate. This research looks into the debate process between the stakeholders and how they reconcile their differences based of their background, desires, concerns, and constituency in order to move forward in implementing TOD. The research focuses on the concepts of trust, control, and public engagement amongst the various stakeholders to achieve TOD implementation.
Academic Master’s Thesis
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Luca Bertolini – 2nd Reader: Dr. Eric Chu
Author: Timothy Migliore / Student number: 11148381 / timothy.migliore@student.uva.nl Date: June 19, 2016
Table of Contents
Introduction: 1.0 ... 3
Literature Review: 2.0 ... 6
Main Research Question: 3.0 ... 12
Methdology: 4.0 ... 13
A Tale of Two Cities: 5.0 ... 19
Findings: 6.0 ... 30
Introduction: 1.0
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a mixed-use high-density development around a public transit station, typically rail. This mixed development consists of office space, retail, leisure, and housing (Bertolini, 2012). One of the main benefits claimed from TOD is a reduction in car traffic and greenhouse gases (GHG)(Thomas and Bertolini, 2015). Because of its nature of being a compact urban development, there is an increase percentage in the number of trips commuters take by transit. This is due to the fact that alternative modes of mobility to the car become faster and more convenient. This decreases car traffic and their GHG emissions. In addition, TOD can create improvements in the existing environment through the enactment of infrastructure that fosters better cycling and walking experiences (Thomas and Bertolini, 2015), further decreasing GHG and car traffic and allowing human interactions in a public domain (Bertolini, 2012).
Investment in TOD is an expensive endeavor that requires a tremendous amount of resources, focus, and time, and affects many people. Thus, its implementation is an arduous process where many factors need to align for the execution to occur. The implementation of TOD has been extensively covered in the literature from many angles, and critical success factors (CSF) have been identified (described later on). The CSFs elucidate the factors that are needed to implement TOD; however, they do not explicitly describe the dynamics of the debate that ensues amongst stakeholders to reach these factors.
One factor that complicates the debate process is "wicked problems." This implies that there is no clear-cut measure in addressing on how to implement TOD. Instead, addressing this challenge is based on one’s idea for solving it (Webber & Rittel, 1973). Thus, each potential TOD is context dependent, where different stakeholders have diverse views on how to properly implement a TOD. These competing views make reaching a consensus in TOD implementation difficult.
The current literature provides scarce information in explaining the features that lead to TOD implementation from the perspective of the stakeholders in the debate. Literature pertaining to other multi-organizational policy arenas has provided greater information on how consensus making transpires. These readings revealed explanations on what propels the decision-making process. The concepts of trust, control, and engagement with the public were highlighted frequently as major factors in affecting multi-faceted decision-making. The mixture of these
interrelated concepts, according to the readings, are the leading factors that propel the decision- making process.
The decision-making process is complex, with conflicting viewpoints and objectives from various stakeholders; therefore, control can play an significant role in the process as it is a means to “reduce ostensible complexity by limiting the number of possibilities to be taken into account” (Edelenbos, 2012, 648). In many cases, development occurs in a sphere outside a jurisdiction of such stakeholder, thus trust plays a role when the stakeholder supports such a development. The expectation is that the stakeholder will reap the benefits later from that development (Switzer et al., 2013). Engagement with the public is crucial, as lack or ineffective engagement can hamper TOD implementation (Machell et al., 2009). These three concepts were selected as they appear to have the greatest influence on the decision-making process when compared to other factors. Their amalgamation and interconnectedness help propel the decision-making process. In addition, for the sake of feasibility, only three concepts were chosen, as each of these concepts in and of themselves are complex. This research will explore what extent the three play in the decision-making process behind TOD and whether they play a role in this context as in other multi-organizational policy arenas.
These three concepts will be used as angles in potentially explaining how stakeholders reach an agreement to implement TOD.
This research is divided in the following sections:
1. A literature review of knowledge on the implementation of TOD, including CSF and barriers and how to overcome them (Thomas and Bertolini, 2014). A brief explanation of the knowledge gap that is followed by a description of the three concepts that will be used as angles to answer the main research question.
2. A methodology section in which justification will be provided for case comparison between two cities, why these cities were chosen, and how, for each city, two TOD cases where chosen.
3. A description of the two case cities and how they deal with TOD implementation. For each city, two TOD cases will be introduced with general information on how they were implemented and their function.
5. The results of the research being presented with each concept being covered individually and the interplay between the concepts.
6. A conclusions section, which will answer the research question, elucidate the limitations of the methodology, and suggest additional research possibilities that would expand upon this one.
Literature Review: 2.0
Previous research has been conducted on some of the conditions that lead to TOD implementation. These are known as critical success factors (CSF). They include: public acceptance, public participation, key visionaries, vision stability, willingness to experiment, political stability, political consistency, support from all levels of government, respectable relationships between actors, a regional transit authority, no inter-municipal competition, site specific planning tools, certainty for developers, TOD planning on a regional level, and multi-disciplinary implementation teams (Thomas and Bertolini, 2014).
In addition there are several barriers to TOD implementation. These include:
neighborhood protests, lack of financial mechanisms in place to finance TOD, and lack of market demand (Thomas and Bertolini, 2014). Additionally, there are institutional barriers, which are split into formal and informal barriers. Formal institutional barriers include legal, financial, and practical impediments, such as documentation, policy, and regulatory guidelines. Governance is also a major formal institutional barrier, where a multitude of stakeholders with various
perspectives struggle to identify their role in the process (Tan et al., 2014). At the same time, when no stakeholder wants to take a leadership role, this causes a lack of clarity about the stakeholder’s responsibility. Informal institutional barriers include political and cultural attitudes and a lack of commitment and ambition (Thomas and Bertolini, 2014).
Additionally, incentives play a role in the implementation of successful TOD. These incentives tend to be legal, socio-cultural, and financial measures that are entrenched within institutions, organizations, a set of actors, and/or networks. They can be categorized as formal or informal. Formal incentives include financial compensation, legal instruments, and organization restructuring (Tan et al., 2014). Informal incentives consist of inspiring stakeholders to overcome certain barriers in exchange for social and/or moral rewards (Tan et al., 2014). Without these incentives, stakeholders may lack the motivation to cooperate on a regional level (Duffhues et al., 2014).
As previously mentioned, CSF, barriers and incentives are the conditions that lead to implementation of TOD, but do not answer how stakeholders reconcile their differences and the actions they take to create these conditions. The makeup of the stakeholders is diverse and can vary depending on the context of the TOD; however, there is a basic consensus on who some of these stakeholders are: local and state governments, the public, transit agency, developers,
landowners, construction companies, and advocacy coalitions (what the advocacy groups consist of depends on the circumstances and location of the proposed TOD)(Pojani et al., 2014). Each stakeholder has goals and interests, whether it is for the transit authority to increase ridership, the government to increase economic activity in the city, or a private developer to make money, etc. How these diverse stakeholders align (or not) their differences in the course of the TOD
decision-making process is not well understood and is the focus of this research. While the literature fails to address this gap knowledge in TOD, there is greater knowledge on how stakeholders align their differences in other multi-organizational policy arenas. Based on a literature review of this, three concepts were chosen for this research to help close this knowledge gap: trust, control, and public engagement.
The literature review was conducted through two methods. With the first method, a search was conducted in the University of Amsterdam library catalogue1 with the key words, “multi-organization policy,” “multiple stakeholder decision-making,” “decision-making,” “decision-making planning,” and “planning multiple stakeholders.” These keywords were derived through initial readings conducted on TOD that mentioned these phrases several times. The titles and abstracts of other readings were utilized to determine whether to pursue the reading further. Through this method, three reoccurring concepts, trust, control, and public engagement were identified as angles to explain the decision-making process (reasons to be discussed in the next paragraph) as they were the most referred to in the readings. These concepts were incorporated into further searches. Thus, for example, instead of searching for “decision-making” it became “control decision-making,” “trust decision-making,” and “public engagement decision-making,” with the same tactic applied for the other original key searchers. As in the first method, readings were selected that included titles and abstracts that referenced the decision-making process and one of the three concepts or the combination of them. The literature review ended when redundancy and overlap of information started to occur in lieu of new, significant, relevant information.
The three concepts are elaborated upon and defined in the following manner:
There is no universal definition of trust because its definitions are context dependent, and can overlap and contradict each other (Berardo, 2009). This research uses the definition of trust that covers its dynamics in multi-stakeholder setting, thus it is
“The attitude held by an actor toward a group of others that emerges as a consequence of the repeated interaction between them and that is represented by actor’s expectation that the members of the group will fulfill their obligations” (Berardo, 2009, 179). Trust is peculiar, as it could break impasses that otherwise could not be broken because parties are willing to conform regardless if all their demands are met (Switzer et al. 2013). In addition, trust helps propel greater cooperation for better and more innovative solutions in
creating TOD, making agreement easier. Trust, especially goodwill trust, emerges prominently in many arenas as a means of lowering transaction costs between stakeholders (Das, T. K., & Teng, B. 2001), helping lead to agreements.
Trust is a “way of coordinating actions of independent actors within a policy network structure” (Switzer et al., 2013). Trust is significant as it improves information flow and diminishes uncertainty between stakeholders, as members expect others to fulfill their obligations (Berardo, 2009). This causes stakeholders to become vulnerable to others whose behavior may not be under their control. Over time, a strong trust can facilitate decision-making, even if the stakeholders do not have complete knowledge of somebody else’s action because they believe the other stakeholder is acting in good faith (Edelenbos and Eshuis, 2012). Trust in planning is generally increased through the display of good intentions, which reduces the perception of opportunism (Edelenbos and Eshuis, 2012).
Trust develops faster amongst a dense network of stakeholders. A network is considered dense when there is an intricate linkage of people who share many common contacts (Berardo, 2009). Stakeholders who have established dense networks have developed structures that encourage cooperation and expedite information flow. In a dense network, the actions of all members are highly visible which leads to mutual control and monitoring. Consequently, it becomes easier to “develop positive norms of punishing defections beyond the simple
withdrawal of future exchanges” (Berardo, 2009, 180), thereby reducing opportunistic behavior. This allows the growth of a base for credible commitments as reputations of stakeholders develop. This creates a stronger trust, which decreases the perception of opportunistic behavior of the other stakeholders; hence stakeholders are willing to make compromises, accelerating the decision-making process. (Berardo, 2009).
With the exception of Switzer et al., 2013, most literature points to trust in a planning context; however, it does not zero in on a TOD decision-making process. When there is trust
between stakeholders “better and more innovative solutions can be delivered.” It allows them to be “vulnerable to other parties more quickly…which can make it easier to reach agreements than when actors remain defensive” (Switzer et al., 2013, 1156). Switzer et al., is a good starting point in understanding the role of trust in TOD; however, it is one of the few pieces in the literature that is devoted entirely to the topic of trust in a TOD context. Instead of relying on one reading, it is imperative to further research trust and its role in TOD in order to gain a richer
understanding of the concept.
Like trust, control has a diverse range of definitions. For the context of this research, control is defined as “as a process of regulation and monitoring for the achievement of organizational goals” (Das et al., 2001, 258). Control often fits in with trust; whether it is a mutual exclusive relationships or a positive reinforcing relationship (described in detail later). The aim of control is to reduce the number of possible trajectories through the creation of standards, control protocols, indicators, etc. (Edelenbos and Eshuis, 2012). This research explores informal and formal control and sees to what extent it plays in the decision-making process and how it fits in with trust.
Control plays an important role in the decision-making process as it reduces the number of possible trajectories the debate behind TOD can go. Control is categorized into informal and formal control. Informal control amongst various actors includes frequent meetings,
communications, and socialization. Formal control tends to depend on formal rules and norms. These include “predefined indicators and planned procedures for control and can be carried out through institutionalized monitoring schemes” (Edelenbos and Eshuis, 2012, 653).
Control is mentioned as going hand in hand with trust and helping to facilitate
coordination amongst stakeholders (Das and Teng, 2001). Control can either complement or be at odds with trust. Trust and control can be mutually exclusive relationships and mutually positive reinforcing relationships. In a mutually exclusive relationship, emphasis on control mechanisms could decrease trust, since actors see control as a lack of faith in the ability to execute an action (Edelenbos & Eshuis, 2012). On the contrary, in a mutually positive
reinforcing relationship, a certain number of social and informal forms of control can increase trust between actors in the interaction process. For example, people who trust others may
facilitate control by providing timely and accurate information on a project (Edelenbos & Eshuis, 2012).
Like the previous concepts, engagement with the public has a variation of definitions; however, in the context of this research, it is defined as an “ongoing process of education, relationship-building and gaining trust, identifying allies in the community, addressing opposition, and building support” (Machell et al., 2009, 1). Engagement with the public has helped foster a feeling of "we are all in this together”, inciting stakeholders to come up with an agreement in an efficient manner (Innes, 1996). This is an important concept as it describes how various stakeholders share their beliefs and garner support from the public. Each stakeholder has a different strategy of engagement. Some hold workshops to highlight priorities; others hold public hearings on TOD, while still others set up ways to formally and informally educate the public on their view of TOD.
Engagement with the public tends to play an important role in stakeholder agreement (Erin et al. 2009). One of CSFs mentioned before has been public acceptance of TOD. Without acceptance, “unexpected reactions from within the current institutional setting” (Tan, 2013, 142) can occur where negative public opinion can turn into demonstrations against the project.
Conferences, specialized press teams, and promotions are some of the mechanisms governments, developers, and other stakeholders have utilized in order to inform the public about the
framework behind TOD and its goals. Transparency, engagement, and inviting the public to participate in the decision-making process are the ways some stakeholders build partnerships to help spur interest and support for TOD.
Engagement raises the public awareness of a project through dialogue. Participants can listen and contribute their own ideas, which, in turn, can create shared meanings (if several participants share similar ideas)(Cohen et al., 2015), promoting a sense of community involvement. Providing local images of the vision gives a tangible example to participants to imagine the effects of the project years later, further invigorating participation (Hooton et al., 2011) and increasing support for a project. Thus, this process, executed through, for example, public exhibitions, surveys, design idea events, and public consultation workshops, is a radical departure from the DAD syndrome. DAD is the acronym for Decide, Announce, and Defend, a decision-making process without stakeholder input. Active public engagement helps the public understand their impact on policy, which, in turn, creates, trust (Ennio et al., 2013) and
Ennio et al., 2013, identified five levels of engagement. These are identifying the stakeholders (mostly the public who would be most impacted by the project), listening to their current social, economic, and cultural climate, feeding them information about the project, consultation, and finally participation. Several players have a major role in this engagement process (Cohen et al., 2015). Strategic agents, elected officials and investors, supervise the process. Operating agents, city staff and project partners, carry out the process, while
participating stakeholders, mostly residents, give input through this structured process. Through these means, people’s knowledge of the project improves, creating an accepting attitude and thus helping stakeholders reach a consensus as the public starts to back the project and put pressure to move the project forward (Cohen et al., 2015).
Public engagement is intertwined with trust and control. In public engagement, the public tends to respond negatively to manipulation or deceptiveness from other stakeholders, a form of control. In contrast, the public responds positively when there is a transparent engagement process, where the community is not ignored, creating credibility and increasing trust in the process (Edelnbos & Eshuis, 2012). While these three concepts can stand alone in this research, they can be grouped together because trust and control can be intertwined with public
engagement.
Because of the significant role the three concepts play in other multi-organizational policy arenas, this research will use these three concepts as angles in shining a light on some of the underlying dynamics of stakeholder debate in the context of TOD. Chart 1 shows the conceptual scheme of the three concepts and their connection to the decision-making process. This fills in a knowledge gap about the dynamics behind the decision-making process for TOD. However, it also brings an innovative take on decision-making in other urban planning fields. While the three concepts have been studied independently and in the pairs, the interplay among the three concepts has not been well documented. Thus, this research also addresses the three-way relationships between these three concepts.
Chart 1
Main Research Question: 3.0
1. What role do trust, control, and engagement with the public play in bringing a diverse group of stakeholders to an agreement on implementing transit-oriented development?
Sub-questions: 3.1
1. What role does trust play in the decision-making process? 2. What role does control play in the decision-making process?
3. What role does public engagement with the public play in the decision-making process?
4. How do trust, control and engagement interplay in the decision-making process? The “decision-making process” definition is borrowed from what Korhonen (1992) describes as making a choice from several alternatives, countable or not, using a set of criteria. This criterion is based on the individuals’ (or stakeholder's) preference.
Methodology: 4.0
Justification for Cases: 4.1
To answer the research questions, research was conducted in two cities. The decision to study the concepts starting with only two cities is due to the feasibility of time and the limited capacity the researcher had to undertake more than two cities. However, a comparison between two cities can still provide substantive results. This approach permits analytic generalization, where the empirical results of the two different cities will be compared to previously developed theory (Yin, 2009). “If two or more cases are shown to support the same theory, replication may be claimed”, making the theory more robust (Ying, 2009, 38). This technique allows the “capture of the full range of variation along the dimension(s) of interest” (Gerring, 2002, 98). This case approach is beneficial as it is more representative when compared to others (Gerring, 2002). If the three concepts prove to play a major role in TOD implementation in two diverse cities, then it is conceivable that to an extent these concepts are prevalent in other cities. Consistencies in the roles the concepts play across the two cases provide more robust answers to the broad
overarching question, rather than having only one case, where trends could be an anomaly. A criterion of characteristics was established when choosing the two cities. The
categories of criterion are feasibility, element of surprise, and certain differences and similarities between multiples aspects of the two cities. As Hong Kong and Amsterdam fulfilled the criteria, they were chosen to be the case studies for this research. Other cities fit these criteria; however, they were not chosen for this study because of feasibility. Other cities can be further explored, as long as they fit the criteria, after Amsterdam and Hong Kong.
Cities can be chosen with comparable populations sizes, density, and global power. Choosing places such as New York and Hong Kong as the two case studies would make a comparison easier to establish; however, the significance of the results would not be as
impressive. “The most instructive comparisons are those that surprise,” (Anderson, 2016) where Amsterdam and Hong Kong seemingly do not share similar characteristics. Choosing cases that readers do not expect would spark greater interest and debate in regard to the results of the research and spur additional research for the topic.
One criterion is a clear distinction in density levels, since TOD in a denser city affects a greater amount of people than in a less dense city. Thus, the role the concepts play in TOD may be different. Scalar differences of the cities should be prevalent too. The difference of a city that
is integrated within a regional context versus a city that is physically more isolated can have a major effect on how a TOD is implemented. The aims of stakeholders of a TOD where the transit infrastructure would have local implications, compared to a TOD with regional impact would be different. For example, stakeholders would have to conduct greater public engagement as a TOD with regional impact affects a greater number of people.
In the case of Hong Kong, while it is a global player, it is physically isolated surrounded by sea on one side and China to the North. The impacts of a TOD in Hong Kong are local, as those who have access to it would have to be near a subway line. On the other hand, in
Amsterdam the TODs have a larger scalar impact, as the rail company, is able to whisk people around the country.
Additional criterion includes a different political structure, as they would foster
distinctive environments for TOD implementation. Control may play a greater role in a city with more top-down governance, while public engagement may play a greater role in a bottom-up planning.
Both cities must be similar in the respect to having some history with grappling with the notion of TOD. This research aims to discover the role of the three concepts in the decision-making process. Policies and structures surrounding a TOD in a city where the concept is
relatively new will, at best, be starting to mature. Cities that have a history of pursuing TOD will have more established structures and more knowledgeable stakeholders who will provide more in-depth information.
Finally, the two cases need to be practical for the researcher. One practical aspect is the ability to be able to research in a city where language would not be a problem. Officially, Hong Kong utilizes English in its official documents, while Dutch officials have an expanded
knowledge of the English language. This reduces any shortcomings for the research due to faulty translations or the inability of a person to express themselves accurately.
Lastly, the two cases are feasible for the researchers, as the researcher has lived in both places, allowing him to conduct on-site interviews in a timely manner.
Amsterdam and Hong Kong fulfill the criteria set above and thus are reasonable choices to test the concepts in.
Two TOD cases for each city were chosen to assist in exemplifying points found in the research about the concepts. This will be useful in showing the role of the concepts in actual TOD cases. These cases were chosen based on pre-determined criteria. The two cases in each city had to have different functionalities and different roles that stakeholders play. This is crucial in determining whether trends can be present in different TOD contexts. Finally, the two cases in each city should be somewhat comparable to the two cases in the other city. This will allow for some cross-comparison between the TOD cases and allows for greater emphasis on the actions of the stakeholders, rather than the aesthetic or functionality of the TOD, which have some
similarity between both cases.
The four cases of Tiu Keng Leng and Union Square in West Kowloon in Hong Kong and Zuidas and Sloterdijk in Amsterdam fit the criteria mentioned above. The TOD cases in Hong Kong had different functionalities and different roles that stakeholders played (Model A vs Model B: See Chart 3). Tiu Keng Leng in Tseung Kwan O was a mono-functional TOD, serving a bedroom community, while Union Square in West Kowloon had mixed use development. The roles of the stakeholders in Zuidas and Sloterdijk were different and the functions of both TOD were distinct in Amsterdam, fulfilling similarly the criteria that fit the case in Hong Kong.
In certain respects Tiu Keng Leng and Sloterdijk are comparable as they both
demonstrate mono-functionalism. Mono-functionalist TODs are an important contrast to multi-functionalist TODs because the requirements for that TOD would be different in terms of how the TOD would be built, which stakeholders would be present, the role they would play, costs, issues surrounding planning, etc. The issue surrounding such a TOD would be the people it serves. A place such as Sloterdijk would cater more to office workers, while a place like Tiu Keng Leng would cater more to residents. These subsets of people have different needs, where residents would need a TOD that makes housing easily accessible with plenty of shops such as grocery stores, while office workers require easy access to their workplace, along with plazas and cafes to allow them to unwind in. A TOD with multi-functions would be more complex as it would have to take into account the assortment of needs by a more diverse group of people.
Union Square in West Kowloon and Zuidas both are multi-functional TODs and are enormous projects that are still in the process of being built, while multiple modes of transit serve both areas. This makes these two cases comparable as well. The two TOD cases in each city had some dissimilarity, while independently sharing traits of one of the TODs in the other
city. These distinctions and parallelisms allow for easier comparison. Yet each TOD is still contextually unique. These different TODs strengthen the validity of the research as it can juxtapose the roles of the concepts in the TODs that have different functions and different stakeholders present or, as Gerring advises, “choose both extreme values (high and low)” (Gerring, 2002, 98). The data from the multiple cases can be amalgamated, becoming respected as they have “the ability to distill essential concepts, issues and tools that could be applied in a broader demographic, and in different contexts” (Thomas and Bertolini, 2014, 220).
Approach of Research: 4.3
Policy documents were analyzed in order to establish background information on the TOD cases and identify the stakeholders involved in a TOD. Most of the documents found where either from the transit or governmental authorities that usually touted the economic effects the TOD had on the city and local neighborhood. There were few policy documents that described the implementation of the TODs. This can be attributed to few documents being published in English (case of Amsterdam) or a work culture that is not as transparent (case of Hong Kong)(Cheng 2013).
Interviews were the primary source of data to explore the concepts. In Hong Kong nine interviews were conducted, while in Amsterdam eight were conducted. The make-up of the interviewees is listed in chart 2. In Hong Kong, one government employee works for the Civil Engineering and Development Department, while the other works for the Legislative Council. In Amsterdam, stakeholders from different levels of government were interviewed: one from the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (national level), one from the North Holland Province (mid-tier level), and a few from the municipality of Amsterdam (the urban designer) and other smaller municipalities nearby. These two smaller municipalities are Beverwijk and Zaandam. While interviewees from these smaller municipalities are not able to describe TOD implementation in Amsterdam, their accounts are still beneficial for this research because they are able to map out the relationships municipalities have with the other stakeholders in the Dutch institutional context. Additionally, these municipalities are located close to Amsterdam and are in the same province as Amsterdam, thus the nature of TOD implementation would be to a degree comparable, since most of the same stakeholders, aside from the municipality, would be present.
Most interviews were audio recorded, while notes had to be taken during others as some interviewees declined to be recorded due to company policy. Interviewees were contacted via an email, which stated the goal of the research and provided the interview questions in advance (listed in the appendix). Most interviewees described TOD implementation in Hong Kong in general, occasionally referring to the cases. The attached interview (in the appendix) was a guide for the conversation, while the interviewer asked more general questions that attempted to uncover how the role the concepts play. Interviewees were asked to explain what their agency does, what it does in regards to TOD in general, its relationships with other stakeholders, and then, finally, interviewees were explicitly asked about the concepts. Interviewees were also asked to share any knowledge they had of the two TOD cases. Follow-up questions were asked to keep the fluidity of the interview intact. These questions were designed to gather greater insight from interviewees who have the tendency to answer questions more generally rather than describing specific TOD cases. Unlike policy documents, interviews “help trigger narration of personal experiences, allowing for externalization of tacit knowledge” (Tan et al., 2014, 646). Because TOD is context dependent and complex, it is more beneficial to allow stakeholders to describe it through their point of view and convey emotions that other methods fail to take into account.
Hong Kong
Position Number of Interviewees Month/Year of Interview
MTR (rail) 2 Sep and Nov 2016
Academics 2 Oct and Nov 2016
District Council 2 Sep and Nov 2016
Government Employees 2 Sep and Dec 2016
Urban Planner 1 Sep 2016
Total Interviews 9
Amsterdam
Position Number of Interviewees Month/Year of Interview
Government Employees 4 March and April 2017
Urban Designer 1 April 2017
NS (rail) 1 April 2017
Total Interviews 8
Chart 2
While academics are not stakeholders in the decision-making process, they are valuable assets for this research. These academics provided a more objective and neutral answer to the questions. Some of the academics studied TOD extensively in the city or held relevant positions at one point in time. Their insight brought a third party opinion to areas where there where conflicting statements made by the other interviewees. For example: in Hong Kong, the MTR would say one thing on public engagement, while a district councilor would say something contradictory. The testimonies from the academics and policy documents were able to divulge the reality, allowing for a more objective analysis.
The interviews were fully transcribed and then coded inductively by using the three concepts as categories. The coding was done in Atlas.ti software, which allowed the researcher to map out how the three concepts influenced the decision-making process. The definitions, spelled out in the literature review section 2.0, of the concepts were used to identify them in the interview. Once the highlighted sections were categorized, they were compared with each other to see contradictions, similarities, or interesting points made. Attention was placed on the discrepancies in order to carefully present all the perspectives on it.
The upcoming sections of the research are as follows: Each case will be introduced with general background information, which will be followed with greater detailed information that describes the general trends of how TOD implementation occurs. This will include a description of the main stakeholders and the roles they play in the TOD implementation. Following the introduction of the city will be a brief description of the two TOD cases, their functions and how they were implemented. Then, each concept will be presented individually, with analysis of their role within the decision-making process, ending with the interplay between each of the concepts. This systematic order will be shown in each of the two cities separately, with no overlapping analysis of the two cities in order to ensure that one city is not favored over the other. A section at the end will compare and contrast the role of the concepts in each of the two cities after the analysis is presented individually for each city.
A Tale of Two Cities: 5.0
This section provides background information on the cities and how TOD in general is implemented in them. While each TOD is unique in how it is implemented, there are general trends that are present in most TODs of that city, such as the presence of similar stakeholders. This is a crucial section in understanding the dynamics behind the decision-making process as different bureaucratic structures, economics, and culture influence it.
Hong Kong: 5.1
Situated in South East Asia, South of Mainland China, Hong Kong is a city of over 7 million people where the average density is 6500/km² or 16,390/km² in the central location (Census and Statistics Department). Of the total 2755.03 square kilometers land, only 23.4% of it is urbanized/inhabited by people (Hong Kong Extras). This shortage of space has forced the government over the years to find innovative ways to manage the land.
Hong Kong was leased to Britain by China for 99 years until 1997, when it was
transferred back to China. Today Hong Kong has a special status being governed by a principle of “one country, two system,” where it enjoys economic and certain social independence from Mainland China, which is in charge of its defense and foreign policy. Hong Kong’s economy primarily consists of ports and finance, along with a robust service industry.
In Hong Kong, TOD is primarily rail-based, due to the shortage of space. Since rail is the primary mode of transit for TOD this thesis will not explore the other modes of transit: buses or ferries, as they are insignificant in shaping TODs.
Carrying the bulk of people around the dense metropolis is the Mass Transit Railway (MTR), which has a five million daily ridership on weekdays.2 Founded in the mid-1970s, the MTR grew in size and eventually merged with its rail competitor, the KCRC, in 2007. In 2000, part of the MTR was traded on the stock exchange: today 23% of the MTR shares are privatized (Tang, 2009). The MTR is unique in that it operates the rail/subway system, but is also a
property developer. Therefore, in planning a project, a lot of the challenges can be overcome as the debate over details is internalized between various divisions within the MTR Corporation. Unlike a lot of transit companies, the MTR does not rely on government subsidies and
consistently makes net revenue. This can be attributed to the MTR’s business model, which is known as the “Rail + Property (R+P) model.”
The government of Hong Kong owns all the land in the city. Through the Lands
Department, land is leased out for decades for certain uses. Anyone wanting to develop, build, or change development on land must fulfill strict statutory requirements. With the R+P model, most of these requirements are waved for the MTR, where the government will grant land to them to build on, typically near a rail corridor. This land is sold to the MTR at market value, allowing it to obtain the development rights for it. Because the MTR develops the land, its “value would be very different because of convenience,” allowing the MTR to fill the funding gap as
people/businesses seek to be near MTR lines (MTR Interviewee, 2016, September). Any development undertaken by the MTR must be justified by a business plan (MTR Interviewee, 2016, November) that would demonstrate a profit for the authority. The biggest added value for land is the development of TOD, thus the MTR is incentivized to build TOD and utilize almost all of its power to make it come to fruition.
Tang, 2009, developed two models that explain who, how, and what role stakeholders play in shaping TOD implementation. Most TODs fall under one of the two models (see chart 3).
Chart 3 - Source: Tang, 2009
Under Model B, the R+P model is highlighted, where the MTR is sold government land. The MTR may outsource the development of that land to a developer who shares the risk of development and shares their profits with the MTR after development completion. This research aims to discover the role of the three concepts in this decision-making process. A developer
would undertake such a risk and agree to share profits because “they are certain that when the railway is there, there will be an uplift, there will be an upside, there will be a profit, so they are willing to share the profit with the MTR” (MTR Interviewee, 2016, November). In this model the MTR dominates the shaping and implementation of TOD, attempting to produce a
framework that would ensure “decision-making bodies are having the lowest transitional costs” (Academic Interviewee, 2016, October).
In Model A, the MTR is not the dominant stakeholder in implementing TOD. It has to coordinate with developers and the local community in order to shape TOD. In this case, both the developers and the MTR need to acquire the appropriate land from the government, which sells it or directly allocates it. Government departments set out contracts that lay out specifics on how the land is to be developed and tied together in order to create a TOD. One of the interviewees was from the Legislative Council (LegCo), an authority that is present in Model A as it finances infrastructure projects. Because the MTR is unable to invoke the R+P Model, it seeks funding from the LegCo for a TOD project which it may approve after the plan goes through several rounds of consultations and fulfills statutory requirements.
Developers prefer Model A as they are not dictated by the MTR as to what to develop on their piece of land, but without a strong central player (like in Model B) there is not a guarantee of uniformity of development between the station and the surrounding buildings. Connecting corridors between buildings may be built at different heights; buildings may possess different measurements of staircases etc. Without uniformity, there is a risk of disturbing what the MTR calls “seamless integration” between the station and buildings, where people can effortlessly transfer from the station to a different building and in-between buildings.
There is no clear-cut answer which model would be applied in TOD implementation. According to Tang 2009, the model is determined by the land status. It is more difficult to implement Model B on private land, though not impossible, while on public land it is easier to implement it. Generally, the model used is context dependent and is contingent on whether the government decides to sell the land directly to the MTR.
While the MTR plays a dominant role in TOD implementation, it is not the sole stakeholder. While other stakeholders have their own objectives, the principle approach to decision-making for a TOD remains similar. This begins with formulation of a plan, determining the essential parameters that would affect other stakeholders, and choosing from those
parameters sections that you would want to converse with those stakeholders (Professor, 2016, November).
The district council (DC) is an important player in understanding public engagement. It is an important stakeholder because it is the bridge between the government and the people
(Interviewee, 2016, November). There are 18 district councils in Hong Kong, each made of different number of district councilors who represent a certain number of people. The DC is one of the avenues people are able to voice their concerns on a host of issues including TOD.
However, the DC has no legal authority in any issue (including TOD). It is just an advisory board that channels the concerns of the community. To certain agencies, the advice of the DC is sacred. Failure of a blessing from them is detrimental to policy, while for others their advice is ignored.
Union Square: 5.1.1
Union Square in West Kowloon, a mixed used area built on reclamation land, is one of the most complex TOD projects ever to be implemented in Hong Kong. This TOD fits under Model B, where the government granted this land to the MTR to develop. The MTR split the 14 hectare site into seven packages and then they “invited developers to work together with us on the individual packages” (MTR Interviewee, 2016, September).” The MTR crafted the master plan for the site and closely monitored the progress of the developers in order to ensure that minute details, such as having precise connecting walkways, were present. This was to ensure seamless integration: in order to accomplish this “MTR functions as the integrator to try to bring different packages and implement them at different stages, and try to put them together into one piece” (MTR Interviewee, 2016, September).
Image 1: Union Square, West Kowloon in Hong Kong. Source: Wikimedia
Construction started in 2000 after the area was marked by the MTR as a Comprehensive Development Area. Construction for most of the site has been completed, although there are still some projects ongoing. The site is built over a subway station, with the buildings being heavily integrated with each other and the station. Image 1 shows the square being surrounded by buildings. While it is possible to exit the station outside and enter the buildings on the street level, most people connect underground. The International Commerce Center (ICC) has raised the profile of the Union Square, as being the tallest building in Hong Kong at over 100 stories. From the station it is possible to enter the ICC through a tunnel or the other buildings without ever stepping foot outside.
Tiu Keng Leng: 5.1.2
Tiu Keng Leng is a neighborhood in Tseung Kwan O in the East of Hong Kong. A bedroom community, the area of Tiu Keng Leng was built in the early 2000s with the expectation that the MTR would eventually service the area. In this case, the TOD was built using Model A, where the MTR and private developers were separate from each other in
developing the area. Unlike Union Square, the MTR did not play the key role in implementation. The MTR and the developers follow a master plan that is pieced together by the various
developers to build according to the plan, as they see fit, with the government monitoring the process.
Image 2: Image of the neighborhood of Tiu Keng Leng. Source: Wikimedia
The resulting layout of the TOD in Tiu Keng Leng is less seamless integration. While shopping malls and some buildings are indirectly integrated to the station, the individual linkages made by the individual developers may not fit the standards that the MTR would set in a Model B: thus foot bridges are of different heights and there are few linkages to the actual station with only two actual exits (one to the street level and one to the shopping mall which is indirectly linked to other buildings). Unlike Union Square, the TOD is not built on top of the station, but rather it surrounds the station. With the addition of the TOD, population growth in the
neighborhood has excelled, as residents can access the city center in less than twenty minutes.
Amsterdam: 5.2
In the Northern part of Netherland lies Amsterdam, the constitutional capital of the Netherlands with over 800,000 people living in the urban proper. The average density for Amsterdam is 4,908/km2 (Amsterdam.info). It is the largest city in the country. Amsterdam’s economy includes finance, a creative economy, and tourism (Amsterdam.nl).
Amsterdam is part of a three tier governmental structure where each level is responsible for different aspects of TOD implementation, although there can be overlapping interests and responsibilities. The structure starts from the bottom at a municipal level (Amsterdam), then rises to the provincial level (North Holland), and finally to the national level (Netherlands). One major difference between the three levels of government is the amount of resources at their disposal.
Often times the province will aid its municipalities in the development of the area around stations through financial assistance. Its greater interest lies in development of transit corridors where there would be more integrated development between multiple stations that would connect the province more efficiently. Bigger projects that require more capital need the backing from the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (the Ministry), which is a department in the national government. Like the province, the ministry helps finance projects, but usually lets other stakeholders take the lead in implementation. Usually requirements need to be fulfilled when the provincial or national government agree to assist in funding projects.
The TODs in Amsterdam are served by different modes of transit and authorities. Gemeentelijk Vervoerbedrijf (GVB) operates trams, buses and the metro within Amsterdam, while Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) operates most rail routes in the country and serves
Amsterdam. While NS operates the rail, it does not build or maintain the rail network. Instead, it pays a concession fee each year to the Ministry. The Ministry delineates the responsibility for maintenance, construction, and expansion of the rail system to ProRail.
There are a number of stakeholders present in TOD implementation in Amsterdam, with their relationships to TOD plotted in chart 4. Transit in this case denotes transit infrastructure and the operations of the transit network.
Chart 4
In Amsterdam, TOD implementation is split into two parts, the property side and transit and/or station side. These two key components need to be aligned in order for a successful TOD implementation to occur. This can come from better integration of the properties and the station
and cooperation between transit authorities and developers or the municipality. The dominant actors in TOD implementation for the property side are the municipality and private developers. NS plays a limited role in property development, as it owns property around the station, which is illustrated in chart 4 by a broken line connecting it to property. NS's main responsibility is to operate the train network, getting people from point A to point B in a timely manner. The province has some interest in property development; however, its dominant interest lies with the development of transit nodes. The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (the Ministry), plays a limited role in TOD development. However, it has unique relationship with
infrastructure development in Zuidas, which is why it is portrayed in chart 4 by a broken line connecting it to transit. The GVB plays a limited role in TOD implementation. However, it plays a unique role in Zuidas as well. Thus, its relationship is portrayed through a broken line. The municipality is interested in the development of station and transit development, though its influence is limited. Thus, its relationship is exemplified by a broken line in chart 4.
In most cases in Amsterdam, including Sloterdijk, the municipality, NS and ProRail are the most important stakeholders for TOD implementation. However, the case of Zuidas is an exception (reasons to be discussed later). Before the financial crisis occurred in 2008, the municipality of Amsterdam took the lead in drawing up plans for land (re)development which included negotiations with private developers “about integrated substantial redevelopment for the whole area, which includes that they have to buy out other owners, demolish everything and then start redeveloping” (Academic Interviewee, 2017, March). After the crisis, the municipality became more hesitant to lead because it lost money, as the value of the property market contracted. While the property market in Amsterdam is bouncing back, the municipality still prefers that private investors take the initiative in redevelopment, with the municipality facilitating the implementation (Academic Interviewee, 2017, March).
Sloterdijk: 5.2.1
Sloterdijk is a multi-modal transit hub located in West Amsterdam with development around it. The municipality of Amsterdam in the 1970s wanted to decentralize the economic activity that was concentrated in the historic center and thus looked at Sloterdijk as an area where businesses could move to because it was a multi-modal transit hub. One vision saw Sloterdijk as a teleport and technical center where tall buildings would house these businesses. Planners
decided to physically separate recreational and residential development from office space, through highways or wide roads for safety concerns due to its close proximity to industrial and port activity (Plan Amsterdam). Thus, the area around Sloterdijk was isolated and was
designated for office space (Urban Designer, 2017, April). “It became a mono-functional office area, not very popular with public space. One of the least attractive areas of Amsterdam” (Ministry, 2017, April). Critics considered the design and functions of Sloterdijk a planning failure. Many of the tall buildings were never built and most of the office buildings had high vacancy rates for the next few decades.
Image 3: Aerial Image of Sloterdijk, showing it as a multimodal hub. Source: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3365/3519514225_d59384fe45_b.jpg
Overtime, the situation in Sloterdijk improved as the economy of Amsterdam expanded. Today the vacancy rate has shrunk to just over 20%, where the biggest decline in vacancy came after office space was significantly expanded in 2014 (Plan Amsterdam). The objective now is to transform some office spaces to more mixed use, including the construction of a few residential units, many hotels, and some schools. A few years ago the municipality of Amsterdam
approached the Ministry to partner with it in revamping the area. The Ministry’s main concern is the infrastructure. It helped with the construction of a second ring road, which was built a few years ago. Aside from this role, the Ministry has little presence in Sloterdijk. The municipality and private developers are the primary stakeholders, while the Ministry and the province have limited influence over the development.
Apart from being an area for office space, new residential and hotel units, Sloterdijk is a multi-modal transit hub. There are a number of levels of platforms, which NS uses to whisk people across the country, while GVB runs the metro, tram, and a number of buses.
Additionally, international buses use the station, serving France, Germany, Belgium, and the UK.
Zuidas: 5.2.2
Zuidas is a mixed-use development located in South Amsterdam. Ideally situated between the historic center of Amsterdam and Schiphol Airport, it was initially a strip of
infrastructure, highway and rail, surrounded by empty lots and a few important buildings such as the Insurance Stock Exchange (Major, 2008). While the city government focused on attempting to redevelop the waterfront along the IJ River for commercial use, private investors contemplated the possibility of Zuidas as a more attractive place because it was more accessible and easier to develop. When ABN/AMRO (a major multinational Amsterdam-based bank) decided to consolidate its scattered offices to Zuidas, it was the signal of the start for the development of Amsterdam’s new economic core. Once the city government endorsed the project in 1994, abandoning its ambitions for the IJ River, it supported the market that led the development of Zuidas.
Image 4: Aerial Image of Zuidas. Source: http://media.nu.nl
Apart from being an economic center for Amsterdam, Zuidas is a multimodal transit center. NS frequently operates trains with ten-minute connections to Schiphol and twenty-minute connections to Utrecht, while GVB provides connections by metro, tram, and bus. Additionally, a highway runs parallel to the train corridor on each side of the tracks, bisecting the area into two sections.
High demand has translated into continuing rapid development of the area. In
anticipation for its full completion by the year 2030, there are plans to move the current highway underground and increase capacity of the train station by doubling it in size. The interviewee from the Ministry and NS expressed hopes that high speed rail to Germany, Belgium, and France may utilize this station at some point in the future. Additionally, the opening of the long awaited terminus North-South Line metro line will add greater accessibility for residents and workers of Zuidas. This new metro line makes GVB an important stakeholder for the further development of this TOD, as it needs to cooperate with the Ministry and NS in finding ways to best integrate with multiple modes of transit and property.
The presence of the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (the Ministry) as a stakeholder for Zuidas is unique in implementation for TOD. The Ministry has six different locations “throughout the Netherlands that we considered important for the economy and we thought were important for the development of major cities” of which one is Zuidas (Ministry, 2017, April). The Ministry is heavily investing in transit infrastructure in Zuidas and subsidizing the spatial development (not to be confused with property development) around the station. While its role in TOD implementation has diminished over the years due to its desire for more decentralization, it closely monitors the progress of Zuidas due to its designation.
Findings: 6.0
This section presents the findings for each research sub-question. Findings uphold the theoretical framework in some spheres, while contradicting it in other areas. The concepts will be presented individually, then in the interplay between them in each city separately to avoid
favoring one city over the other when describing the role of the concepts. At the end, the role of the concepts and their interplay in one city will be compared to the role of the concepts and interplay of the other city, where differences and similarities will be underlined.
Role of Public Engagement in Hong Kong: 6.1.1
All interviewees agreed that public engagement plays an important role in the decision- making process. Out of the three concepts, based on the coding, interviewees described this concept more than the two other concepts. Most interviewees referred to the concept without being explicitly asked about it, usually explaining that the decision-making process starts or should start with a public engagement consultation. This concept also proved to be the most contentious concept, as there were disagreements on facts that transpired around the Tiu Keng Leng case.
Public engagement was most openly embraced by the MTR interviewees as they enthusiastically described how it is strategic for them in planning. This is a radical departure from DAD (Decide, Announce, Defend), as the MTR carries out a public engagement exercise before even announcing the railway development strategy. This way the MTR lets people know what the plan entails and modifies it as needed (CEDD Interviewee, 2016, September). This shows the people that their voices are being heard (Professor Interviewee, 2016, November), endorsing the Ennio et al., 2013 principle that the first level of engagement begins with listening and understanding the viewpoints of the people and acting upon it.
The MTR is incentivized to fulfill all requirements in order to implement TOD because of its financial model. In Model B, the R + P Model will allow the MTR to make a great deal of money. It therefore wants to appease the public through public engagement exercises, in order to receive little resistance in planning the TOD. Even though Union Square in West Kowloon was built on reclaimed land, there were some objections from the local DC and residents about the layout of the plan, specifically with the height of the skyscrapers. “We demonstrated to them that tall buildings mean more space on the ground level,” (MTR Interviewee, 2016, September) and
after a series of further engagements reached an agreement because the people became “convinced that taller and slimmer buildings would be better than fatter shorter buildings.” A concession on the part of the MTR was made to include an observation deck on the ICC at the request of the DC. While this concession cost the MTR extra money, it enabled them to gain the support of the community to build this project, which, in the end, allowed them to make a profit. With support from the community, a project usually can move ahead as long as it fulfills all statutory requirements (Cohen et al., 2015), which, in this case, the MTR did.
Do these accounts by the MTR interviewees on public engagement fully represent the complete picture? The two district councilors (DC) challenged the role the MTR played in executing public engagement. As mentioned in section 5.1, the district council represents the local community, discussing policy affecting its community with the government and other entities, while conducting engagement exercises to comprehend the opinions of their own people.
One avenue of public engagement would be through meetings with the district council. When asked about its relationship with the MTR, one district councilor of Tiu Keng Leng stated “the MTR does not respect the district council” (DC Interviewee: 2016, November), citing that the MTR does not send any representatives to any DC meetings. The DC interviewee suggested that the MTR could mend this by having a representative visit meetings regularly.
But when the MTR conducts public engagement, it is a token gesture at best as it “is not really trying to listen to the community” because it is a powerful organization with vast wealth of resources (DC Interviewee: 2016, November) and does not need approval from the people. The DC interviewee cited an exemplary case of public engagement with the bus company, which consults often with the council on route changes and after a long consultation receives the DC's blessing. This is in contrast to the “inefficient” way the MTR consults with the DC (DC
Interviewee, 2016, September), in which the MTR gets a final say on how to build up a TOD area. In a separate interview, an urban planner who works for a private firm, adds that the MTR will engage with the DC on “usually a relatively a minor issue. They may give in here and there,” but overhauling a scheme is impossible (Urban Planner, Interviewee 2016, September).
Is there a possibility that the DC is slightly exaggerating about the MTR? Could it be possible that the DC is just unhappy with compromises made in a project? One of the MTR interviewees recalled an intensive negotiation with the DC and people in Tiu Keng Leng where a government plan called for the TOD to be pure office buildings. The interviewee desired for a
more balanced use and after a round of negotiations, an agreement was made for a 50-50 compromise where half the buildings would be residential and half would be commercial, retail and hotel based. There were still people upset about the compromise arguing that they wanted to follow the original plan. It may be possible that public engagement contributes to
implementation, but certain stakeholders, such as the DC, are unhappy with the compromise and its outcome.
To be clear, there is no widespread animosity between the public and the MTR. All interviewees agreed that to a certain degree people loved certain aspects of the MTR. The degree and frequency to which these aspects were highlighted were largely based on the interviewee. The DC of Tiu Keng Leng stated that in anticipation of the TOD, “everyone was happier,” because “It’s very easy, cheap, safe way to access around Hong Kong now a days. (DC
Interviewee, 2016, November). This theme about the MTR being cheap and safe is repeated by most interviewees. The MTR spends a lot of energy and resources on its public affairs team, promoting this theme. The MTR has become “one of the most successful public corporations who has done very successful PR, public engagement” (Academic Interviewee, November, 2016) and, in doing so, people will love “TOD projects developed by the MTR, like Union Square” (Academic Interviewee, October, 2016) which gives people better connections to the rest of the city.
To what extent does “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) challenge the MTR's efforts in TOD implementation? In the 1990s and early 2000s “the Hong Kong railway property model was at its peak” (Urban Planner, 2016, September), where the MTR focused on the engineering and financial modeling behind a TOD project. At that time, the public had little knowledge about the relatively new concept of TOD and how it would affect surrounding areas. This unawareness by the public may be why Union Square was easily completed. “I don’t know why, but they did not have very strong views against this new development” (MTR interviewee, 2016, September). Over time, the public became more knowledgeable about TOD. While they seem to like TOD, a TOD project like the Union Square would almost never be built again because they now
understand the downsides of TOD, such as urban design or Model B, where the MTR is very powerful (Urban Planner, 2016, September).
Today, the MTR takes a different approach to implementation where “we do it in a more user friendly manner” (MTR interviewee, 2016, November). This new approach includes a more
balanced approach to TOD implementation that benefits a wider range of people. Such themes include introducing “greening measures, more sustainable, more environmentally friendly” TODs (MTR interviewee, 2016, November). As MTR and other stakeholders draw up initial plans for comment, they try to not overemphasize the property side. After rounds of discussions, the MTR will build amenities that may not bring direct benefit to the MTR’s bottom line, such as a park or a plaza. However, it garners support from the local residents as such amenities can be in short supply in the neighborhood. With this new approach, NIMBY sentiments are less likely, as they see TOD not only as a benefit to their commute, but it bringing along a whole host of aspects (some that were requested) that enhance their lives.
Overall, most descriptions of public engagement by the interviewees have matched the theoretical frameworks, though some did not. Innes, 1996 mentioned that one of the objectives of public engagement was to create a mentality of “we are in this together.” Cohen et al., 2015 stated that participants of a public engagement exercise create shared meanings, if several participants share similar ideas. None of the interviewees reinforced these notions. DC in West Kowloon came closest to matching this description when describing how DC can give out their own questionnaires to gauge the opinions of their local constituencies, but did not give any specifics. The notion is to collect enough opinions to see whether there is a collective viewpoint on a matter. Once a decision was made by the DC on how to react to a problem, the DC would challenge or embrace the problem on behalf of a united community.
Undoubtedly, public engagement plays an integral role in influencing the decision- making process. A few decades ago, public engagement was trivial, even MTR interviewees admit to that. Decades later, public engagement from the MTR and other stakeholders developed as the public became more aware of TOD and demanded a say in it. To what extent the MTR conducts public engagement today is still debatable, best exemplified by the DC disagreeing with the MTRs narrative.
Role of Trust in Hong Kong: 6.1.2
All interviewees agreed that trust plays an important role in the decision making process. The interviewees did not flaunt the concept of trust as much as public engagement in the
would frequently refer to it. There were no contradictory statements made by the stakeholders surrounding the concept.
Literature has defined trust through multiple angles. But, is it worth defining the terminology? “I would refer to the common sense approach than textbook definition for trust” (MTR Interviewee, 2016, September). What that common sense approach is, the interviewee did not specify. However, it is a “way of coordinating actions of independent actors within a policy network structure” (Switzer et al., 2013) as the MTR, especially in Model B, coordinates actors, including developers, to build a uniform TOD.
Trust is excruciatingly imperative in negotiations in the decision-making process
(Government Employee interviewee, 2016, September). Several interviewees stated that without trust, it is hard to move forward. An agency would be lucky if an individual became
untrustworthy rather than having a reputation as a whole of being tarnished. A colleague who does not have any trust with other stakeholders would have to be replaced with a new colleague (MTR Interviewee, 2016, September). An agency would have trouble regaining footing if few trust it.
Berardo, 2009 described how trust grows faster in a tighter network of people. None of the interviewees confirmed this directly; however, they hinted at this being the case. Many interviewees mentioned that in TOD, having friends in different departments was beneficial in moving negotiations and compromises. One recommended that “you should be able to establish your own connections, your own friends and networks, which will allow you,” to be helped out in certain situations (Academic Interviewee, 2016, November). Trust can translate into support, as many will believe you have good intentions on what you are trying to accomplish. If many officials from other departments support you and you are deemed trustworthy, then “maybe the chairman [of a certain department] will risk his political life... make the decision to support you against the wishes of the opposition” in getting funding or approving a plan (Academic
Interviewee, 2016, November).
Building trust is an arduous process that requires a great amount of patience and that could easily falter should a person be suspected to be untrustworthy. The key to building trust is transparency. If people understand the intentions of a stakeholder, their objectives and how they plan on achieving them, others will respond positively (Government Employee, 2016,
