Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Title The impact of Hong Kong Disneyland on the sustainabledevelopment of Hong Kong's tourism industry
Author(s) Ho, Chun-on.; 何振安.
Citation
Issue Date 2006
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/50430
Rights The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patentrights) and the right to use in future works.
The Impact of Hong Kong Disneyland on the
Sustainable Development of Hong Kong’s Tourism Industry
By
Ho Chun On
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of Master of Arts
at The University of Hong Kong
in June 2006
i
Abstract
With the growing importance of tourism worldwide, it has become a significant
economic contributor in many countries. Hong Kong is no exception to this
phenomenon with tourism as one of the leading foreign exchange earners, which
brought in an estimated HK$77.4 billion with 16.6 million tourist arrivals in 2003
(Hong Kong Tourist Board, 2004).
Development of tourism inevitably impacts upon the community’s economic, natural
and socio-cultural environment. These impacts can be positive, neutral or negative
depending upon whether appropriate and responsible planning and management of
resources are carried out to minimize any adverse impacts (Ap and Mak 1999).
In this dissertation, Hong Kong Disneyland, one of the major attractions of Hong Kong
tourism industry, will be evaluated in several aspects in terms of sustainable
development. The research aims to find out to what extent the Disney theme park
achieves in terms of sustainable development as well as its impact on the sustainable
development of Hong Kong’s tourism industry.
ii
Declaration
I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except where due acknowledgement
is made, and that has not been previously included in a thesis, dissertation or report
submitted to this University or to any other institution for a degree, diploma or other
qualifications.
Signed: ……………………………
Ho Chun On
iii
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Dr. Yiping Li and Dr. Cho Nam Ng for their insightful comments
and valuable guidance throughout the whole process of this dissertation. This
dissertation would not be possible to complete without their kind support. I would also
like to thank my family members and friends for their full support and encouragement
throughout the academic year.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract i
Declaration ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables/ Figures vii
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives 3
1.3 Significance of Study 3
2 Literature Review 5
2.1 Conceptual Framework 5
2.1.1 Resort Cycle Model 5
2.2 Definitions 14
2.2.1 Sustainable Development in the context of Tourism 14
2.2.2 Sustainable Development of Hong Kong Disneyland in the
context of Tourism 19
2.2.3 Environmental Impact Assessment of Hong Kong Disneyland 21
3 Methodology 25
3.1 Research Scope 25
3.1.1 Study Area 25
3.1.2 Study Period 26
3.1.3 Data Sources 26
3.1.4 Research Tools 27
3.2 Research Questions 27
v
4 The Impacts of Hong Kong Disneyland 29
4.1 Environmental Dimension 29
4.1.1 Impacts associated with Construction and Operation 29
4.1.1.1 Air Quality 34
4.1.1.2 Noise 35
4.1.1.3 Water Quality 37
4.1.1.4 Waste Management 39
4.2 Socio-cultural Dimension 41
4.3 Economic Dimension 47
4.3.1 Rationale for the construction of Hong Kong Disneyland 47
4.3.2 Economic Risks 49
4.3.3 Economic Benefits 50
5 Hong Kong’s Tourism Industry 56
5.1 Background of Hong Kong Tourism 56
5.1.1 Historical Trend 56
5.1.2 Changing Market Structure of Inbound Tourists 57
5.1.3 Changing Attractions to Tourists 61
5.1.4 Sustainable Development of Hong Kong Tourism Industry 64
5.1.5 Significance of Tourism to Hong Kong 66
6 Components of Hong Kong Tourism – Amusement Park 69
6.1 Stakeholders Involvement of Hong Kong Disneyland 69
6.1.1 Role of the Walt Disney Company 69
6.1.2 Role of the Hong Kong Government 75
6.1.3 Role of Other Organizations 83
6.2 Relationship and Implication between Hong Kong Disneyland and Hong
Kong’s Tourism Industry 85
6.2.1 Laissez-faire Policy 85
6.2.2 Strengthening Hong Kong’s reputation as a family destination 87
6.2.3 Brand Effect of Disney 87
6.2.4 Disneyland as the Gateway to China 89
vi
6.2.5 Living Environment and Town Planning 90
7 Conclusion 93
7.1 Recommendations 93
7.2 Limitations 95
Appendix 97
Bibliography 98
vii
List of Tables
Table 5.1 Hong Kong’s Top Five Source Markets of Visitor Arrivals in 2004
Table 5.2 Hong Kong’s Top Five Markets Ranked by Overnight Visitors Spending
in 2004
Table5.3 Employment in Tourism Industry (2002-2004)
Table 6.1 Tourism Industry in Hong Kong (1990-1998)
Table 6.2a Projection of Attendees at Hong Kong Disneyland (2005-2015)
Table 6.2b Projection of Attendees at Hong Kong Disneyland (2016-2024)
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Destination Life Cycle Model
Figure 4.1 Location of the Four Option site for Disneyland Theme Park
Development
Figure 4.2 Theme Park Project Area and Elements
Figure 4.3 Reclamation Works at Penny’s Bay (Inner Bay View)
(Progress as at end-November 2001)
Figure 6.1 Hong Kong Disneyland Project Cost Breakdown
Figure 6.2 Summary of the Methodology for Assessing Attendance
Figure 6.3 Construction and Landscaping work of the Disneyland Resort Line
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
As a leading tourist destination of Asia, Hong Kong is set to scale new heights
with steady growth forecast for tourist arrivals. According to WTO (1998)
estimates, Hong Kong is expected to receive nearly 57 million visitors by 2020
and the question remains whether or not the environment will be able to
accommodate such numbers. Even as Pine (2001) suggests, if the WTO’s
projections are wrong by about 50 percent, Hong Kong will still receive 28.5
million tourists. This certainly provides a daunting challenge in finding ways to
develop the industry responsibly and in a sustainable manner. Ophuls (1977)
claims that whenever one can observe dangerous levels of pollution, serious
ecological degradation or widespread disturbance of natural balances, the
carrying capacity of a sustainable society has already been exceeded. Currently,
Hong Kong receives about 16.6 million visitors and even now, hardly any
consideration has been given to assessing the demands placed upon the
environment in terms of pollution, waste, energy consumption and its overall
impact.
2
As one of the major tourist attractions, Hong Kong Disneyland is expected to
lure 5.6 million visitors in its first 12 months – at least a third of them from the
mainland. The government estimates that Disney will directly and indirectly
generate $19 billion in economic benefits over 40 years and 36000 jobs over the
next 20 years. Whilst much attention has been placed on the theme park’s
impact to Hong Kong’s economy, the sustainability of the theme park, in which
such an enormous number of tourists would visit, is relatively unheard of.
Due to the increasing significance of sustainability towards the tourism industry
and the lack of information on whether Hong Kong Disneyland is operating at a
sustainable level, this dissertation aims to find out to what extent the Disney
theme park achieves in terms of sustainable development as well as its impact
on the sustainable development of Hong Kong’s tourism industry. Secondary
data would be collected from literature and the Internet. The data would then be
analyzed in the discussion parts. The final conclusion would provide some
insights for Hong Kong Disneyland on how to create an appropriate balance
between economic returns and environmental conservation in achieving
sustainable development in the context of tourism.
3
1.2 Objectives
The purpose of the dissertation is to evaluate the impact of Hong Kong
Disneyland on the sustainable development of Hong Kong’s tourism industry.
To achieve this, three specific objectives are established as follows:
1) To identify the environmental impacts associated with the construction
and operation of Hong Kong Disneyland to the local community;
2) To raise the public awareness towards the significance of the
appropriate balance between economic returns and the sustainable
development of Hong Kong Disneyland; and
3) To provide insights for the sustainable development of Hong Kong
Disneyland.
1.3 Significance of Study
The Hong Kong government has continued to enhance Hong Kong's
4
attractiveness as a tourist destination through the development of major new
tourist attractions and the enhancement of existing facilities to broaden the range
of its tourism products. The study of Hong Kong Disneyland is of great
importance as it is one of the major attractions of Hong Kong’s tourism industry.
With the development of Hong Kong Disneyland at Penny's Bay and
complementary tourist and recreation facilities, the Lantau Island will become a
vibrant and festive node of the region, with the potential to attract many
international and local visitors. Therefore, Hong Kong Disneyland itself is a key
element for the sustainable development of Hong Kong’s tourism industry.
On the other hand, Hong Kong Disneyland represents a world-class entertaining
kingdom, of which, it ensures the prosperity of Hong Kong’s tourism industry. It
is that the brand effect of Disneyland makes the value of this study explicit.
Since the government would probably give way to business corporations
whenever there are conflicts of interest between economic development and
environmental issues. Conflicts between environmental conservation and
economic benefits always exist in the industry. Thus, a study of the impacts of
Hong Kong Disneyland on the sustainable development of Hong Kong’s tourism
industry would definitely provide some horizons for the practitioners.
5
2 Literature Review
2.1 Conceptual Framework
2.1.1 Destination Life Cycle Model
There is a growing literature on tourism development, ranging from books
(e.g. De Kadt 1973; Pearce 1989; Nelson et al. 1993) to a large number of
articles, but relatively few provide specific models of the development
process of tourist destinations. In the context of sustainability and
development, the focus of models should surely be upon providing a means
of assessing the appropriateness of the development within the principles of
sustainable development. What is necessary is not the forecasting of tourist
numbers (which is rarely forecasting but more often marketing and
predictive planning), but rather description and explanation of the
development process. Understanding the nature of growth and the ways it
changes in tourist destination areas is of major importance, not only to those
involved in the tourism industry, but also to those in the public sector who
have to provide much of the associated infrastructure and are responsible for
6
maintaining environmental quality and safety, and to those who reside in
tourist destinations and have to live with tourism on a full-time basis.
A major theme pertaining to the development of tourist destinations which
has been widely discussed in the tourism literature is that of the evolution of
destinations. The destination life cycle model (Figure 2.1) by Butler (1980)
is one of the most widely quoted models dealing with the development of
tourist destinations. Prosser (1995) notes that the model ‘formalized a notion
that has been traced back through the tourism literature of more than thirty
years’ (1995: 3). Prosser suggests three main factors have contributed to
what he terms the ‘enduring attraction of the destination life cycle concept’
(1995: 4). One is the fact that the model provides a relatively simple
conceptual framework in an area marked by the absence of theoretical
approaches. The second is that the descriptive power at an overview level is
inherently appealing to researchers’ and the third factor suggests that
research in a wide range of settings has provided qualified empirical support
for the model.
Plog (1973) has also argued for a similar process of the development of
7
tourism areas. He places various destinations on a spectrum of types of
tourists, suggesting that the market for destinations would change over time,
both in terms of the types of tourists and in terms of potential numbers of
visitors. Plog thus sums up his argument:
We can visualize a destination moving across a spectrum, however
gradually or slowly, but far too often inexorably toward the potential
of its own demise. Destination areas carry with them the potential
seeds of their own destruction, as they allow themselves to become
more commercialized and lose their qualities which originally
attracted tourists. (Plog, 1974: 58)
While others express the same general idea, there seems to be overwhelming
evidence that the general pattern of tourist area evolution is consistent. The
rates of growth and change may vary widely, but the final result will be the
same in almost all cases.
8
Figure 2.1 Destination Life Cycle Model
Butler’s destination life cycle model which is put forward here is based upon
the product cycle concept, whereby sales of a product proceed slowly at first,
experience a rapid rate of growth, stabilize and subsequently decline; in
other words, a basic asymptotic curve is followed. Visitors will come to an
area in small numbers initially, restricted by lack of access, facilities and
local knowledge. As facilities are provided and awareness grows, visitor
9
numbers will increase. With marketing, information dissemination and
further facility provision, the area’s popularity will grow rapidly. Eventually,
however, the rate of increase in visitor numbers will decline as levels of
carrying capacity are reached. These may be identified in terms of
environmental factors (e.g. land scarcity, water quality, air quality), of
physical plant (e.g. transportation, accommodation, other services), or of
social factors (e.g. crowding, resentment by the local population). As the
attractiveness of the area declines relative to other areas, because of overuse
and the impacts of visitors, the actual number of visitors may also eventually
decline.
The stages through which it is suggested that tourist areas pass are illustrated
in Figure 2.1. The exploration stage is characterized by small numbers of
tourists which are expected to be non-local visitors who have been attracted
to the area by its unique or considerably different natural and cultural
features. At this time there would be no specific facilities provided for
visitors. The use of local facilities and contact with local residents are
therefore likely to be high, which may itself be a significant attraction to
some visitors. The physical fabric and social milieu of the area would be
10
unchanged by tourism and the arrival and departure of tourists would be of
relatively little significance to the economic and social life of the permanent
residents.
As numbers of visitors increase and assume some regularity, some local
residents will enter the involvement stage and begin to provide facilities
primarily or even exclusively for visitors. Contact between visitors and
locals can be expected to remain high and, in fact, increase for those locals
involved in catering for visitors. As this stage progresses, some advertising
specifically to attract tourists can be anticipated, and a basic initial market
area for visitors can be defined. A tourist season can be expected to emerge
and adjustments will be made in the social pattern of at least those local
residents involved in tourism. Some level of organization in tourist travel
arrangements can be expected and the first pressures put upon governments
and public agencies to provide or improve transport and other facilities for
visitors.
The development stage reflects a well-defined tourist market area, shaped in
part by heavy advertising in tourist-generating areas. As this stage progresses,
11
local involvement and control of development will decline rapidly. Some
locally provided facilities will disappear, being superseded by larger, more
elaborate and more up-to-date facilities provided by external organizations,
particularly for visitor accommodation. Natural and cultural attractions will
be developed and marketed specifically, and these original attractions will be
supplemented by man-made imported facilities. Changes in the physical
appearance of the area will be noticeable, and it can be expected that not all
of them will be welcomed or approved by all of the local population.
As the consolidation stage is entered the rate of increase in numbers of
visitors will decline, although total numbers will still increase, and total
visitor numbers exceed the number of permanent residents. A major part of
the area’s economy will be tied to tourism. Marketing and advertising will be
wide-reaching and efforts made to extend the visitor season and market area.
Major franchises and chains in the tourist industry will be represented but
few additions will be made. The large numbers of visitors and the facilities
provided for them can be expected to arouse some opposition and discontent
among permanent residents, particularly those not involved in the tourist
industry in any way, and to result in come deprivation and restrictions upon
12
their activities. The resort city will have well-defined recreational business
district, and, depending upon the length of time involved, old facilities may
now be regarded as second rate and far from desirable.
As the area enters the stagnation stage the peak numbers of visitors will
have been reached capacity levels for many variables will have been reached
or exceeded, with attendant environmental, social and economic problems.
The area will have a well-established image but it will no longer be in
fashion. There will be a heavy reliance on repeat visitation and on
conventions and similar forms of traffic, Surplus bed capacity will be
available and strenuous efforts will be needed to maintain the level of
visitation. Natural and genuine cultural attractions will probably have been
superseded by imported ‘artificial’ facilities. The resort image becomes
‘divorced from its geographic environment’ (Wolfe 1952). New
development will be peripheral to the original tourist area, and the type of
visitor will change towards the organized mass tourist.
The direction of the curve after the period of stabilization illustrated in
Figure 2.1 is open to several interpretations. Successful redevelopment could
13
result in renewed growth and expansion as shown by curve A, although it is
almost certain that the rejuvenation stage will never be reached without a
complete change in the attractions on which tourism is based. Minor
modification and adjustment to capacity levels, and continued protection of
resources, could allow continued growth at a much reduced rate (curve B). A
readjustment to meet all capacity levels would enable a more stable level of
visitation to be maintained after an initial readjustment downwards (curve C).
Continued over use of resources, non-replacement of aging plant, and
decreasing competitiveness with other areas would result in the marked
decline (curve D). In the decline stage the area will not be able to compete
with newer attractions and so will face a declining market, both spatially and
numerically. It will no longer appeal to vacationers but will be used
increasingly for weekend or day trips, if it is accessible to large numbers of
people.
The process illustrated in Figure 2.1 has two axes representing numbers of
visitors and time. An increase in either direction implies a general reduction
in overall quality and attractiveness after capacity levels are reached. In the
case of new ‘instant’ resort, like Hong Kong Disneyland, where tourist
14
facilities are established in an area in which there has been little or no
previous settlement, the first two stages in Figure 2.1 may be of minimal
significance or absent.
The destination life cycle model also suggests that a change of attitude is
required on the part of those who are responsible for planning, developing
and managing tourist areas. Tourist attractions are not infinite and timeless
but should be viewed and treated as finite and possibly non-renewable
resources. They could then be more carefully protected and preserved. The
development of the tourist area could be kept within predetermined capacity
limits, and its potential competitiveness maintained over a longer period.
While the maximum number of people visiting an area at any one time under
such arrangements may be less than most present policies of maximum
short-term development, more visitors could be catered for in the long term.
2.2 Definitions
2.2.1 Sustainable Development in the context of Tourism
It was not until 1973 when Young published his book, Tourism: Blessing or
15
Blight, that the possible negative consequences of tourism development
were highlighted. In 1976, Budowski took up the theme in his seminal paper
‘Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence or
Symbiosis’ and de Kadt (1979) questioned the benefits of tourism in
‘Tourism: Passport to Development?’. In their work ‘Tourism: Economic,
Physical and Social Impacts’ Mathieson and Wall (1982) continued this line
of thought and highlighted the complex and far-reaching economic, physical
and social impacts of tourism. In 1984, Hector Ceballos Lascurain coined
the term ‘ecotourism’, the exact meaning of which led to many spirited
debates among tourism academics. Many tourism entrepreneurs were also
quick to jump on the ‘green’ bandwagon and started to promote their
products as ‘ecotourism products’ when previously they may have been
known as adventure tourism, outdoor tourism, nature tourism or simply
tourism products. The fact that the United Nations declared 2002 the
‘International Year of Ecotourism’ has done little to reduce the diversity of
interpretations as to the meaning of the term. It was left to the World
Commission on Environment and Development’s report ‘Our Common
Future’ (1987) to up the ante in the environmental debate. The report
addressed the state of the global environment and defined sustainable
16
development as ‘Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
(quoted in World Tourism Organization (WTO), 1995: 30). The report called
on the present generation to take responsibility for the well being of future,
as yet unborn generations of humankind as well as other living creatures.
After some debate, the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), the Earth Summit was convened in 1992 and the
182 governments in attendance adopted Agenda 21, a blue print for a
sustainable future for the planet. The meeting called on governments and the
private sector to assume their roles in making development sustainable.
Since the introduction of the concept of sustainable development, most
economic activities have been considered and discussed in the context of the
idea. While some activities such as fishing and forestry lend themselves
easily to the context, at least in principal, others such as mining do not.
Tourism is regarded as an activity which, it has been argued (Sadler, 1988),
should lend itself to the concept of sustainable development not only easily,
but enthusiastically, because in so many cases tourism is dependent upon the
17
maintenance of the natural environment and natural processes for its own
survival.
As a result, many industries, including tourism, responded. By 1995, the
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), an exclusive group of some
120 CEOs of the world’s most powerful tourism companies, had joined
forces with the WTO and the Earth Council to formulate an industry
response to the challenges of the Earth Summit. The result was the
publishing in 1995 of Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry:
Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. The document noted
that: ‘The Travel and Tourism Industry has a vested interest in protecting the
natural and cultural resources which are the core of its business’ (1995: 4).
More importantly, the document mentioned that: ‘The tourism industry also
has the means to do so. As the world’s largest industry, it has the potential to
bring about substantial environmental and socio-economic improvements
and to make a significant contribution to the sustainable development of the
communities and countries in which it operates’ (WTTC, WTO and Earth
Council, 1995:4). The concept of sustainable development expounded
through ‘Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry’ has been widely
18
embraced and is hailed, as an important idea that has facilitated co-operation
and mutual understand among the key stakeholders.
The WTO has defined sustainable tourism in the following way:
Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of present tourists
and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the
future. It is envisaged as leading to the management of all resources
in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be
fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological
processes, biological diversity and life support systems. (WTTC,
WTO and Earth Council, 1995: 30)
That is similar but not the same as sustainable development in the context of
tourism, which could be taken as:
Tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community,
environment) in such a manner and at such a scale that it remains
viable over an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter the
environment (human and physical) in which it exists to such a degree
that it prohibits the successful development and well being of other
activities and processes. (Butler, 1993: 29)
In short, the tourism industry has long recognized the role and importance of
19
the environment and, in most instances, has been careful not to ‘spoil the
nest’ upon which the golden egg is laid. The issue of ‘sustainability’ has
constantly been addressed, in one form or another, following the concerns
raised in the 1970s about the adverse negative impacts, particularly of
uncontrolled mass tourism. Over the years, initiatives have been developed
and adopted by various tourism organizations. Some of the kinds are
governmental, quasi-governmental or industry-based. The industry has
regarded the environment as an integral part of the tourism product and
measures have been taken to ensure that it is protected, and for tourism to be
developed in a responsible, balanced and sustainable manner.
It is important to take into consideration the relationship between tourism,
other activities and processes, and the human and physical environments in
which tourism is taking place. Of equal importance is the need to bear in
mind that tourism is a dynamic and not a static phenomenon.
2.2.2 Sustainable Development of Hong Kong Disneyland in the
context of Tourism
The Hong Kong Disneyland Resort consists of one Hong Kong Disneyland
20
theme park, two hotels (Disneyland Hotel and Disney's Hollywood Hotel),
and retail, dining and entertainment facilities stretching over 1.3 km² (310
acres) on Lantau Island.
Hong Kong Disneyland, the fifth Disneyland in the world, is located on
reclaimed land in Penny's Bay, Lantau Island. After years of negotiation and
construction, the park finally opened to visitors in September, 2005.
Hong Kong Disneyland is the first theme park inside the Hong Kong
Disneyland Resort. The Disneyland park is owned and managed by the
Hong Kong International Theme Parks Limited (HKITP), an incorporated
company jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company and the Hong Kong
government.
The park consists of four themed “lands” similar to those found in the other
Disneyland parks around the world, namely, “Main Street, USA”,
“Adventureland”, “Fantasyland” and “Tomorrowland”.
The sustainable tourism development is a matter of both maintaining
21
existing destinations and preventing the onset of decline, and managing the
development of new destinations in ways which ensure their future
sustainability. In this sense, Hong Kong Disneyland has already enhanced its
promotion on different media channels and started to construct the Phase II
facilities including new theme land and new rides.
It is also clear that sustainable development in the context of tourism means
sustainable environment, sustainable local economies as well as sustainable
local communities.
Furthermore, the sustainable development of Hong Kong Disneyland in the
context of tourism requires pro-active initiatives rather than just reacting to
problems. Last but not least, it is necessary to have market-oriented
initiatives rather than approaches which fly in the face of trends in tourist
behaviour.
2.2.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Hong Kong
Disneyland
The definitions of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can range from
22
a broad definition to a narrow definition. A broad definition of EIA refers to
the need to identify and predict the impact on the environment and on
human’s health and well-being of legislative proposals, policies, programs,
projects and operational procedures, and to interpret and communicate
information about the impacts (Munn, 1979). The narrow definition of EIA
refers to “a policy and management tool for both planning and
decision-making which assists to identify, predict, and evaluate the
foreseeable environmental consequences of proposed development projects,
plans and policies” (Modak and Biswas, 2001).
There is, in fact, a widely accepted definition of EIA. According to Canter
(1996), EIA can be defined as the systematic identification and evaluation of
the potential impacts of proposed projects, plans, programs or legislative
actions relative to the physical-chemical, biological, cultural and
socio-economic components of the total environment.
In short, EIA is a planning tool for improving environmental
decision-making. It is also a process or set of activities which contributes
pertinent environmental information to project or program decision making.
23
The objective of EIA is to predict or measure environmental effects of
certain human activities and to investigate and propose means of mitigating
those effects.
EIAs have been required for an increasing range of projects in Hong Kong
since 1986, but there was no explicit legislation dealing with the process
until the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance came into effect in
1998. EIAs are important tools for biodiversity protection in Hong Kong in
their own right, and not simply as additional protection for conservation
areas. They function both as a final back-up protection for areas whose
ecological importance is unknown, or has not been formally recognized, and,
more generally, to mitigate ecological impacts throughout Hong Kong.
In 1999, under a contract between the Civil Engineering Department and
Scott Wilson Hong Kong Limited. Environmental Resources Management
Hong Kong Limited was commissioned to undertake an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed theme park (Hong Kong
Disneyland) in Penny’s Bay, Lantau and its essential associated
infrastructures. The purpose of the EIA Study was to provide information on
24
the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising from the construction
and operation of the project and the related concurrent activities.
The EIA has, based on the latest worst case information available, critically
assessed the overall acceptability of any adverse environmental
consequences that are likely to arise as a result of the project and, where
necessary, has specified the conditions and requirements for the detailed
design, construction and operation of the project to mitigate against adverse
environmental consequences.
All in all, it is considered that the EIA provides a suitable basis for the
Director of Environmental Protection to consider granting Environmental
Permits to allow the construction or operation of Hong Kong Disneyland and
associated developments.
25
3 Methodology
3.1 Research Scope
Many discussions of sustainable development give no explicit definition of the
spatial scale under consideration and the implicit time scale is usually forever.
Clark (1985) has identified any problems in the study of environmental futures
which originate in a confusion of different time and space scales. Sustainable
development may have a different definition and different measures, depending
on the scale of concern. Hence, this dissertation will make contextual, time and
space assumptions explicit as follows:
3.1.1 Study Area
This dissertation mainly focuses on the environmental and economic
perspectives of the Disneyland theme park. At the same time, emphasis
would be put on the sustainable development in the context of tourism
instead of merely sustainable tourism development. Moreover, Butler’s
destination life cycle model is used in the study as the conceptual
26
framework for the development of Hong Kong Disneyland. It is
considered that tourist attractions are not infinite and timeless but should
be viewed and treated as finite and possibly non-renewable resources; and
thus should be more carefully protected and preserved.
3.1.2 Study Period
The dissertation chiefly covers the period of time since the construction of
Hong Kong Disneyland till the present (i.e. 1999 to 2006); and it also
provides some insights for the sustainable development of Hong Kong
Disneyland in the future.
3.1.3 Data Sources
The dissertation is mainly based on literature review. Secondary data
would be collected for the study. Numerous references have been selected
as basic references such as Butler’s literature on sustainable development
in the context of tourism and the Environmental Impact Assessment Report
of Hong Kong Disneyland undertaken by Environmental Resources
27
Management Hong Kong Limited in 2000; followed by an in-depth
discussion of the impacts of Hong Kong Disneyland on the sustainable
development of Hong Kong’s tourism industry. Besides, quantitative
tourism statistics from Hong Kong Tourism Board would also be used to
analyze the dynamic industry.
3.1.4 Research Tools
Statistical charts, graphs, tables and maps would be used for analyzing the
data gathered. Implications of the research findings for sustainable
development in the context of tourism in Hong Kong would be fully
discussed throughout the dissertation.
3.2 Research Questions
This dissertation attempts to investigate and give answers to the following three
specific questions:
1) What environmental impacts have been associated with the
28
construction and the operation of Hong Kong Disneyland?
2) What are the implications between the sustainable development of
Hong Kong’s tourism industry and Hong Kong Disneyland?
3) What could be done for the practitioners to improve the sustainable
development of Hong Kong Disneyland?
29
4 The Impacts of Hong Kong Disneyland
4.1 Environmental Dimension
4.1.1 Impacts associated with Construction and Operation
When Disney first searched for a suitable site for the potential development
of a Disney project in Hong Kong, four sites were identified for the new
theme park development. Two sites are located in North Lantau: Penny’s
Bay and Yam O whilst the other two are in Shatin: Pak Shek and Pak Shek
Kok (Figure 4.1).
In 1999, the Hong Kong government and Disney agreed that Penny’s Bay
was the most promising option site. Following the consideration of different
project settings, the Civil Engineering Department finally decided to
construct land and essential associated infrastructures for the theme park in
Penny’s Bay, Lantau. Besides, the railway operator, MTR Corporation,
undertook the construction and operation of the Penny’s Bay Rail Link. In
addition, the design and construction of the theme park, hotels and retail,
30
dining and entertainment (RD&E) elements was carried out by Hong Kong
International Theme Parks Limited (HKITP).
Fig
ure
4.1
L
oca
tion
of
the
Fou
r O
pti
on
sit
e fo
r D
isn
eyla
nd
Th
eme
Park
Dev
elop
men
t
31
The elements of the project are summarized as follows and the project area
is shown in Figure 4.2:
� Reclamation of 280 ha of land within Penn’s Bay and 10 ha of
land at Yam O (Figure 4.3), using marine sand and public filling
materials and the construction of associated seawalls;
� Phased development of an international theme park (of about 180 ha)
together with RD&E complexes, hotels and supporting infrastructure
and services. The theme park is anticipated to have an opening annual
capacity of 7.5 million visitors, rising to 20 million visitors with the
completion of Phase II;
� Construction of a 32 ha Water Recreation Centre with a 12 ha artificial
lake;
� Construction of the following: a 1.5 km section of Chok Ko Wan Link
Road from the existing Yam O Interchange extending over the
proposed Penny’s Bay roundabout, a 4 km primary distributor, Road
32
P2, a 3.5 km district distributor, Resort Road, around the theme park;
� Construction of a 3.6 km long rail line, the Penny’s Bay Rail Link,
including an 850 m tunnel and stations at Penny’s Bay and Yam O,
linking the Tung Chung Line at Yam O to the theme park;
� Construction of two public ferry piers and a service quay on the
southern waterfront;
� Construction of general service infrastructure and associated works,
including the stormwater drainage system, sewerage facilities,
irrigation, water supply and utility services; and
� Proposed slope formation and stabilization, screening and landscaping
works.
33
Figure 4.2 Theme Park Project Area and Elements
34
Figure 4.3 Reclamation Works at Penny’s Bay (Inner Bay View)
(Progress as at end-November 2001)
According to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report undertaken by
Environmental Resources Management Hong Kong Limited in 2000, the nature and
extent of the key environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation
of the project is summarized into the following sections.
4.1.1.1 Air Quality
The impacts of the project primarily relate to dust nuisance and
gaseous emissions from the construction plant and vehicles. Dust
generation is considered the major concern. Construction activities
include site formation, construction of the theme park and associated
facilities including hotels and Water Recreation Centre; roads and a
railway, including track and station construction.
While vehicular emission from the adjacent roads and vehicle parking
areas; off-site and territory-wide impacts caused by internal traffic and
theme park-bound tourists; air emissions from Penny's Bay Gas
Turbine Plant, fireworks displays, fuel combustion equipment
including boilers; and odour emissions from sewage pumping station
are the concerns during the operation of the theme park and associated
developments.
4.1.1.2 Noise
During the construction phase of the project, powered mechanical
equipment would be employed in the construction of the theme park
and associated developments would be the primary source of noise
reaching the surrounding environment. The major activities include:
� site reclamation works and seawall construction;
� earth berm construction;
� construction of access and distribution roads and parking lots;
� construction of the Penny’s Bay Rail Link;
� construction of the theme park development including
its associated hotels;
� construction of a water recreation centre with a lake for irrigation
and water sport recreation activities; and
� construction of utilities and support facilities.
During the operation of the theme park, the principal sources of noise
included are:
� associated road works;
� rail traffic (Penny’s Bay Rail Link);
� Penny’s Bay Public Transport Interchange;
� theme park operation including rides and evening fireworks
displays;
� sewage pumping station;
� occasional operation of the existing China Light and Power
Holdings power station in Penny’s Bay;
� potential exposure of theme park resort hotels to noise from the
future container terminal development to the south-east of the site;
and
� water recreation centre.
4.1.1.3 Water Quality
The assessment report considered the potential impacts due to the
formation of reclamations at Penny Bay and Yam O, plus several other
concurrent projects and land based construction activities, including
those for the theme park and the associated road and rail links. The
worst case construction impact assessment determined that there could
an exceedance of the Water Quality Objectives (WQOs)1
for
1 The Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) is the legislation for the control of water pollution
and water quality in Hong Kong. Under the WPCO, Hong Kong waters are divided into 10 Water
suspended sediment at the Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone. The
exceedance was predicted to occur due to cumulative impacts of the
theme park reclamation construction combined with all potentially
concurrent projects but not the construction of the theme park in
isolation. The contribution of the theme park reclamation construction
to the cumulative impacts would be minimized through the application
of mitigation measures, which consisted of advanced construction of
seawalls to confine sediment plumes and restrictions on the maximum
dredging and filling rates. It was determined that the predicted
cumulative increases in suspended sediment concentrations, whilst
exceeding the WQOs, would not cause adverse effects to the cultured
fish and could not therefore be considered to be an adverse impact.
The assessment determined that the operation of the theme park would
have no adverse impacts on tidal current patterns and marine water
quality. A number of operational measures were devised to ensure that
Control Zones (WCZs). Each WCZ has a designated set of statutory Water Quality Objectives
(WQOs). The WQOs set limits for different parameters that should be achieved in order to maintain
the water quality within the WCZs. The Theme Park will be located within the Southern WCZ, and
discharges from the construction and operation of the Theme Park and associated developments will
also fall within the Western Buffer and North Western WCZs.
water quality in the artificial lake would be maintained and thus its
beneficial uses protected.
4.1.1.4 Waste Management
The following quantities of waste were predicted to arise during the
construction of the theme park and associated developments: dredged
materials, construction and demolition material; chemical waste; and
general refuse. No surplus of excavated materials is envisaged.
The theme park and associated development reclamations offer a very
good opportunity to utilize the public fill generated in the HKSAR.
The use of public fill will not only alleviate the demand for virgin fill
material but also reduce the pressure of disposing inert construction
and demolition materials at the strategic landfills. The Penny Bay
Reclamation Stage I will utilize about 2 million m3 of public fill. Stage
II of the Penny Bay Reclamation will make the maximum use (53 %)
of public fill, given the geometry of the reclamation. For the Yam O
reclamation, about 58 % of the fill requirement will be public fill. In all
cases the balance will be sand fill.
With regard to the operating experience of other international theme
parks, the amount of Municipal Solid Waste to be generated from the
operation of the Theme Park at Penny Bay will increase from about 38
tons per day (tpd) in 2005, to 73.5 tpd in 2014, and then to 175 tpd in
2024.
The quantity of recyclable materials expected to be recovered by local
recyclers under the current market driven conditions is estimated to be
about 23 to 26% of the total quantity of waste generated. Analyses
show that a market for the major recyclables exists, especially when
source separation programmes are in place to enhance the market value
of the recovered materials. It is recommended that the theme park
should institute a source separation programme to recover recyclables
from the waste stream with an additional recycling target of 10% for
remaining recyclable materials and a further 10% for compostable
materials. Attaining the latter target is dependent upon the availability
of a composting facility in the HKSAR. These targets should be
adopted in the Waste Management Plan for the theme park. A waste
avoidance and recycling programme, which forms a major part of the
HKITP Waste Management Plan, should be implemented and
monitored annually to determine the practical recycling rate that can be
achieved, based the market for recycled materials at that time.
4.2 Socio-cultural Dimension
What Hong Kong Disneyland represents is a complex mode of exhibition that
combines a thematically coordinated environment as well as knowledge
available after the completion of the technical work of collecting and classifying
an ideology of consumption. That means the theme park features a landscape of
cultural representation assembling knowledge of culture into a form realigned
entirely through consumption.
As a technical mode of exhibition, the theme park is developed on the basis of
the amusement park; an outgrowth of carnivals and fairs in the nineteenth
century, containing the Ferris wheel and roller coaster, shooting galleries,
funhouses, sideshows, and dance bands (Kasson 1978). The theme park may
contain some of the amusement park’s entertainment such as the Ferris wheel
and roller coaster; but it is mainly characterized by a thematically coordinated
environment.
Although the first theme park in the world was built in the mid 1950s, the rapid
development of the theme park did not occur until the 1980s. The first
Disneyland was created by Walt Disney in California in 1955. Its success
prompted the building of other theme parks in the United States and abroad,
including Walt Disney World (1971), near Orlando, Florida (which is the largest
U.S. park and attracts the most visitors in the U.S.), Tokyo Disneyland (1983)
(which boasts the world’s highest visitor numbers), Euro-Disneyland, near Paris
(1992), Disney’s Animal Kingdom (1998), near Orlando, Florida and Hong
Kong Disneyland (2005) (the latest Disney Theme Park).
The Disney model theme park has a number of characteristics. The park is a
built retail environment. It is a highly efficient system because it involves
careful planning, accurate calculation and rational management. All artifacts and
the groups they represented are carefully selected and grouped together. All
shows are thematically planned and all public-access areas are maintained to be
clean and orderly. The whole space of the theme park including scenic sports,
performing stages or areas, paths and bridges, entrances and exits, restaurants
and rest rooms, and stores is designed to be efficient.
Efficiency is related to two important rational aspects of the theme park: crowd
control and productivity. The theme park produces a narrative of the visitors’
movement or regulates the flow of the visitors’ movements in a prescribed route.
Important objectives for controlling crowd are to promote proper behaviors in
public, to allow moderate social mixing, and to let visitors experience
orderliness of the landscape.
From the park’s perspective, the ultimate purpose for maintaining a narrativized
visiting experience is to naturalize the consciousness for consumption. A key
principle of management is to keep its visitors moving, smiling and spending.
This naturalization controls the “speed” of visiting to direct the visitors to
pursue time (schedules for shows) rather than forms (objects on display and
performers) (Virilio 1991). The theme park is a system to make visitors become
consumers. In this process, the more visitors become consumers, the more
money they spend or will spend, and thus, the higher the productivity of the
theme park economy is. Therefore, efficiency is related to a technology of power
that produces consumer-subjects for the theme park economy.
Moreover, its visitors are encouraged to participate in Disney’s production of
pleasure. In Disneyland, consumer-guests are subject to the primary theme of
contentment or happiness (Tuan 1997: 191-198). Disneyland embraces the
values of contentment, peace and harmony in the past – on Main Street, USA;
and in the constantly-updated Tomorrowland – new rides, parades and
performances. Disney theme park has become a model for integrating the layout,
architecture and the built environment for such projects as shopping malls,
public and private buildings, sports stadiums and historical preservation efforts
(Zukin 1991).
The development of the theme park should be seen as part of the transformation
of industrial capitalism into late-twentieth-century capitalism. The theme park’s
relationship to late-twentieth-century capitalism is best understood in the context
of a modernist economy of signs and space. The theme park represents an
economy of institutionalizing the process of converting symbolic capital into
economic capital. The primary resource of this economy comes from artifacts or
things whose meanings have already been available in the form of knowledge.
Thus, this economy is determined by a modernist instrumental rationality that
guarantees a way of reasoning that depends no longer on a transcendental
relationship between the knowing subject and the object of knowing, but on an
immanent relationship between the knowing subject and a set of structural
interconnections interior to the object of knowing. In Hong Kong Disneyland,
the visitor as the knowing subject does not need to have an experience of
investigation through observing and classifying the artifacts. Instead the visitor
merely reassures the meanings of the artifacts thematically prescribed by the
theme park.
The focus of the production process in Hong Kong Disneyland is to organize the
artifacts according to themes such as “Main Street, USA”, “Adventureland”,
“Fantasyland”, and “Tomorrowland”. In contrast to the process of the
manufacturing industry, the theme park’s production process is directly linked to
consumption. Producing and selling in Hong Kong Disneyland have become
inseparable. At the same time, all the maintenance work of the production must
remain to be unseen by the public so that they do not distract the visitors from
participating in leisure and pleasure. Giving the public the impression of the
theme park as” unproductive” space in fact reinforces an ideology of
consumption that disconnects leisure from productive work in appearance and,
meanwhile, links leisure to consumption in reality. This ideology of
consumption is a modernist politics of disappearance, hiding, if not eliminating,
all the unpredictable and disturbing factors in order to demonstrate an
appropriate order or things. There are two major consequences of the
disappearance of production. Visiting a theme park (consuming) is only an
experience of viewing objects on display and performers (products), rather than
also an experience of contributing to the production process. Furthermore,
visitors are unable to know the process of producing exhibits and performances,
and the role of performers in production, not to mention labor conditions in the
theme park – including physical demands, low pay, exploitation of low-skilled
labors and racial discrimination.
In sum, Hong Kong Disneyland is a landscape of cultural representation. As an
economy of signs and space, the landscape of cultural representation directly
applies knowledge of and about cultures and histories to create a new method
and a new form of organization for production, and to produce new consumers’
goods. This appropriation of cultures and histories has created an impulse that
sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion. Under reflexive accumulation of
capitalism, the theme park has played an important role in blurring the
boundaries between the cultural and the economic in a way in which the cultural
becomes an important economic source and is directly used to produce
economic value. In this landscape, social relations in production become
structurally invisible in consumption-oriented process of exhibiting cultures.
4.3 Economic Dimension
4.3.1 Rationale for the construction of Hong Kong Disneyland
As a major international trading and financial centre in Asia, Hong Kong had
been declared the world’s freest economy and the third-most competitive
economy in the world in 1999. Despite these achievements, the economy
was in the midst of a serious recession. According to the Census and
Statistics Department, government officials were troubled by the escalation
in the unemployment rate from 2.5% in 1997 to over 6% in 1999. The
economy’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell to a historical low of minus
5.1% in 1998, with a slight improvement to 0.7% in the second quarter of
1999.
The property sector used to be a dominant growth driver in Hong Kong’s
economy. In 1999, it accounted for over 65% of the stock market valuation
and over 50% of bank lending in Hong Kong. The sale of undeveloped land
to local developers and taxes on property transactions contributed a
significant portion to the government’s revenues. However, the over-reliance
on the property sector had resulted in budget deficits of HK$32 billion when
the property market took a nosedive in 1998. Although tourism accounted
for only about 4% of the economy’s activity in 1998 to 1999, the Hong Kong
government hoped that more tourism products would help the economy to
diversify away from its over-reliance on the property sector for growth. The
government also believed that new tourist products could soak up the
manpower surplus and lower the unemployment rate.
The Hong Kong government has tried all means to revitalize the slack
economy since the Asian financial turmoil in 1997. In order to rejuvenate the
tourist industry, the government was considering the prospect of Disneyland
coming to Hong Kong in the second half of 1998 to 1999.
4.3.2 Economic Risks
To the government, the proposal to build a Disneyland was an extremely
complicated matter. This was especially true given the economic slowdown
in Hong Kong after the outbreak of the financial crisis in Asia in 1997.
Before it signed any agreement with the Walt Disney Company, the
government hoped to convince itself and the Hong Kong people that the deal
was just, fair and reasonable. Many government officials were keen to prove
that the Disney deal would bring Hong Kong a positive image and a
turnaround from the economic slowdown.
However, there had been voices of dissent and doubts about the symbolic
and economic value of the project from the Hong Kong community as soon
as rumours of the project surfaced in early 1999. Analysts and the general
public struggled to understand the implications of the Hong Kong
government participating in such a huge commercial project at a time when
the government faced budget deficits and an economic recession.
The government’s ability to get the best possible terms for the project is
being questioned. Some claimed that the decision is made by civil servants
unaccountable to taxpayers, and the deal is considered unfair because the
total investment of Walt Disney Company in the project is only one-tenth of
that of Hong Kong (HK$2.45 billions from Walt Disney Company against
HK$22.45 billions from the government).
Furthermore, it is anticipated that the Hong Kong Disneyland would force
up prices with the surge of demand of foreign labour which would erode the
cost competitiveness of Hong Kong against more efficient near-by countries.
It is also believed that the venture is a real-estate development, wavering
little from the old Hong Kong paradigm of slapping mortar on bricks to spur
growth. Some described the project as a gamble, the betting is mainly on the
Asian economy, and on Hong Kong’s in particular. The more the investment
costs, the higher the risk involved.
4.3.3 Economic Benefits
Despite the unfavorable factors mentioned above, the fact that Hong Kong
Disneyland creates 18000 jobs, the fillip to the construction industry and the
pulling power it exert over millions of increasingly affluent tourists from the
mainland is indisputable.
As a matter of fact, tangible and intangible benefits are projected by the
government in constructing Hong Kong Disneyland. It is expected that Hong
Kong Disneyland will attract millions of tourists a year to come to Hong
Kong and create thousands of jobs. The project started in 1999 and the park
operated in 2005. During the initial stage, a sum of HK$24.3 billion was
spent for the purpose of reclamation, land information and installation of
support facilities. As the construction work relied heavily on imported raw
material, machinery, equipment and possibly professionals and skilled labour,
the economic benefit generated locally was limited. On the other hand,
according to the government, a total of 10,000 jobs were created to
participate in the land reclamation and other infrastructure works under the
public works programme. Also, 6,000 workers were required to construct
and install the facilities for Phase I of Hong Kong Disneyland. As a result,
the project has reduced the overall unemployment rate in the territory.
The deal, a government-Disney partnership, is considered a fair one that it
will favour both parties, but the success of the project will depend on the
improvement in economy taken place not just in Hong Kong but also in the
region where the main source of visitors lie. They include the visitors from
countries in South East Asia and travelers from the mainland China. The
project is expected to bring family travelers from the region to visit Hong
Kong in addition to the traditional forms of business travelers and
shopping-oriented tourists. The government estimates that Hong Kong
Disneyland will bring 3.4 million incoming tourists in the first year of its
operation in 2005. Tourists from the Mainland and Taiwan will account for
49 of the total estimated visitors. They will spend an average of 3.3 days in
Hong Kong including the extension of their stay for one more night in Hong
Kong Disneyland.
As to local residents, their spending in the theme park is estimated to amount
to HK$680 per head. Thus it is estimated that, assuming no crowding-out
effect, total additional spending by local residents will amount to HK$1.2
billion in the first year, rising to HK$ 1.9 billion per annum over a 20-year
period. According to the calculation of the Financial Services Bureau, the
corresponding combined primary and secondary value added contribution to
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will amount to HK$0.9 billion in the first
year, rising to HK$1.4 billion per annum in 20 years time. As such, the park
will bring in a Net Present Value (NPV) of HK$148 billion over the 40-year
project life.
To sum up the economic benefits brought over, as the Asian tourists flock to
the site, the park will provide a HK$148 billion boost to the economy of
Hong Kong over the 40 years which is equivalent to 0.3% of GDP each year.
Around 18,400 new jobs are created directly or indirectly upon the operation
of Hong Kong Disneyland and the figure will gradually grow up to 35,800
over 20 years.
In addition to the substantial quantified economic benefits Hong Kong
Disneyland has generated, the theme park and its associated facilities also
bring about significant non-quantifiable benefits, namely, quality standards,
technological innovation, image and training. Firstly, given Walt Disney’s
reputation for creativity, operational excellence and delivering high levels of
guest satisfaction, the operation of Hong Kong Disneyland sets a new
standard for the service sector in Hong Kong. Secondly, with Walt Disney’s
reputation for technological innovation, the theme park showcases the best
of cutting-edge technology in its attractions and shows. Thirdly, Hong Kong
Disneyland will no doubt enhance the international image of Hong Kong as
a vibrant, cosmopolitan city, and specifically enhance the status of Hong
Kong as a key tourist destination in Asia and the world. The theme park’s
marketing and sales efforts, in combination with those of Hong Kong in
general, will help make international tourists aware of the multiple reasons
to travel to Hong Kong. Lastly, Walt Disney’s commitment to employee
training and development, especially in the area of guest service, will
provide an added resource and leadership presence to Hong Kong’s
expanding service sector. The “Disney University” offers a wide variety of
career development programmes for its employees at all levels of the
organization.
After all, Disney hoped to make money from park attractions. But the Hong
Kong government should take a wider view of its investment. The return
cannot be limited to the amount of money the government derives from
profit sharing in the company itself, but rather the whole economy gains.
The hotels, the tourist industry, the airline and all the retail shops benefit as
the result of more tourists coming to Hong Kong. It is without doubt that the
Disney project’s spillover effects on the economy as a whole can outweigh
the low financial returns form the project itself. As a matter of fact, Hong
Kong Disneyland is relatively successful to boost the local economy when
compared with other “saving-HK-economy” projects like the Chinese
Medicine Hub, the Victoria Harbour Super Stars Show and the Cyberport.
Nevertheless, it is still too soon to evaluate the impact Hong Kong
Disneyland brought to Hong Kong’s economy due to its short period of
opening. Some of the statistics shown in this dissertation are only estimates.
Whether Hong Kong Disneyland really will attract millions of tourists a year,
reposition Hong Kong as a premier family tourist destination and enhance
Hong Kong’s international image still leads to an open question.
5 Hong Kong’s Tourism Industry
5.1 Background of Hong Kong Tourism
5.1.1 Historical Trend
Hong Kong has developed tourism for around half a century already. In the
1950’s and 1960’s, tourists came to Hong Kong mainly for shopping. Given
the superior geographical location, the practice of free trade and low tax
policy, the development of tourism sector was further promoted. Visitors
were attracted by the inexpensive goods and products, of which no sales tax
nor import and export tax have been imposed.
With China’s Open Door Policy during the 1970’s and 1980’s, many people
came to Hong Kong en route to China (Chu 1998). Figures for inbound
tourists continue to rise steadily in the 1990’s, from around 6.8 million
visitors to around 11.7 million in 1996 (HKTA 1997). Yet, the tourism
industry has been challenged by the severe financial crisis in Asia, global
economic downturn as well as the 11 September incident in the U.S. since
1997. As a result, the development of tourism slowed down until the new
stimulus has been found – the market of Mainland China. With slight
improvement in the economy in 1999, inbound tourists rose by 11.5% to
11.3 million (HKTA 2000b).
Hong Kong’s tourism industry emerged in stronger shape than ever in 2004,
showing that it had finally left behind the unprecedented challenge of SARS
that affected the previous year. The steady revival that began in the second
half of 2003 continued and by the end of 2004 a truly record-breaking year
had been achieved.
Though the figures for incoming tourists have been rising recently, the
situation is no longer the same as in 1980’s and early 1990’s. Great
competition arose from other Southeast Asian cities and Hong Kong needs to
market itself to the world to maintain the status as a famous tourist
destination.
5.1.2 Changing Market Structure of Inbound Tourism
Hong Kong achieved record arrivals from the major long haul markets of the
United States, Canada and Australia in 2004. Key factors driving long-haul
growth included reviving economies, strengthening currencies in Europe and
Australia, renewed confidence in overseas travel among Americans, and
vigorous global marketing efforts launched by the Hong Kong Tourism
Board (HKTB).
Record arrivals figures were also set by the key short-haul markets of South
Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and India. The continued growth of low-cost
airlines in Southeast Asia, several of which connect with Hong Kong, has
made it easier and less expensive to plan a trip and this trend is expected to
have a continuing beneficial effect on visitor arrivals from the short-haul
markets. Increased capacity on the well-established carriers also benefited
visitor numbers from both the long-haul and short-haul markets.
Among Hong Kong’s key markets, Mainland China continues to be the
leading source of visitors, with arrivals passing 10 million for the first time
and eventually reaching some 12.25 million, a 44.6% growth on 2003. The
growth in Mainland visitors was fuelled during the year by the extension of
the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS), which allows resident permit holders of
designated cities to travel to Hong Kong without joining a tour group or
seeking a specialized visa. By March 2005, IVS covered a total of 34
Mainland cities, embracing a resident population in excess of 170 million.
Relatively slower growth in Taiwan during 2004 left arrivals below 2002
levels, although the island remained Hong Kong’s second-largest source
market. Visitors from Japan also trailed those of two years previously.
Nonetheless, total arrivals from North Asia grew by almost 35% over the
year, spearheaded by an excellent performance from South Korea, which
broke a record dating back to 1996. Several markets in South & Southeast
Asia set record arrivals, including Singapore, Malaysia and India, while all
key markets in the region showed strong growth.
Concerning the long-haul market, the Americas regained its place as the
leading regional status, with total 2004 arrivals of close to 1.4 million, up
more than 51%. Europe, Africa & the Middle East contributed some 1.38
million visitors, up nearly 46% last year. Finally, Australia, New Zealand &
South Pacific, though the smallest of HKTB's seven market regions,
recorded the highest growth rate in 2004, with a near 58% increase that
resulted in over 483,000 arrivals. Table 5.1 shows the top five source
markets for visitor arrivals to Hong Kong in 2004.
Table 5.1: Hong Kong’s Top Five Source Markets of Visitor Arrivals in 2004
Source: Tourism Research Hong Kong Tourism Board, 2005
While figures showing growth are always welcome, it is necessary to know
that the world is changing at a faster pace than ever. Indeed, as a result of the
kind of major unforeseen events happened in recent years, such as terrorist
attacks and epidemics, higher volatility could be expected in the future.
Given these circumstances, Hong Kong will not only need to continually
upgrade the quality of its services and the depth and breadth of its attractions,
but also sustain its high quality branding. Above all, the practitioners must
be flexible enough to respond with fresh marketing plans and strategies that
address changing conditions.
5.1.3 Changing Pattern of Tourist Spending
The total overnight visitor spending surpassed HK$60 billion, reaching
HK$61.14 billion in 2004. Mainland China, the United States and Japan
were the top three generators of overnight visitor spending, sharing 55.5%,
7.3% and 5.3% of the total respectively, and altogether accounting for 68.1%
of the total. Table 5.2 shows the top five source markets for overnight visitor
spending in 2004.
Table 5.2: Hong Kong’s Top Five Markets Ranked by Overnight Visitors Spending in 2004
Source: Tourism Research Hong Kong Tourism Board, 2005
Despite an increase in total overnight visitor spending by Mainland visitors
to HK$33.94 billion, per capita spending for this market fell to HK$4,355 in
2004. This was largely due to the radically different behavior of visitors
travelling under the IVS.
All other short-haul markets also noted strong increases in spending,
especially South & Southeast Asia (up 45.5% to HK$6.74 billion). It was
followed by North Asia (HK$4.39 billion) and Taiwan (HK$2.62 billion), up
29.9% and 24.3% respectively.
Among long-haul market regions, Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific
recorded the highest growth of 74.3%, reaching HK$1.94 billion. Europe,
Africa & the Middle East (HK$5.30 billion) and the Americas (HK$5.73
billion) grew by 52.7% and 46.7% respectively.
There was an increase in overall destination consumption expenditure by
overnight Mainland visitors to HK$33.9 billion, although per capita
spending for this market fell to HK$4,355 in 2004. This was due to the
radically different behavior patterns among IVS visitors. In fact, among
same-day arrivals, Mainland visitors contributed the highest per capita
spending, an average of HK$1,043. Many IVS travelers took the opportunity
to visit Hong Kong just for shopping sprees or entertainment, whereas
non-IVS same-day travellers may come for a variety of reasons, including
stopovers en route to or from another destination. These IVS same-day
visitors have effectively created a new category of arrivals that can be
termed “consumption visits”. This maximizes overall returns for Hong Kong,
benefiting the travel trade and many related services. It provides Hong Kong
with an expanded visitor base without placing excessive demand on tourism
infrastructure, such as hotels.
All in all, Hong Kong’s tourism industry is set to embrace a bright future,
with new tourism products coming on stream, including phase II of Hong
Kong Disneyland, Ngong Ping 360 and Hong Kong Wetland Park that
appeal to visitors from all major markets and segments.
Moreover, Hong Kong’s proximity to Mainland China’s burgeoning
outbound market has helped put our tourism industry in the vanguard of
growth; nevertheless, it is important to sustain this source of growth in order
to make Mainland China to be the leading contributor to our arrivals. To
survive in the keen competition arose from globalization, Hong Kong needs
to market itself to the world so as to maintain the status as Asia’s world city.
5.1.4 Sustainable Development of Hong Kong Tourism Industry
Environmental issues were not really highlighted nor prominently featured
in Hong Kong until the former Chief Executive announced a set of
environmental initiatives in his 1999 policy speech under the theme of
‘Quality People – Quality Home’. Initiatives in making Hong Kong an ideal
home included: improving air and water quality; reducing waste;
cooperating with Mainland China; adhering to the principle of sustainable
development; and promoting a quality living environment. The policy
speech was widely welcomed but the necessity to address the issue came as
no surprise when record air pollution levels, pollution of the harbour and
community demands to address the problem has forced the government to do
something.
Despite the relative lack of priority and emphasis given by the government
to the environment and sustainable development until recently, the tourism
industry has been one step ahead of many other industry sectors in Hong
Kong. It was the first sector to develop a strategy and in April 2000, the
Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy for Hong
Kong’s Travel and Tourism Industry (ESDS) was released. The ESDS ‘is
designed to recommend comprehensive and practical measures based on
sustainable principles for industry member use’ (Hong Kong Tourist
Association, 2000b: 3)
Four priority areas were identified in the ESDS, namely:
1) Environmental management;
2) Sustainable training, education and public awareness;
3) Facilitating exchange of information, skills and technology related
to sustainable travel and tourism; and
4) Land use planning and new tourism product development.
The tourism industry in Hong Kong seems to get off to a good start as far as
addressing the challenge in developing sustainable practices with the ESDS
already in place. But whether the industry actually delivers on its
commitment to the environment still remains to be an open question.
5.1.5 Significance of Tourism to Hong Kong
Tourism is one of the four key industries in the Hong Kong economy. It has
been the driving force of Hong Kong's economic growth, providing impetus
to growth of other sectors, and creating employment (Census and Statistics
Department, 2005).
Tourism covers inbound tourism and outbound tourism. Inbound tourism
covers retail trade, hotels and boarding houses, restaurants, other personal
services, travel and airline ticket agents, and passenger transport services,
yet pertaining only to that segment of services provided to visitors to Hong
Kong. Outbound tourism covers travel and airline ticket agents as well as
cross-boundary passenger transport services, yet pertaining only to that
segment of services provided to Hong Kong residents for overseas travel.
Table 5.3 shows the employment in Hong Kong’s tourism industry from
2000 to 2004.
Table5.3: Employment in Tourism Industry (2000-2004)
Employment (Number) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
108 300 112 800 136 600 138 900 152 800
86 400 89 800 114 900 115 600 129 500
Retail trade 29 300 31 300 40 100 49 900 54 800
Hotels and boarding houses 24 200 24 400 23 800 22 400 23 700
Restaurants 20 100 21 400 32 400 28 000 32 700
Cross-boundary passenger
transport services 6 200 6 200 6 800 5 500 6 700
(A) Inbound
Others 6 600 6 500 11 700 9 800 11 600
22 000 23 000 21 700 23 300 23 300
Travel agents and
airline ticket agents 16 600 16 500 15 500 17 300 17 800
(2) Tourism
(B) Outbound
Cross-boundary passenger
transport services 5 400 6 600 6 200 5 900 5 500
Sources: Census and Statistics Department HKSAR, 2005
Hong Kong’s tourism is important in the sense that it contributes a lot to the
foreign exchange of Hong Kong. It is the top foreign exchange earner among
service industries, and is the second largest earner of foreign exchange
according to the Hotel and Tourism Management Department, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University.
With the completion of new customized tourism products coming on steam,
the more liberal policy on Chinese citizens travelling overseas, the increased
wealth among middle-income groups in Mainland China as well as the
growth of commercial links between the two places which stimulates
business travel, the demand for both inbound and outbound tourism is huge.
After all, the outlook of Hong Kong’s tourism industry is expected to remain
positive.
6 Components of Hong Kong Tourism – Amusement Park
6.1 Stakeholders Involvement of Hong Kong Disneyland
6.1.1 Role of the Walt Disney Company
The Walt Disney Company owned 100% of Disney Enterprises Inc. which,
with its subsidiaries, was a worldwide entertainment company with
operations in five business segments: media networks, studio entertainment,
theme parks and resorts, consumer products and Internet and direct
marketing. The company employed over 120, 000 people worldwide, and
had diversified investments in the following areas: amusement parks and
resorts; filmed entertainment, such as live action motion pictures, animated
motion pictures and original television programmes; real estate development
for commercial and industrial properties; general real estate brokerage
financing and resort and property management services; production of
consumer products such as computer software products for the educational
market, and publishing books, magazines and comics; marketing and
distribution of mainstream music; Disney stores carrying Disney
merchandise, and licensing of the company’s characters and other
intellectual property for use in connection with merchandise publications.
Although Walt Disney had one of the best-known brands in the world and
was the world’s second-largest media company (behind Time Warner), its
presence in the US market was threatened by a series of setbacks. During the
year ended 30 September, 1999, the company reported a 30% slump in net
income to US$1.3 billion. Its studio division was hard hit by the sluggish
home video market and posted an 85% fall in operating income. The
consumer product division, whose profits were derived from the sales of
Disney toys and merchandise at its Disney Stores and the stores of other
vendors, was also suffering. Income was down 24% for the year 1999.
Disney’s catalogue and Internet operations reported an operating loss of
US$93 million. Mr. Michael Eisner, Chairman and Chief Executive of Walt
Disney, responded by trimming capital expenditure, restructuring operations
and closing some businesses. Regional entertainment centres were closed
and staff were laid off in television production. The store-opening schedule
was postponed, and the number of manufacturers licensed to make Disney
character products was reduced by a third.
While most of its divisions reported lackluster financial results, the theme
park and resorts division was a strong performer and provided the steadiest
source of growth for Walt Disney. During the year 1999, income from this
sector increased 12 % to US$1.4 billion, while revenue increased 10% to
US$6.1 billion. To Walt Disney, cost-cutting at home alone might not bring a
dramatic reversal of the group’s fortune. It was imperative for the company
to find a growth driver. The move of the theme park and resorts division into
China might be able to bring the group back to the growth track from which
it strayed since May 1998, when the company’s stock price reached its peak
in the 1990s.
Adding parks had been on Disney’s agenda at least since 1961, i.e. six years
after Disneyland opened in Anaheim, Southern California, in July 1955. It
had cost US$17 million dollars to make and was built within one year. The
company’s second theme park opened in Florida in 1971. Having completed
two large theme parks in the United States, Disney began to look for
opportunities elsewhere. After five years of negotiations, the first foreign
Disney theme park was opened in Tokyo, Japan, in 1983. The second foreign
theme park Disneyland Paris opened in France in 1992. The ownership
structure of Tokyo Disneyland was quite different from that of Disneyland
Paris. Tokyo Disneyland was a joint venture between two private companies,
whereas in the case of Disneyland Paris, the involvement of the Government
was significant.
After learning the lessons from Tokyo and Paris, Walt Disney realized the
difficulty in striking a balance between maximizing return while minimizing
risks in a foreign stake. While still looking to invest in new theme parks,
Walt Disney decided to proceed cautiously. The company saw investors
flocking to mainland China and was therefore keen to gain a toehold in the
Chinese market by opening a new theme park.
However, there were enormous barriers to entry in China. Compared to the
mainland, Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region seemed to be a
more flexible and attractive place for the third foreign theme park. To Walt
Disney, Hong Kong had met the essential requirements for building a
Disneyland, with its strong infrastructure, openness towards visitors and the
government’s commitment to developing tourism.
The attractiveness of Hong Kong as a suitable site for Hong Kong
Disneyland could be attributed to the infrastructure and the great amount of
mainland tourists. With a spectacular airport at Chek Lap Kok and a
gleaming network of roads, railways, tunnels and bridges, Hong Kong had
the best infrastructure and the easiest accessibility in Asia. While Walt
Disney was searching for a site that could meet their requirements for
building a theme park, the government had earmarked a quiet area on
Northeast Lantau for tourism and recreational purposes. In the second half of
1998, both parties began talks based on a site near Yam O, close to the Chep
Lap Kok flight path. Later, Penny’s Bay, Northeast Lantau, where there was
virtually no intrusion or incompatible land use, was chosen as a more
appropriate location for a Disney theme park.
Besides, according to the Hong Kong Tourist Association, the Mainland
China, Taiwan, South and Southeast Asia, Japan and the United States were
the major sources of visitors to Hong Kong (Table 6.1b). In 1998, the total
number of visitors from the mainland was 2.6 million and accounted for
27% of the total number of visitor arrivals (Census and Statistics Department
2000). These mainland visitors also contributed to 60% of the total visitor
arrivals for Ocean Park – another major theme park in Hong Kong.
Table 6.1: Tourism Industry in Hong Kong (1990-1998)
The growth potential of visitors from the mainland was one of the major
factors that attracted Walt Disney to Hong Kong. Both Walt Disney and the
government believed that the success of the proposed Disneyland would
depend on the number of mainland visitors, especially those living in the
Pearl River Delta region, who has the highest average earnings in mainland
cities.
6.1.2 Role of the Hong Kong Government
During the preliminary negotiations, the Hong Kong government had
persuaded Walt Disney to participate as an equity investor in a joint venture
company, Hong Kong International Theme Parks Limited, which would
develop and operate Hong Kong Disneyland. The proposed Disneyland
would be divided into two phases. Phase I of Hong Kong Disneyland would
include a Disney theme park, offering new and traditional Disney
entertainment experiences through the delivery of attractions, shows and
cutting-edge technology. Two Disney-themed resort hotels with a total of
2,100 hotel rooms would be constructed adjacent to the theme park. In
addition to the theme park and the hotels, there would be a 28,000 square
meters retail, dining and entertainment complex. Both the government and
Walt Disney anticipated a Phase II project, which would include a second
Disney theme park, additional hotels and an expansion of the retail, dining
and entertainment complex. The total cost for developing Phase I (excluding
the land premium) would amount to HK$14.1 billion. Figure 6.1 presents the
financing arrangements for Hong Kong Disneyland.
Figure 6.1: Hong Kong Disneyland Project Cost Breakdown
Source: HKSAR Government, 2005
The government expected that Disneyland, with its huge number of foreign
and local attendees, would provide a significant stimulus to overall spending
in Hong Kong. It therefore estimated the number of attendees visiting the
park. The methodology for assessing attendance is presented in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2:
The details of the assumptions used by the government are as follows:
� For assessment purposes, the projection period of the project is 20 years,
i.e. from the year of opening in 2005 until 2024.
� Visitors to the park are classified into four categories: local residents,
base tourists, induced tourists and business visitors.
� The population of Hong Kong in 1998 was 6,687,200 (Census and
Statistics Department, 2000). From 1987 to 1998, the population grew at
an average annual rate of approximately 1.7%
� Base tourists are those tourists who would visit Hong Kong even without
Disneyland. The number of base tourists in 1998 was 9.6 million. From
1987 to 1998, the number of visitor arrivals to Hong Kong increased by
an average of 6.48% per annum. The growth rate projected by the Hong
Kong Tourist Association in mid-1999 was much lower than the historical
rate. The average projected rate was only 3.3% over the period 2005-2020
after the theme park opening. Business visitors usually accounted for
about 30% of the total number of base tourists. Because of their very
nature, they were reckoned to account for only a negligible proportion of
the total attendance at the theme park.
� Induced tourists were expected to come from three major sources within
East Asia, largely the mainland and to a lesser extent Taiwan and
Southeast Asia. The number of induced tourists was derived from an
assumed ratio of induced tourists to base tourists. The assumed ratio was
11.4% in 2005, which would increase to a maximum of 13.8% in 2017,
and then fall back gradually to 10.8% in 2024.
� The government assumed that the market penetration rate for local
residents would rise from 19% in the opening year of 2005 to 23% in
2024, while those for base tourists, induced tourists and business visitors
would remain at around 15.5-15.8%, 100% and 4% respectively
throughout the projection period.
� The visits-per-guest rations for the four categories of attendees (local
residents, base tourists, induced tourists and business visitors) were
assumed at 1.35, 1.17, 1.15 and 1.0 respectively.
The closest comparisons Hong Kong had with a Disney scale are Ocean
Park and the Shatin racecourse. Ocean Park attracted up to 35,000 people a
day while the Shatin racecourse drew up to 75,000 people a day. Table 6.2
below shows the projection of the attendees at Hong Kong Disneyland from
2005 to 2024.
Table 6.2a
Table 6.2b
6.1.3 Role of Other Organizations
Some organizations like political parties, professional groups, transportation
corporations, green groups and environmental organizations also take the
role of monitoring and cooperating with Hong Kong Disneyland.
A case in point is the Disneyland Resort Line (DRL). It is an extension of
the MTR system, connecting the Tung Chung Line to the Hong Kong
Disneyland Theme Park at Penny's Bay on Lantau Island. The DRL project
provides 3.4 km of new track and two new stations. Both stations have been
designed to complement the environment and special features are to be
incorporated in the design of the train cars. Professional bodies like
construction and engineering companies also help with the landscaping and
construction of the theme park. Figure 6.3 shows the construction and
landscaping work of the Disneyland Resort Line.
Picture 6.3: Construction and Landscaping work of the Disneyland Resort Line
Trackside Landscaping
Disneyland Resort Station
Main Stairs and skylight
Spanish Stairs
Main Control System
DC traction power supply unit
Source: MTR Corporation Limited
Tracks running through Sunny Bay
New DRL Platform
New TCL/DRL interchange platform
North Portal
South Portal
Tunnel ECS
Environmental groups like Greenpeace (Hong Kong), Friends of the Earth
(Hong Kong) and the World Wild Life Fund of Nature Hong Kong also work
hand in hand to promote environmental protection, monitor environmental
issues of Hong Kong Disneyland. A good example would be the shark fin
soup controversy. Disney originally planned to serve shark fin soup, a
traditional Chinese delicacy, at wedding banquets. However, after constant
and continuous pressure from environmental groups, Disney eventually
announced that shark fin soup will not be served. All these
non-governmental organizations interact with Hong Kong Disneyland in the
way of cooperating and monitoring it.
6.2 Relationship and Implication between Hong Kong Disneyland and Hong
Kong’s Tourism Industry
6.2.1 Laissez-faire Policy
Hong Kong has recently been ranked the freest economy in the world by the
Heritage Foundation for twelve consecutive years. Hong Kong is no doubt a
practitioner of laissez-faire policy. The government believes that an open
market can foster a better economy because the economy can adjust by itself
while too much intervention is unhealthy. However, it is also in part the
belief of laissez-faire policy hindering the sustainable development of Hong
Kong’s tourism.
Although the implementation of laissez-faire policy means that Hong Kong
remains a business-friendly city and a low-tax regime, it also implies that the
government would probably give way to business corporations whenever
there are conflicts of interest between economic development and
environmental issues. It is especially true for the tourism industry since it is
one of the four main pillars in Hong Kong economy. Conflicts between
environmental conservation and economic benefits always exist in the
industry. As a result, the governmental inclination towards the business
sectors would definitely hinder the sustainable development of tourism
industry in the realm of environment and ecology.
Luckily, in the case of Hong Kong Disneyland, the Hong Kong government
is the majority owner which possesses a bigger share of the theme park, and
thus has greater bargaining power when conflicts of interest exist.
6.2.2 Strengthening Hong Kong’s reputation as a family destination
Hong Kong Disneyland brings a vital new element to Hong Kong’s tourist
industry. Suiting with the prevailing values for a family type entertainment
facility, Hong Kong Disneyland help promote Hong Kong as a family
destination. Not only does it herald a new era for tourism in Hong Kong, but
also helps Hong Kong reposition itself as a premier destination for family
tourists.
For the local community, it enriches the quality of life by offering family
entertainment and recreational facilities. For the tourism industry, especially
the short-haul markets, Hong Kong Disneyland cultivates growth in the
family segment and transforms Hong Kong from a narrowly focused
shopping attraction to a diversified family tourism destination.
6.2.3 Brand Effect of Disney
The Disney theme park brand name has lived well for more than four
decades. It has continued to be the world’s most successful and longest
prospering theme park as it has abundant advertising, marketing and public
relations power to build an efficient machine that keeps its “Happiest Place
on Earth’ motto front and center. It has proved to be popular with all ages,
nationalities, races and educational and cultural backgrounds because it
speaks a common language of fun, creativity and happiness.
The Disney theme park is always well promoted internationally, not just
through their theme park network but by the Disney products they produce
through their other businesses. The important point to note is that the
remaining 70% of Disney’s businesses actually support their 30% business
in theme park through increased awareness of the brand name and new
product enhancement.
Besides, the theme park improves with time and catches up with the latest
happenings through creativity and design, market research, product
innovation and future trends. With its massive resource support in all areas,
Disney is the only theme park name in the world gaining such reputation and
delivering its promises.
Moreover, the Disneyland theme park commands the respect of other world
leaders in entertainment and wherever Disney decides to be, it increases the
potential for other international brand names to follow. Multi-attraction tour
visits to other international brand names built around the Disney theme park
mutually enhance the value of Disney theme park as well as other
international brand names. It also offers the opportunity for good local brand
names to be known and accepted internationally.
All in all, the brand effect of the Disney theme park brings positive impact to
the sustainable development of Hong Kong’s tourism in the sense that it
provides a solid, dependable, long term and global blueprint of tourism
development for Hong Kong.
6.2.4 Disneyland as the Gateway to China
Hong Kong Disneyland functions as a gateway to China. This is a two-way
interpretation. On one hand, the theme park is deemed as a window exposed
to the world for the rising number of Mainland China visitors which have
high spending power. Since the Mainlanders are eager to connect with a
global pop culture that poverty and Communist policy had previously kept
out of reach, most of them nowadays want to experience the foreignness.
Hong Kong Disneyland is expected to offer them an American or
international experience through its world-famous services and management
of amusement parks.
On the other hand, Hong Kong Disneyland is regarded as the threshold of
China for the global travelers. Disney has emphasized the cultural diversity
since the serious setback of Disneyland Paris in 1992. As a result, Hong
Kong Disneyland has shown certain adaptations to the norms and local
society. The use of Feng Shui in designing Hong Kong Disneyland is a case
in points. Besides, a Chinese eatery has been firstly installed in the Main
Street, U.S.A., one of the attractions of Hong Kong Disneyland. The
American design with a combination of Disney and Chinese overlay is a
chief attraction to the foreign visitors. Hong Kong Disneyland, therefore,
takes the role of an introductory park of China or Chineseness to the
foreigners.
6.2.5 Living Environment and Town Planning
The Disney theme park not only supports the environment but its park
development and maintenance are always carried out in full support of
environmental concerns and standards. Disney is a responsible member of
the environmental protection community and despite the fact that millions
visit the theme park each year; it is always of the highest environmental
standards and the most pleasant one to visit.
However, the poor air quality remained one of the factors that gave our
visitors a bad impression upon their arrivals. A survey conducted by the
Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong in 2000 showed that
a large number of Mainland tourists claimed that the air pollution in Hong
Kong was worse than they had expected.
The building of the Disneyland theme park in particular and the promotion
of tourism industry in general, had spilt over to environmental protection
and town planning. The government had initiated a series of package to
improve the living environment and had imposed further town planning
restrictions. One of the ideas was to preserve the views to ridgelines and the
Victoria Harbour. This could help to maintain the unique identity of our city
with the characteristic of high-rise developments set against a mountain
backdrop around the Victoria Harbour. The size of reclamation at old Kai
Tak Airport was also reduced to preserve the harbour view; meanwhile the
development of this new reclaimed land was modified to suit the tourist
strategy.
7 Conclusion
7.1 Recommendations
Undoubtedly, the construction and operation of the Disney theme park, to a
certain extent, would affect the local community in the realm of environment,
economy and culture. The theme park project might comply with all
environmental standards and legislation after the construction and operational
stage mitigation measures are implemented. However, the sustainability is so
vulnerable that a slight change could trigger permanent and irreversible impacts
upon the environment. It is believed that Hong Kong has many challenges ahead
if it is to minimize environmental harm and at the same time accommodate the
increasing number of tourists that will visit. For Hong Kong, the government
must come to the fundamental understanding that if it is to be truly regarded as a
world-class city and tourist destination, it must start with a world-class
environment.
The only way for Hong Kong to succeed in developing more sustainable forms
of tourism will mean all the stakeholders in tourism working together. The
destination, i.e. the Disney theme park, is the natural focus for this partnership
because it is where the stakeholders tend to all come together.
In Hong Kong Disneyland, partnership is required between public sector
strategists and planners and private sector enterprises whose actions will either
lead to the implementation of public sector plans, or will ensure that they simply
gather dust on a shelf. Besides, partnership is needed between the local tourism
industry and externally based tourism organizations, given that the former
provides services to the clients of the latter. Last but not least, partnership is
necessary between the host community and the tourists to ensure that tourism
creates harmony and understanding between both groups, rather than irritation
and conflict.
To be more specific, in order to create an appropriate balance between economic
returns and environmental conservation in achieving sustainable development in
the context of tourism, Hong Kong Disneyland should take a longer term
perspective than has been traditional. Moreover, it has to be environmental
friendly and behave in ways which are socially responsible. In addition, it needs
to reduce the waste of human resources as well as the earth’s resources. Lastly, it
must be fair to the tourists, the industry and the host community.
In short, Hong Kong Disneyland must be sustainable in itself but it must also
help to sustain the local community and environment.
7.2 Limitations
The prime limitation of this dissertation is the time constraint. Due to insufficient
time, it is not able to obtain the primary data. As a result, most of the data
gathered is secondary data which comes from published texts and statistics as
well as from the Internet. Therefore, the data may not be comprehensive and
updated enough.
With regard to the environmental impacts brought by the construction and
operation of Hong Kong Disneyland, the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) Report is the only reference being referred to. The scope of the study may
be too narrow to be an empirical evidence of the environmental impacts of Hong
Kong Disneyland. Moreover, the EIA Report is undertaken in the year 2000 but
it is already the most updated information available. Obviously, there is an
information gap of Hong Kong Disneyland’s environmental impacts after its
commencement. The data acquired in this dissertation may be outdated.
Lastly, it is too soon to evaluate Hong Kong Disneyland’s impacts towards the
sustainable development of Hong Kong’s tourism because of its short period of
opening since the year 2005. Only conceptual ideas could be generated for its
future path and some of the statistics shown in the dissertation are only estimates.
There is a lack of empirical data available for analysis.
Appendix
Original Text of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – Construction of an
International Theme Park in Penny’s Bay of North Lantau and its Essential
Associated Infrastructures. Source: Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd. in association
with Environmental Resources Management, Shankland Cox, Wilbur Smith
Associates, 2000.
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 1Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 Under a contract between the Civil Engineering Department (CED) and Scott Wilson (HongKong) Limited, Environmental Resources Management - Hong Kong, Limited (ERM) wascommissioned to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Shankland CoxAsia Limited was commissioned to undertake a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment(LVIA), for the proposed Theme Park in Penny Bay, Lantau and its essential associatedinfrastructures. In accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Study Brief No.ESB-043/1999 this Executive Summary Report summarises the findings of the EIA Study.
1.2 STUDY AREA HISTORY
1.2.1 In 1989, the Port and Airport Development Strategy Study identified North-East Lantau asthe primary area for expanding the port facilities in Hong Kong. Subsequently, the ProjectArea was earmarked for container terminals (CT10 and CT11) and port related uses underthe 1993 Lantau Port and Western Harbour Development Studies (LAPH). Since then, anumber of EIA Studies which demonstrated the environmental feasibility of the portdevelopment have been conducted and endorsed by the ACE in 1995. Based on the LAPHand subsequent studies, the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) for North-East Lantau Port wasgazetted in March 1995, with the main development theme evolving around the portdevelopment. The 1995 Visitor and Tourism Study (Hong Kong Tourist Association/Planning Department) identified the potential for a tourism corridor along the north shore ofLantau Island and the 1997/98 Port Cargo Forecast indicated a general slowdown of thegrowth rate of cargo throughput in Hong Kong. On the basis of these findings, the planneddevelopment programme for port facilities has subsequently been reviewed. The 1998Territorial Development Strategy Review (TDSR) identified North-East Lantau as havingpotential for a range of other land uses, such as tourism/recreation, housing, business estateand major transport interchange. As a follow up to the TDSR, an integrated planning andengineering feasibility study (the Northshore Lantau Development Feasibility Study(NLDFS)) was initiated by the CED in June 1998.
1.2.2 In March 1999, the Financial Secretary announced that the Administration was in theprocess of negotiation with The Walt Disney Company with a view to determining whether aDisney theme park project could be brought to fruition in Hong Kong. The Committee onPlanning and Land Development, after considering initial findings of the NLDFS, agreedthat the land use proposals for North-East Lantau should be drawn up on the basis of thetourism/recreation development theme, with an intention to translate North-East Lantau intoa ourist Paradise” comprising a world-class theme park and a range of other compatibletourist attractions. The findings of the NLDFS and a Preliminary Outline Development Plan(PODP) were presented to the Town Planning Board in July 1999 and it was agreed that thePODP was a suitable basis for the revision of the previous North-East Lantau Port OZP.The land use of the proposed Project site was thus revised to incorporate a theme park andrelated resort hotel development, a water recreation centre and supporting government,institutional and community facilities and transport network in August 1999. In addition,two future container terminals to the southeast of the Theme Park are retained under thedraft OZP to cater for long term port expansion in Hong Kong. The location of such newfacilities is pending review in further studies.
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 2Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
1.2.3 In parallel with these developments, in 1998 Disney was looking for a suitable site for thepotential development of a Disney project in Hong Kong. A number of potential sites wereidentified, including Penny Bay and Yam O on North Lantau. In 1999, the Governmentand Disney agreed that Penny Bay was the most promising option and following thisdecision the two sides started serious negotiation. Following the consideration of differentProject settings and the selection of the preferred site, CED is proposing to construct landand essential associated infrastructures for an international Theme Park in Penny Bay,Lantau. Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited (HKITP) will construct and operatethe Theme Park and related resort development of hotels and retail, dining and entertainment(RD&E) areas. The proposed Theme Park is expected to become a core tourist attraction inthe Hong Kong SAR.
1.3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT
ELEMENTS
1.3.1 The proposed Project has the following characteristics which includes 9 EIA Ordinance(EIAO) Schedule 2 Designated Projects (DPs):
• Reclamation of about 280 ha of land within Penny Bay (a DP) and 10 ha of land at Yam O (a DP), usingmarine sand and public filling materials and the construction of associated seawalls;
• Phased development of an international Theme Park (of about 180 ha) together with RD&E complexes, hotels(with a final capacity of up to 7,000 rooms) and supporting infrastructure and services. The Theme Park isanticipated to have an opening annual capacity of 7.5 million visitors, rising to 20 million visitors with thecompletion of Phase II. The Theme Park comprises an EIA Ordinance DP;
• Construction of an approximately 32 ha Water Recreation Centre (WRC) with a 12 ha artificial lake (a DP);
• Construction of the following: a 1.5 km section of Chok Ko Wan Link Road (CKWLR) from the existing YamO Interchange extending over the proposed Penny Bay roundabout, a 4 km primary distributor, Road P2, a 3.5km district distributor, Resort Road, around the Theme Park (all DPs) plus an 800 m central pedestrian walkwaybetween Phases I and II of the Theme Park;
• Construction of a 3.6 km long rail line, the Penny Bay Rail Link (PBRL), including an 850m tunnel andstations at Penny Bay and Yam O, linking the Tung Chung Line at Yam O to the Theme Park (a DP);
• Construction of a Public Transport Interchange (PTI) for the Theme Park close to the Penny Bay Rail Stationand a temporary PTI at the Yam O rail station;
• Construction of two public ferry piers and a service quay on the southern waterfront;
• Construction of general service infrastructure and associated works, including the stormwater drainage system,the eastern culvert (a DP), sewerage facilities, irrigation, water supply and utility services; and
• Proposed slope formation and stabilisation, screening and landscaping works.
1.3.2 The Project Area and elements are shown in Figure 1.
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 3Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
1.3.3 CED will be the overall Project proponent and will oversee the Project reclamation worksand the provision of the Theme Park essential infrastructure. However, the constructionand operation of the PBRL will be undertaken by the intended railway operator, MTRC. Thedesign and construction of the Theme Park, hotels and, RD&E elements will be carried outby HKITP. The currently proposed, worst case, programme for construction assumed in theEIA is summarised below.
1.3.4 The proposed Theme Park and associated developments will be constructed on landreclaimed by CED in phases between the second quarter (Q2) 2000 and Q4 2008. Once thereclamation and basic infrastructure works are completed, the sites will be handed over tothe HKITP to allow construction of the Theme Park superstructures, hotels, RD&E elementsand infrastructure. Between Q2 2002 and Q2 2005, the Theme Park Opening Day, Phase Iwill be constructed to occupy the western portion of the site and will also include relatedhotel and RD&E elements. The Phase I Theme Park will then be expanded over a ten yearperiod to achieve the final Phase I Theme Park. Phase II of the Theme Park will be builtbetween 2008 and 2024. The WRC construction will commence in Q2 2001 and will becompleted in Q4 2004. The section of CKWLR from Yam O to the Penny BayInterchange is envisaged to be built between Q4 2001 and Q1 2005, Road P2 between Q32003 and Q1 2005, the Resort Road Q1 2003 to Q1 2005 and PBRL and stations from Q42002 with opening for passenger service in Q1 2005. Tentative dates for utilities andservices installation are between Q3 2000 and Q1 2005.
2 STUDY APPROACH
2.1.1 As required by the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB 043/1999) the purpose of this EIA Study was toprovide information on the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising from theconstruction and operation of the Project, and related concurrent activities.
2.1.2 This EIA Study has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Study Briefand the general principles and guidelines of the Technical Memorandum on EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Process (EIAO TM).
3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
3.1.1 The following sections summarise the nature and extent of the key environmental impactsand outcomes arising from the construction and operation of the Project and relatedactivities taking place concurrently. The EIA Report provides further details. The sectionssummarise the key environmental impacts avoided and protection and benefits afforded tosensitive environmental resources and populations. Environmentally sensitive designs andmitigation measures (compensation areas) are recommended:
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 4Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
3.2 AIR QUALITY
BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.2.1 The air quality within the Study Area is currently rural affected by local emissions from theNorth Lantau Highway and, to a lesser extent, the Penny's Bay Gas Turbine Plant (GTP) andemissions from the SAR and beyond. The existing air quality for the Study Area iscomparable with the monitoring results collected from the Tung Chung air qualitymonitoring station. In future, local vehicular emissions are expected to contribute moresignificantly to the air quality in the Study Area.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
3.2.2 Impacts primarily relate to dust nuisance and gaseous emissions from the construction plantand vehicles. Dust generation is considered the major concern. Construction activitiesinclude site formation, construction of the Theme Park and associated facilities includinghotels and WRC; roads and a railway, including track and station construction. With theincorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, it has been predicted that there willbe no exceedances of the statutory Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for cumulative hourly anddaily total suspended particulate (TSP) levels at any of the identified Air Sensitive Receivers(ASRs). The assessment takes full account of impacts from the construction concurrentprojects. However, to ensure no exceedance of the TSP standard at the receivers,Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) is recommended, as prescribed in the ProjectEM&A Manual.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
3.2.3 Vehicular emissions from the adjacent road networks, including CKWLR, Route 10 andRoad P2, and the emissions from the GTP are the major air quality concerns. In addition,the emissions from the vehicle parking areas and emissions from fireworks displays, on-sitefuel combustion equipment and sewage pumping station are also of concern. Potential airquality impacts during the operation of PBRL will be limited since electric passenger trainswill be used and hence no local air emissions will be produced.
3.2.4 All statutory AQOs will be satisfied at all ASRs at both the low level (ground level and 10 mabove ground) and high level (20 to 40 m above the ground). Height restrictions have beenincorporated into the OZP and RODP to avoid any potential air quality impact from the GTPemissions. It has been determined that the dispersion of the stack emissions will not beadversely affected by the Theme Park and associated developments.
3.2.5 Possible impacts from the fireworks displays have been assessed through scientific literaturereview and dispersion modelling. Based on the available literature, fireworks displays willnot be a significant source of atmospheric emissions of dioxins and furans. The modellingresults indicated emissions from fireworks would only slightly increase the predicted dailyand annual RSP concentrations by 8.88 µgm-3 and 0.58 µgm-3 respectively at the worstaffected ASR. Based on the modelling results and the low percentage of heavy metals inthe fireworks compositions, adverse impacts from heavy metals are not predicted. Potentialodour impacts from hydrogen sulphide generated by the fireworks displays have also beenmodelled and the results are within the acceptable nuisance criterion at ASRs. The
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 5Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
assessment predicts that fireworks would only contribute to marginal increases in pollutantlevels in the atmosphere. Operational monitoring is proposed for verification purposes.
3.2.6 Potential odour impacts from the proposed sewage pumping station would not affect theadjacent ASRs with the adoption of the recommended odour control measures in the detaileddesign. Measures include the enclosure of odour sources and the provision of odourscrubbing systems.
3.3 NOISE
BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.3.1 The noise environment within the Study Area is currently rural in nature with the operationof Cheoy Lee Shipyard and the occasional operation of the GTP in Penny's Bay being theonly noise sources. In future, noise emitted from the PBRL, proposed road networks andthe Theme Park operation are expected to contribute to the noise environment in the StudyArea. The EIAO-TM does not provide a specific noise limit for Country Parks. Therefore,while this EIA has evaluated noise levels at the Country Park and the proposed Country ParkExtension Area, the resulting noise impacts are interpreted qualitatively.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
3.3.2 Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) will be the primary source of construction noise.Noise exceedances at Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) have been predicted only for theevening time period. Mitigation measures including the use of quiet plant and the erectionof movable noise barriers have been recommended for evening construction works. Withthe implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, noise impacts at the identifiedNSRs will comply with the statutory Noise Control Ordinance evening criterion. Regularmonitoring of construction noise at adjacent NSRs is recommended, in order to ensure thatthe NSRs are not subject to adverse construction noise.
OPERATIONAL NOISE
3.3.3 No adverse noise impact on NSRs such as Peng Chau, Discovery Bay and Luk Keng Tsuenwas predicted for the operation of the Theme Park. Noise created by the fireworks displaysat the Theme Park is predicted to comply with the Leq, 15min 55 dB(A) limit, defined based onthe timing, duration, irregular and impulsive character of fireworks noise. For other fixedplant noise sources, including the GTP, the proposed sewage pumping station at PennyBay, the public transport interchanges and the possible future container terminaldevelopments, it is anticipated that their impacts on NSRs are likely to be minimal andwithin the relevant criteria.
3.3.4 For railway noise from the PBRL, the predicted LAeq,30min
level at Luk Keng Tsuen was 45
dB, with Lmax 55 dB(A) and the Leq, 24 hour noise level would be at least 1 dB(A) lower. The
cumulative impact from Airport Express Line and Tung Chung Line was estimated to be 55dB(A). The results indicated that the proposed PBRL will not impact upon the existingNSRs and will comply with the statutory requirements of the NCO and EIAO-TM in allassessment time periods.
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 6Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
3.3.5 Adverse road traffic noise impacts at Peng Chau, Discovery Bay, Luk Keng Tsuen and theexisting Lantau North Country Park were not anticipated due to the large separationdistances and the very substantial terrain screening the proposed road network from thesensitive receivers. The predicted road traffic noise levels along the boundary of theProposed Country Park Extension Area fall within the range of 40-70 dB(A).
3.3.6 There are no established noise criteria associated with Country Parks. The operational noiseof the Theme Park and associated developments was predicted not to be perceptible at theexisting North Lantau Country Park boundary. At the boundary of the Proposed CountryPark Extension Area, a noise level of up to 67 dB(A) has been predicted. The existing NorthLantau Country Park is located more than 7 km from the Theme Park. Adverse noiseimpacts from the operation of the Theme Park are not anticipated.
3.3.7 It is concluded that adverse noise impacts due to the operation of the Theme Park andassociated developments are not anticipated.
3.3.8 Noise monitoring is recommended during the operational phase to ensure compliance withthe operational noise criteria. For the monitoring of operational noise, mainly from fixedplant, it is suggested that this should be carried out at the Theme Park perimeter to ensurecompliance with the Leq, 30min 75 dB(A) criterion. In addition, it is recommended that noisemonitoring should be undertaken during the fireworks displays to ensure compliance withthe Leq, 15min 55 dB(A) criterion at the nearest NSRs at Discovery Bay and Peng Chau.
3.4 WATER QUALITY
BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.4.1 A review of EPD routine water quality monitoring data determined that the water quality inthe vicinity of the proposed Theme Park was generally good. There were, however, existingexceedences of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) Water Quality Objectives(WQOs) for total inorganic nitrogen to the south of Penny Bay and of dissolved oxygento the south and east of Penny Bay and to the north of Yam O. The exceedence for thetotal inorganic nitrogen has been recorded for the last 10 years and was thought to bestrongly influenced by the outflows from the Pearl Estuary. The exceedence of the dissolvedoxygen WQO had not been recorded in earlier years and would be expected to recover in thefuture. E. coli levels were in compliance with the WQOs for Secondary Contact RecreationSub-zones to the south of Penny Bay.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
3.4.2 The assessment considered the potential impacts due to the formation of reclamations atPenny Bay and Yam O, plus several other concurrent projects and land based constructionactivities, including those for the Theme Park and the associated road and rail links. Theworst case construction impact assessment determined that there could an exceedance of theWQO for suspended sediment at the Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone. The exceedance waspredicted to occur due to cumulative impacts of the Theme Park reclamation constructioncombined with all potentially concurrent projects and was not predicted to occur due to theconstruction of the Theme Park in isolation. The contribution of the Theme Parkreclamation construction to the cumulative impacts would be minimised through theapplication of mitigation measures, which consisted of advanced construction of seawalls to
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 7Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
confine sediment plumes and restrictions on the maximum dredging and filling rates. It wasdetermined that the predicted cumulative increases in suspended sediment concentrations,whilst exceeding the WQO, would not cause adverse effects to the cultured fish and couldnot therefore be considered to be an adverse impact. A robust water quality monitoring andaudit programme has been formulated to trigger further mitigation on the Theme Park andother projects in the area, if found necessary. The potential impacts to water quality fromland based construction activities will be readily controlled through a series of estpractice’ methods to control wastewater discharges from the construction sites. Audits of themitigation measures for the land based construction activities should be carried out.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
3.4.3 The assessment determined that the operation of the Theme Park would have no adverseimpacts on tidal current patterns and marine water quality. A number of operationalmeasures were devised to ensure that water quality in the artificial lake would be maintainedand thus its beneficial uses protected. It was determined that at the opening of the ThemePark in 2005, the Siu Ho Wan Sewage Treatment Works (STW) would have adequatecapacity to cater for the increased flows due to the Theme Park. However, as flowsincreased up to 2011 and beyond, it was determined that additional treatment capacity wouldbe required.
3.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT
CONSTRUCTION
3.5.1 The following quantities of waste were predicted to arise during the construction of theTheme Park and associated developments: dredged materials (approximately 46.3 M m3 or amaximum rate of 90,600 m3 d-1), construction and demolition material (a peak generationrate of approximately 45 m3 d-1); chemical waste (a few cubic metres per month); andgeneral refuse (2.8 tpd during peak construction period). No surplus of excavated materialsis envisaged.
3.5.2 The Theme Park and associated development reclamations offer a very good opportunity toutilise the public fill generated in the HK SAR. The use of public fill will not only alleviatethe demand for virgin fill material but also reduce the pressure of disposing inertconstruction and demolition materials at the strategic landfills. The Penny BayReclamation Stage I will utilise about 2 million m3 of public fill. Stage II of the PennyBay Reclamation will make the maximum use (53 %) of public fill, given the geometry ofthe reclamation. For the Yam O reclamation about 58 % of the fill requirement will bepublic fill. In all cases the balance will be sand fill.
3.5.3 Based on the assessment, adverse waste management impacts are not anticipated during theconstruction phase.
OPERATION
3.5.4 Based on the operating experience of other international theme parks, the amount ofMunicipal Solid Waste (MSW) to be generated from the operation of the Theme Park atPenny Bay will increase from about 38 tpd in 2005, to 73.5 tpd in 2014, and then to 175tpd in 2024.
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 8Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
3.5.5 The quantity of recyclable materials expected to be recovered by local recyclers under thecurrent market driven conditions is estimated to be about 23 to 26% of the total quantity ofwaste generated. Analyses show that a market for the major recyclables exists, especiallywhen source separation programmes are in place to enhance the market value of therecovered materials. It is recommended that the Theme Park should institute a sourceseparation programme to recover recyclables from the waste stream with an additionalrecycling target of 10% for remaining recyclable materials and a further 10% forcompostable materials. Attaining the latter target is dependent upon the availability of acomposting facility in the HK SAR. These targets should be adopted in the WasteManagement Plan for the Theme Park. A waste avoidance and recycling programme, whichforms a major part of the HKITP Waste Management Plan, should be implemented andmonitored annually to determine the practical recycling rate that can be achieved, based themarket for recycled materials at that time.
3.5.6 The assessment demonstrates that the North Lantau Transfer Station will be able to handlethe quantity of waste arisings from the Theme Park and associated developments until, atleast, 2016. This assessment makes the conservative assumption that the material recoverymeasures are not in place. With regard to waste transfer and disposal, HKITP should closelyliaise with the EPD regarding waste transfer and disposal arrangements when the handlingcapacity of the NLTS and strategic landfills are close to their maxima.
3.6 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.6.1 The major habitat types within the Assessment Area comprise secondary woodland, tallshrubland, grassland/shrubland mosaic, brackish/freshwater wetland, village/orchard,wasteland, plantation, freshwater streams, as well as backshore vegetation. The fieldsurveys indicated that the grassland/shrubland mosaic, which is typical of similar habitatselsewhere in Hong Kong, is the main habitat type. The identified secondary woodland,backshore vegetation, freshwater wetland and freshwater stream habitats are considered tohave moderate to high ecological value, and all the other habitats a low value. The plantspecies with ecological interest which may be affected by the Project are Schoenus falcatusand Eriocaulon merrilli. Two locally rare faunal species have been recorded in theAssessment Area: the Rice Fish (Oryzias latipes) in the lower Mong Tung Hang Stream andthe White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster).
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
3.6.2 The proposed developments associated with the Project will generally lead to a loss of lowecological value terrestrial habitats and hence to a low ecological impact. Mitigationmeasures are recommended to avoid or reduce the potential impacts on habitats of moderateto high ecological value. For example, woodland compensation planting is proposed atNgong Shuen Au.
3.6.3 During project construction and operation, the potential disturbance to a pair of White-bellied Sea Eagles in the Assessment Area was considered moderate. Although constructiondisturbance effects (e.g. noise) could potentially be controlled such that disturbance to theeagles would be minimised, and the Theme Park fireworks displays would be located about800 m from the nesting site thereby reducing potential disturbance, abandonment of the nest
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 9Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
site as a result of disturbances could not be ruled out. However, the closest point from theTheme Park to the nest site would be about 500 m and in the worst case scenario of nestabandonment, the White-bellied Sea Eagles should be able to find suitable alternativenesting sites. Hence, no significant residual impacts are expected, though construction andoperation EM&A was recommended to provide feedback into construction and operation tominimise any disturbance.
OPERATION PHASE
3.6.4 During operation of the Theme Park and associated developments, an identified impactcomprises the possibility of the White-bellied Sea Eagles abandoning the existing nestingsite due to noise from the remote (more than 2 km and 800 m from Phases I and II,respectively), nightly laser show and short duration fireworks displays. Direct humaninterference is a concern which may be mitigated by the continued prohibition of humanaccess during Project operation by secure fencing of the nesting area. It is, thus, considerednecessary to extend the EM&A programme during Theme Park operation to monitor thereaction of the White-bellied Sea Eagles to the fireworks displays. In the worst case ofabandonment of the pair from their nest during operation, possible suitable habitat andnesting sites are available in the vicinity of the Assessment Area and thus no residual impactis predicted.
3.7 MARINE ECOLOGY
BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.7.1 Literature reviews of existing information supplemented with the results of field surveys ofmarine ecological resources indicate that the intertidal rocky shores within the Study Areaare of medium ecological value, whereas for the sandy habitats, a low ecological value wasassigned. Soft bottom habitats identified in the assessment were regarded as being of lowecological value. A small area containing high ecological value assemblages of hard coralswill be lost as a result of the reclamation activities. Information on baseline conditionssuggests that no species of conservation importance have been recorded from the marineareas close to the reclamation sites, with the exception of the Chinese White Dolphin. Thefindings of work conducted by Dr Tom Jefferson of the Ocean Park ConservationFoundation indicate that the abundance of the Chinese White Dolphin is low in East Lantauand that they use the area seasonally in winter. East Lantau and thus the waters near theproposed reclamation sites do not appear to be highly utilised by the Chinese White Dolphinand are not considered as critical areas. These waters do not comprise Finless Porpoisehabitat.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
3.7.2 Potential impacts to marine ecological resources from the proposed construction works mayarise either indirectly, e.g. through perturbations of the surrounding water quality, or directlyas a result of habitat loss. The natural intertidal and subtidal assemblages within the Penny
Bay and Yam O reclamations will be lost permanently due to the proposed reclamationworks. However, it is anticipated that given an appropriate seawall design, assemblagestypical of those lost will recolonise after reclamation. Indirect impacts during thereclamation process, such as an increase in suspended solids levels and decrease in dissolvedoxygen levels in the water column may impact intertidal and subtidal filter feeders and other
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 10Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
marine organisms. However, any effects are not expected to be severe and no unacceptableimpacts are predicted to occur.
3.7.3 The impacts occurring as a result of the construction of the Theme Park and associateddevelopments are the direct loss of 290 ha of the low ecological value soft benthicassemblages, 3.08 km of medium and low ecological value natural intertidal shores, 1.27 kmof sloping artificial seawalls, and 0.298 ha of high ecological value coral habitat. The loss ofthe habitat within the areas to be reclaimed will be mitigated through the provision of 3.9 kmof sloping armour rock/concrete seawalls, of which 4.3 ha would be suitable for corals tocolonise and grow. This mitigation measure reduces the magnitude of the residual impacts toan acceptable level.
3.7.4 An ecological monitoring and audit programme involving the use of dive surveys will beconducted to report on the progress of colonisation of the seawalls once construction workshave ceased. As an additional habitat enhancement measure, CED has undertaken to deployArtificial Reefs in Hong Kong waters at a site (or sites) to be decided following consultationwith the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation. Construction and operationphase dolphin/porpoise monitoring should be conducted to evaluate whether there have beenany effects on these animals.
OPERATION PHASE
3.7.5 Operational impacts to marine ecological resources may occur through disturbances to waterquality due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime of the area or due to effluent dischargesinto the marine environment. It is expected that all discharges will have to comply with theWPCO discharge standards and consequently marine ecological resources will be protectedfrom impacts. Minor changes in the local hydrodynamic regime are predicted, althoughthese are not expected to alter water quality to an extent that marine ecological resources areaffected. An increase in the number of vessels travelling to and from Victoria Harbour andthe Theme Park is predicted to occur. However, as these vessels will not be high speed andas this area is not regarded as critical habitat for the Chinese White Dolphin, unacceptableimpacts are not predicted to occur.
3.8 FISHERIES
3.8.1 A review of existing information on capture fisheries indicates that the adult fisheriesresources in the marine areas close to the Assessment Area are in general of low value.Hence, adult capture fisheries resources are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the Project.Although impacts to fish fry may occur through the permanent loss of habitat and/orelevated suspended sediment levels as a result of the proposed reclamation works, theseimpacts have been deemed acceptable as these waters are not an important nursery area forcommercial fisheries species. Any impacts which are predicted can be mitigated through theProject design. Any measures which are required to reduce impacts to water quality willalso serve to protect against unacceptable impacts to capture fisheries resources. In terms ofresidual impacts to capture fisheries, the small loss of fishing grounds from the Hong Kongfishery is expected to be compensated for by the potential environmental benefits of theproposed sloping armour rock/concrete seawalls. Artificial Reefs have been recommendedfor deployment as an additional marine ecology and fisheries habitat enhancement measure.As a result, the residual impacts to capture fisheries through the construction and operationof the Theme Park and associated developments have been deemed acceptable.
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 11Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
3.8.2 In terms of impacts to culture fisheries, the Ma Wan Fish Culture Zone (FCZ) is notpredicted to be impacted by either suspended solids elevations, dissolved oxygen depletionsor nutrient elevations, as a result of the either the construction or operation of the ThemePark. Projected changes to the hydrodynamic regime are not expected to impact the waterquality of the FCZ as current speeds are expected to be only minimally affected. Dischargeswill comply with WPCO standards. Mitigation measures have been recommended tominimise impacts from the construction of the Penny Bay reclamation to the Ma WanFCZ. Mitigation and monitoring measures will serve to protect the Ma Wan FCZ fromcumulative impacts.
3.9 RISK TO LIFE ASSESSMENT
3.9.1 As part of the EIA, a hazard assessment of dangerous goods (fireworks and sodiumhypochlorite) incidents resulting in loss of life was undertaken to evaluate the risksassociated with storage, transport and use of dangerous goods at the Theme Park. With theincorporation of the design and operating safety measures considered in the analysis, therisks due to fireworks and sodium hypochlorite storage, transport and use were found to bein the 'acceptable’ region of the Hong Kong Risk Guidelines. Further risk mitigationmeasures have been suggested for the Theme Park operator to consider for theirimplementation on a good practice basis.
3.10 CULTURAL HERITAGE
BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.10.1 The baseline study on cultural heritage resources indicate that there are no standing heritageor marine archaeological deposits within the Theme Park and associated developmentsStudy Area. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact to somearchaeological sites identified.
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION PHASE IMPACTS
3.10.2 Preservation in totality and avoidance of impact as far as possible has been taken as the firstpriority for the cultural heritage impact assessment. However, the potential damage to orloss of archaeological resources including temporary or permanent landtake, groundcompaction, topsoil or subsoil disturbance during construction, change in watertable and alimitation on accessibility for future investigation still exist. Mitigation measures to heritageresources include the use of plastic sheets to cover any impacted area at the Wan Tukarchaeological site before the temporary access road construction and/or fill up workrequired at the site, and the avoidance of waterlogged site conditions through detailed designof runoff diversion. The associated residual impact could be mitigated by the removal of thefilled material and the plastic sheet covers when necessary for future investigation anddesign to allow the diversion of surface runoff to avoid the development of waterlogged siteconditions.
3.10.3 Preservation by record in totality (full rescue programme) prior to the construction on ChokKo Wan archaeological site has been recommended to mitigate the impact to this site.
3.10.4 The detailed design of the CKWLR and Road P2 support column locations to reduce theimpact to the potential coastal archaeological deposit could minimise the impact to potential
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 12Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
archaeological deposits at the Cheoy Lee Shipyard (CLS) site. The development of the areawill provide an opportunity for an archaeological field evaluation to be undertaken at theoriginal coastal area within the existing CLS site, which will be considered under a separateSchedule 2 EIA of CLS site decommissioning and provide appropriate mitigation measuresfor identified archaeological deposits. The associated residual impact could be mitigated byrescue excavation if necessary in the last resort if the impact is unavoidable.
3.10.5 In order to ensure that the heritage sites at Pa Tau Kwu archaeological site and the 2 gravesites are not impacted by construction work, these sites should be indicated on allconstruction plans as emporary protection area” and the physical site boundaries, with theinclusion of 5 m buffer zone, should be fenced off on sites and drawn to constructionworkers’ attention to prevent entry. Access to the grave sites should be retained duringconstruction, and grave owners informed of specific access arrangements, when necessary.Operational access should also be retained to the grave sites for future visitors after Projectcompletion.
3.10.6 Having implemented the recommended mitigation measures on impacted heritage resources,the impacts to the cultural heritage resources are considered acceptable. The subsequentCLS site decommissioning EIA will further assess any cultural heritage resources within theCLS site, when access is available, and will formulate appropriate mitigation measures.
3.11 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.11.1 The Penny Bay area is predominately undulating hillsides forming a well-enclosed valleybetween two high points, Fa Peng Teng to the northeast, and Tai Shan to the northwest.Areas of shrub and woodland exist on the lower slopes of the two hill areas, while the upperslopes are dominated by grassland. There is some man-made intrusion in the form of thePenny Bay Gas Turbine Plant and the CLS site along the east coast of the bay.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
3.11.2 Grassland, shrub and woodland are affected primarily by the proposed transportinfrastructure and in particular woodland will be adversely affected by CKWLR and RoadP2 proposals at Ngong Shuen Au. The Theme Park reclamation will remove sections ofnatural coastline and is therefore a significant impact, although the proposal of an openchannel along the western edge of the Penny Bay reclamation has allowed the retention ofan extensive length of natural coastline. There will be a high level of a more suburban,tourism, recreation oriented landscape character of the Project Area from a predominatelyrural type, whereas the upland character zones are largely unaffected by developmentproposals. An expected high level of change to the local visual system of the Project Area isalso predicted. The higher levels of adverse impact will result from a loss of a large area ofbay and coastal waters, the temporary low visual quality associated with the relocationworks area and slope cutting associated with the CKWLR and Road P2.
3.11.3 A range of mitigation measures have been proposed including reclamation mitigationmeasures such as temporary hydroseeding along the edge to improve its visualcharacteristics. The construction impacts of the Theme Park will be mitigated by theproposed advancement of construction and landscaping of the permanent soil berms. The
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 13Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
operation phase is considered to be of an acceptable visual value and not requiringmitigation. The mitigation for the slope cutting associated with CKWLR and Road P2 willinclude slope landscaping and minimisation of the areas affected by slope cutting. Theprimary residual impacts that have been identified are the loss of bay and coastal waters andthe adverse impact of CKWLR on local topography and landscape character. In accordancewith Annex 10 of the EIAO TM, the landscape and visual impact is considered acceptablewith mitigation.
3.12 LAND CONTAMINATION
3.12.1 To allow the Theme Park and associated developments EIA Study to be a tand alone’assessment, the relevant land contamination section of the NLDFS EIA was included withinthis EIA, although it is not strictly a requirement of the Study Brief. In order to providequantitative information to the limited extent possible, a preliminary sampling programmewas conducted along a stream bed discharging from the southeastern boundary of the CLSsite. The results of five soil samples indicated that, whilst low concentrations of totalpetroleum hydrocarbons (as gasoline) and 11 heavy metal compounds were detected in somesamples, the concentrations were not a major concern. Almost all of the detected metalcompounds were noted to be below the respective Dutch ” Value concentrations, whichwould imply clean, uncontaminated soil. As appropriate remediation will be performed forthe CLS site before construction of the Theme Park road and rail elements, future potentialnegative land contamination impacts are judged to be minimal. Remediation works will berequired to meet the EPD standards. The NLDFS assessment will be verified by CED in aseparate EIAO Schedule 2 EIA for the CLS site. Thus, it is considered that there will be nopotential residual negative impacts and no insurmountable constraints associated with thefuture use of the site for the Theme Park and associated developments.
3.13 TERRITORY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
3.13.1 The territory-wide environmental implications of the additional visitors to the Theme Parkwere addressed in broad terms. The air quality assessment concluded that the territory-wideair quality impact due to Theme Park (Phases I and II) related traffic is not significant.Operational water quality modelling predicted that there would be no breaches of the WaterQuality Objectives due to the treated sewage effluent and stormwater discharges from theTheme Park and therefore concluded that there would be no associated adverse territory-wide or local impacts to water quality. The quantity of solid waste arising from the ThemePark (Phases I and II) operation can be handled by the North Lantau Transfer Station up to2016. This evaluation assumes that no waste reduction measures are in place; however,HKITP will introduce source separation schemes to reduce the quantity of waste to bedisposed.
3.14 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND AUDIT (EM&A)
3.14.1 As summarised above, and detailed in the Project EM&A Manual, the EIA Study hasrecommended a comprehensive EM&A programme comprising monitoring beforeconstruction and monitoring and audit during both construction and operation of the Projectfor: air quality (baseline, construction and operation), noise (baseline, construction andoperation), water quality (baseline and construction), waste management (construction andoperation), terrestrial ecology (baseline, construction and operation), and marine ecology(baseline, construction and operation). As there will be multiple contracts underway in the
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 14Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
Project Area, an Environmental Project Office (ENPO) has been recommended in theEM&A Manual. This will be funded and set up by the Project proponent (CED) to monitorand audit the cumulative impacts.
3.15 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS, DESIGNS, KEY PROTECTION MEASURES ANDENHANCEMENTS
3.15.1 The key benefits associated with the Project are expected to be primarily of an economicnature. Additional environmental benefits, designs, key protection measures (summarised inSections 3.2 to 3.14) and enhancements arising from the Project include the following.
• HKITP has committed to exclude the purchase of any fireworks that contain Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Arsenic,Manganese, Nickel or Zinc in their formulation. This minimises the use of products containing potentiallyharmful heavy metals and reduces possible impacts to the surrounding environment.
• Noise created by the evening fireworks displays at the Theme Park is restricted to comply with the Leq, 15min 55
dB(A) limit at the relevant NSRs. • Water quality mitigation measures for the construction of the Theme Park reclamations were specified in terms of
operational constraints (eg limiting the rate of working, defining the construction sequence for the reclamationsand recommending certain methods of construction) and est practice’ working methods.
• The Project reclamations will require a large amount of fill material and therefore offer a very good
opportunity to utilise the public fill generated in the SAR. The use of public fill will not only alleviate thedemand for virgin fill material but also reduce the pressure of disposing inert Construction and DemolitionMaterial (C&DM) at the strategic landfills.
• HKITP will implement waste reduction initiatives intended to divert material away from disposal at the strategic
landfills. The initiatives will centre around the introduction of waste segregation and materials recoverymeasures.
• The use of fabric (plastic) fenders instead of tropical hardwood fenders has been recommended for the proposed
Theme Park Ferry Pier and service quay construction. • The use of wooden hoardings in the Project construction period will not be allowed and metal (aluminium, alloy,
etc.) has been recommended to help reduce the quantity of construction and demolition (C&D) wastes. • Secondary woodland planting will be undertaken to compensate for the loss of approximately 1.8 ha of the
woodland at Ngong Shuen Au. As considerable areas, of not less than 6 ha, of woodland planting are proposedas landscape and visual impact mitigation on the adjacent hillside to the east of Ngong Shuen Au, sufficientcompensatory woodland will be provided. Species used for planting should be similar to the species identified inthe Tree Survey and be native to the Hong Kong or South China regions. The trees should bear fruit preferred bybirds, and/or larval and/or adult butterfly food plants to maintain the ecological function of the existingsecondary woodland.
• Laser effects used in the shows are expected to utilise lasers in the 20 to 30 Watt power range. All laser effects
will also be erminated” against fixed, non-reflective, objects within the Theme Park to prevent any impact toguests or staff inside the Theme Park, or to terrestrial faunal resources outside the Theme Park.
• Conservation of the natural coastline of western Penny Bay by the recommendation of an open channel formrather than a box culvert in this area.
• Protection of pitcher plants by restricting access during construction works, even though the works area will not
encroach upon their current habitat. • As an additional habitat enhancement measure, the Project proponent, CED, has undertaken to deploy 4,350 m3
Artificial Reefs (ARs) in Hong Kong waters at a site (or sites) to be decided upon in consultation with the DAFC.ARs act as habitat enhancement devices and provide hard bottom, high profile habitat in areas without naturalcover. The ARs subsequently will provide food, shelter and a nursery ground for commercial fish and, over thelong term, enhance fishery stocks. Enhanced fish stocks in the area will not only benefit local fisheries resourcesbut will also increase the availability of prey items for the seasonal population of marine mammals that uses thearea.
Theme Park and Associated Developments Final Executive Summary
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd in association with ERM Hong Kong 15Shankland Cox • Wilbur Smith Associates
• The sloping armour rock/concrete seawalls proposed for the Penny Bay and Yam O reclamations have been
demonstrated to become colonised by subtidal hard surface assemblages, such as soft corals, gorgonians and hardcorals. Thus the potential habitat provided by the greater than 4.3 ha total surface is expected to mitigate for theloss of approximately 0.298 ha of high ecological value assemblages of hard corals within the reclamation sites.
• Environmental benefits arising from the conversion of land uses from port developments to tourism recreation
purposes as the change from the originally planned port uses provides an opportunity to reduce the potentialenvironmental impacts associated with port operation, including more heavy good vehicles in the Study Areacausing noise and air pollution, hydrodynamic and water quality impacts, visual and glare impacts from 24 hourport operations.
• The public modes of transport to and from the Theme Park are expected to dominate the travel market,
accounting for about 95% of all travel. Of the public modes, the rail mode will be dominant and will becomplemented by other transport modes and the provision of integrated transport facilities (ie the PTIs at Yam Oand the Theme Park) to improve accessibility by rail.
3.16 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
3.16.1 The EIA has, based on the latest worst case information available, critically assessed theoverall acceptability of any adverse environmental consequences that are likely to arise as aresult of the Project and, where necessary, has specified the conditions and requirements forthe detailed design, construction and operation of the Project to mitigate against adverseenvironmental consequences, wherever practicable.
3.16.2 Overall, the EIA Final Report for the Theme Park and associated developments haspredicted that the Project will comply with all environmental standards and legislation afterthe proposed construction and operational stage mitigation measures are implemented. TheEIA has thus demonstrated the acceptability of any residual impacts from the Project andthe protection of the population and environmentally sensitive resources. Environmentalmonitoring and audit mechanisms have been recommended before and during constructionand during operation to verify the accuracy of the EIA predictions and the effectiveness ofrecommended mitigation measures.
3.16.3 In conclusion, it is considered that the EIA provides a suitable basis for the Director ofEnvironmental Protection to consider granting Environmental Permits to allow theconstruction or operation of the Theme Park and associated developments covered by theEIA Study.
Bibliography
Bryman, A (1995). Disney and His World. London: Routledge.
Butler, R.W. (1980). “The concept of a tourist-area cycle of evolution and
implications for management,” The Canadian Geographer, Vol. 24: pp. 5-12.
Butler, R.W., Nelson J. G. & Wall G. (1993). Tourism and Sustainable Development:
Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Canada: University of Waterloo.
Caldwell. L. K. (1984). Political aspects of ecologically sustainable development.
Environmental Conservation 11: 299-308
Canter, L. W. (1996). Environmental Impact Assessment. (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
China's First Disney Breaks Ground in Hong Kong. (2003). Retrieved Nov 5, 2005,
from http://english.people.com.cn/200301/13/eng20030113_110004.shtml
Chu, D. (1998). “Developing Hong Kong’s Tourism Industry’. Meeting Minutes on
Legislative Council Meeting. Retrieved Dec 27, 2005, from
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr98-99/english/counmtg/handsard/981111fe.html
Clark, W. (1985). Scales of climate change. Climatic Change 7: 5-27
Cooper, C. & Wanhill, S. (Eds.). (1997). Tourism development: environmental and
community issues. Chichester: Wiley.
Dasmann, R. (1985). An introduction to world conservation, in F. Thibodeau and H.
Field (eds.), Sustaining tomorrow. Hanover, New Hampshire:
University Press of New England,
De Kadt, E. (1973). Tourism: Passport to Development?. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Environmental Resources Management (1998). Sustainable development in Hong
Kong for the 21st century : [information digest]. Hong Kong: Environmental
Resources Management
Hall, C. M. & Lew, A. A. (Eds.). (1998). Sustainable tourism: a geographical
perspective. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.
HKSAR (1999a). Intangible Benefits from Hong Kong Disneyland. Retrieved Nov 10,
2005, from http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/199911/03/1103146.htm
HKTA (1997). HKTA Annual Report 1996-1997. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Tourist
Association.
HKTA (2000b). HKTA Annual Report 1999-2000. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Tourist
Association.
Holdgate, M., Kassas, M., & White, G. (1982). The world environment: 1972-1982.
United Nations Environment Programme, Dublin.
Ip, L. C., Xi, P. C. (1999). Disneyland is not the wonderland. Hong Kong: Step
Forward Multi Media. (Chinese Text)
Kasson, J.F. (1978). Amusing the Million: Coney Island at the Turn of the Century.
New York: Hill and Wang.
Kaye Chon, Vincent CS Heung, Kevin KF Wong (2002). Tourism in Asia:
development, marketing & sustainability : the Fifth Biennial Conference : May
23-25, 2002, Miramar Hotel, Hong Kong SAR : conference proceedings. Hong
Kong: School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic
University
Krakover, S & Gradus, Y. (Eds.). (2002). Tourism in frontier areas. Lanham, Md.:
Lexington Books.
Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism; Economic, Physical and Social Impacts.
New York: Longman.
McCool, S. T. & Moisey, R. N. (2001). Tourism, recreation, and sustainability:
linking culture and the environment. Wallingford: CABI Pub.
Modak, P. & Biswas, A.K. (2001) Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment for
Developing Countries. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press; New York:
United Nations University Press.
Munn, R.E. (1979). Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and Procedures.
(2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Pearce, D.G. (1989). Tourist Development. Harlow: Longman.
Pearce, P.L. (1993). ‘Fundamentals of tourist motivation’, in Butler, R.W. & Pearce,
D.G. Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges. London; Routledge, pp.
113-134.
Plog, S.C. (1974). ‘Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity,’ Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 14(1): pp. 55-58.
Prosser, G.. (1995). ‘Tourist destination life cycles; progress, problems and prospects’,
paper presented at National Tourism Research Conference, February 1995,
Melbourne, Australia.
Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd. in association with Environmental Resources
Management, Shankland Cox, Wilbur Smith Associates (2000). Environmental
impact assessment: construction of an international theme park in Penny's Bay
of North Lantau and its essential associated infrastructure. Hong Kong:
Environmental Resources Management.
Stabler, M. J. (ed.) (1997). Tourism and sustainability: principles to practice.
Wallingford, OX: CAB International.
Susan Horner & John Swarbrooke. (2004). International cases in tourism
management. Oxford, Burlington, MA : Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sweeting, J. E., Bruner, A.G. & Rosenfeld, A.B. (1999). The green host effect: an
integrated approach to sustainable tourism and resort development. Washington,
D.C.: Conservation International.
Terri Mottershead (2004). Sustainable development in Hong Kong. Hong Kong :
Hong Kong University Press.
The Government Logistics Department (2005) Hong Kong Disneyland – Background
Information. Retrieved Nov 10, 2005, from
http://www.brandhk.gov.hk/brandhk/e_pdf/efact5.pdf
Tuan, Y. F. (1997). “Disneyland: Its Place in World Culture”, in Karal, A. M. (ed.)
Designing Disney’s Theme Park: The Architecture of Reassurance. Montreal:
Canadian Centre for Architecture, pp. 191-198.
Virilio, P. (1991). The Aesthetics of Disappearance. New York: Semiotexte.
Wolfe, R. R. (1952). ‘Wasaga Beach: the divorce from the geographic environment’,
The Canadian Geographer, Vol. 2: pp. 57-66
Xinhua (2004). "Disney concept" to give boost to HK economy. Retrieved Nov 5,
2005, from http://english.people.com.cn/200509/04/eng20050904_206439.html
Young, G. (1973). Tourism: Blessing or Blight?. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Zukin, S. (1991). Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, Los
Angeles and Oxford: University of California Press.
