IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v53y2016i5p851-866.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farms are not zoos: A post-colonial study on enclosure and conservation of military heritage buildings in Hong Kong1

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence WC Lai

    (University of Hong Kong, China)

  • Daniel CW Ho

    (University of Hong Kong, China)

Abstract

This paper explains the importance of distinguishing de facto from de jure property rights, confused by some economists, in heritage conservation planning. A comparative study on three Hong Kong examples of British colonial military buildings is used to show how neither de jure private property rights nor de facto close access is a solution to the problem of open access to heritage buildings. Also, a government museum is only a partial solution to the problem of promoting an authentic historic sense of history in a post-colonial environment. The examples to be examined are the coastal gun batteries on Devil’s Peak, the coastal gun batteries on Cape D’Aguilar, and the Museum of Coastal Defence inside the old Lei Yue Mun Fort. With the help of site photos, the case studies demonstrate that heritage buildings can only be preserved when at least three conditions are satisfied: (a) there is an intention to conserve; (b) there is a viable scheme to conserve; and (c) there is effective regulation of access. Open access, however, can have some merits as a process of information discovery by members of the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence WC Lai & Daniel CW Ho, 2016. "Farms are not zoos: A post-colonial study on enclosure and conservation of military heritage buildings in Hong Kong1," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(5), pages 851-866, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:53:y:2016:i:5:p:851-866
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098015569967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098015569967
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098015569967?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony Bottomley, 1963. "The Effect of the Common Ownership of Land upon Resource Allocation in Tripolitania," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 39(1), pages 91-95.
    2. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 124-124.
    3. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 9, pages 178-203, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Chris Webster & Lawrence W.-C. Lai, 2003. "Property Rights, Planning and Markets," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2625.
    5. Hojman, David E. & Hiscock, Julia, 2010. "Interpreting suboptimal business outcomes in light of the Coase Theorem: Lessons from Sidmouth International Festival," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 240-249.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cheung Steven N. S., 2014. "The Economic System of China," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-49, June.
    2. Steven G. Medema, 2020. "The Coase Theorem at Sixty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1045-1128, December.
    3. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Coxhead, Ian A. & Jayasuriya, Sisira, 2003. "Trade, Liberalization, Resource Degradation and Industrial Pollution in Developing Countries: An Integrated Analysis," Staff Papers 12691, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    5. Rauscher, Michael, 1996. "Sustainable Development and Complex Ecosystems. An Economist's View," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 02, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    6. Barkley Rosser, J. Jr., 2001. "Complex ecologic-economic dynamics and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 23-37, April.
    7. Jorge Higinio Maldonado & Rocío del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Exacerbating the Tragedy of the Commons: Private Inefficient Outcomes and Peer Effect in Experimental Games with Fishing Communities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Strydom, M.B. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 1998. "An Economic Analysis Of Restructuring The South African Hake Quota Market," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 37(3), pages 1-15, September.
    9. repec:mse:cesdoc:13002r is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Horan, R.D. & Bulte, E.H., 2004. "Optimal and open access harvesting and multi-use species in a second best world," Other publications TiSEM 95000e50-7225-4f4d-aeaf-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Funk, Matt, 2008. "On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Theoretical Solution to this Prisoner's Dilemma," MPRA Paper 19025, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jun 2008.
    12. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    13. Catherine J. Morrison Paul & Ronald G. Felthoven & Marcelo de O. Torres, 2010. "Productive performance in fisheries: modeling, measurement, and management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 343-360, July.
    14. Davis, Katrina & Pannell, David J. & Kragt, Marit & Gelcich, Stefan & Schilizzi, Steven, 2014. "Accounting for enforcement is essential to improve the spatial allocation of marine restricted-use zoning systems," Working Papers 195718, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Lee, Kun C. & Short, Cameron & Heady, Earl O., 1981. "Optimal Groundwater Mining In The Ogallala Aquifer: Estimation Of Economic Losses And Excessive Depletion Due To Commonality," 1981 Annual Meeting, July 26-29, Clemson, South Carolina 279261, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    17. Marco Casari, 2002. "Can genetic algorithms explain experimental anomalies? An application to common property resources," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 542.02, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    18. van Dijk, Diana & Hendrix, Eligius M.T. & Haijema, Rene & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2014. "On solving a bi-level stochastic dynamic programming model for analyzing fisheries policies: Fishermen behavior and optimal fish quota," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 272(C), pages 68-75.
    19. Tarui, Nori & Mason, Charles F. & Polasky, Stephen & Ellis, Greg, 2008. "Cooperation in the commons with unobservable actions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 37-51, January.
    20. Salzberger Eli M., 2011. "The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 435-480, December.
    21. Daniel W. Bromley, 1982. "Land and Water Problems: An Institutional Perspective," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(5), pages 834-844.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:53:y:2016:i:5:p:851-866. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.