This study aims to examine whether there are significant differences between laymen's, professionals' and policy makers' evaluations of the conservation of historic buildings.
The research began with interview surveys using a sample of laymen and professionals in the built environment and it examined their evaluation standards of a sample of 25 historic buildings in Hong Kong. The research also used the controversial Queen's Pier case to examine the extent to which different preferences of conservation between laymen and professionals and policy makers has led to its conservation campaign.
The results indicate that laymen and professional groups evaluate historic buildings based on slightly different criteria. The research also reveals that their preference for what is worth conserving is different from policy makers. The debate over the conservation of the Queen's Pier illustrates a wide range of issues other than differences of preference that may have stimulated the campaign.
The sample size of the respondents and the sample buildings are limited due to manpower resource and funding. Further study can expand the sampling size.
The study is original research which illustrates the differences between laymen's, professionals' and policy makers' evaluation criteria and assessment of historic buildings. It recommends a greater understanding of all stakeholders' interests in heritage conservation and the incorporation of the public's view into legislative and administrative procedures in designating and listing historic buildings.
