No room for Nimbyism as Hong Kong seeks space for its dead and daily waste
- Shenzhen has complained about the Sandy Ridge Cemetery extension, which can be seen from its downtown district, and who can blame them?
- We should take collective – and creative – responsibility for the columbariums, incinerators and landfills we need, not push them onto someone else’s back (or front) yard
The Nimbyism – not in my backyard – phenomenon is global and very human. After all, who wants an unappealing landfill, unsightly incinerator or potentially “unlucky” columbarium in their neighbourhood?
Finding a site for these often unwelcome yet absolutely necessary facilities is an urban planner’s worst nightmare. Site proposals often come up against objections from district councils, environmentalists and concerned citizens, courting controversy everywhere they are proposed. Therein lies the challenge.
The solution was to build the landfills, incinerators and columbariums in relatively remote areas, pushing the problem out of sight and out of mind. Hong Kong’s three active landfills were strategically sited in Tuen Mun in the West New Territories (WENT Landfill), Ta Kwu Ling in the North East New Territories (NENT Landfill) and Tseung Kwan O in the South East New Territories (SENT Landfill).
Development of the SENT Landfill started in the early 1990s just after Tseung Kwan O residents began moving into the newly developed area. Today, the town’s population has grown to around 414,000 and the SENT Landfill is now close to residential areas and emitting a distinctive odour. What was once remote is now nearby.
A similar situation has transpired in the northern part of Hong Kong, which was originally deemed to be far away from the general population.
Shenzhen’s downtown district looks out onto the Sandy Ridge Cemetery extension, and they have complained about the disagreeable project in their front yard. This is understandable, given that we in Hong Kong did not want the columbarium in any of our backyards either.
Hong Kong and Shenzhen are no longer two towns isolated from each other but closely linked by steady cross-border flows of people, goods and capital.
Predictably, there was resistance from local communities who did not want the columbariums in their backyards. But what is unwelcome and unwanted in one district may be equally so in others.
As a society, we know we have to tackle this problematic issue as we generate waste every day and death is inescapable. Is it fair or even ethical to shift seemingly unbecoming facilities from our district to our friends’ and neighbours’ districts?
Everyone has a responsibility to society at large, which includes respecting the dead and dealing with the by-products of our daily lives.
Perhaps we should adopt the Tokyo model where 21 waste incineration facilities are located across its 23 wards in residential, waterfront and even urban centres such as Shibuya and near train stations. This way, the burden is shared.
We can also use technology and design to integrate these essential but often unattractive facilities as seamlessly and beautifully as possible into our urban environment.
In Western Paris, on the banks of the River Seine, the largest waste-to-energy incinerator in France looks like a three-story office building and emits no visible smoke. Two-thirds of the Isséane facility is built underground and the twin chimneys protrude less than 5m above the roof.
In Copenhagen, Amager Bakke is a huge incinerator that looks like a modern office building with a sloped roof that doubles as an artificial ski slope and climbing wall.
These visionary models serve as a reminder that creative solutions can go a long way towards inducing acceptance among residents. As a conscientious society, shouldn’t we take collective responsibility for our mess?
Bernard Chan is convenor of Hong Kong’s Executive Council
