Institutional inadequacies and successful contentions: A case study of the LULU siting process in Hong Kong

Literature on siting conflicts related to locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) abounds. While factors like risk perceptions, trust in the government and environmental injustice have been found to play significant roles in shaping local resistance to LULUs, they are rarely jointly employed for analysing conflicts of LULU siting in an integrative manner. In this light, this study attempts to extend the applicability of the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, which has been widely employed to analyse issues related to common-pool resource management (e.g., fisheries and forest management) to LULU siting. By looking into a recent case in Hong Kong in which local residents successfully stopped a plan proposed by the Hong Kong government to extend an existing landfill, this article integrates a range of concepts including risk perceptions, trust and environmental injustice with the aid of the IAD framework to develop a more coherent understanding of the complexity of the LULU siting process. Specific emphasis is given to how institutions shape local residents' attitudes and actions. The case study reveals that institutional inadequacies in the siting process and distrust in the government contributed to strong local opposition to the extension proposal, and thus eventually led to a complete deadlock.