Public facility design for sustainability: Participatory action research on household recycling in Hong Kong

Abstract

While many researchers have pointed out that public design can increase users’ sustainable practices, how to achieve good public designs is challenging. To explore the current public design barriers and solutions to household recycling in Hong Kong, our research group, in collaboration with two Caritas Community Centres, adopted participatory action research, including questionnaires, interviews, non-participant observations, collaborative workshops and on-site iterative prototyping process, to carry out a research project. In this project, local residents, recyclers, property management officers and cleaners in five public rental housing estates were recruited to voice their views on public design for recycling. Through the results of the spiral design exploration conducted at Sai Wan Estate, this study demonstrates the validity of action research to promote the participatory design for recycling. The paper concludes with a discussion of some barriers to and experience with applying these methods to improve the practice in the context of high-rise living environments. It also provides experience and insights into action research in public design for designers, researchers and policy makers.

Keywords

Participatory action research public design recycling community participation household participation

Introduction

Public facilities play an important role in daily life by providing convenience for daily routines while enhancing or somewhat restricting social and cultural practices. In recent years, an increasing number of researchers and designers have noted that public facilities can be designed in ways that enable people to shape sustainable behaviour in the public environment. To encourage residents to participate in recycling practices, governments have implemented a variety of policies, strategies and ordinances, including newly designed public facilities (Environmental Protection Department (EPD), 2005, 2010; Lee, de Young, & Marans, 1995; Tam & Tam, 2006). However, given the lack of consideration for local context and human behaviour in Hong Kong, recycling facilities have failed to accommodate the city’s specific living conditions (Lo & Siu, 2012; Siu & Xiao, 2016).

In terms of household recycling, most studies have relied heavily on quantitative surveys of reported behaviour and attitudes to identify the barriers and opportunities for public participation in recycling (Chung & Poon, 1999; Hage, Söderholm, & Berglund, 2009; Yau, 2010). However, some researchers have argued that self-reporting produces over-estimates of pro-environmental behaviour (Chung & Leung, 2007; Farrelly & Tucker, 2014). Findings obtained via large-scale surveys may reduce complex situations to simplistic answers (Neuman, 2000). Some advocates have stated that to achieve an in-depth understanding of people’s behaviour and to improve recycling design, more diverse methodologies that include qualitative methods such as field observations and interviews should be adopted (Barr, Ford, & Gilg, 2003; Fahy & Davies, 2007; Martin, Williams, & Clark, 2006). Farrelly and Tucker (2014) have suggested that action research may enable researchers to find solutions to practical problems in collaboration with stakeholders by the cyclical processes of reflective learning. Although action research is widely used in the field of health science, qualitative research methodologies designed to examine actual recycling practice and to improve public design through action research are few (Fahy & Davies, 2007). As pointed out by Keremane and McKay (2011), most of the participatory methods are generated from traditional survey methods such as interviews and quantitative methods and lack the ability to effectively involve different stakeholders in the research processes.

Using research findings from a 13-month study that adopts the participatory research method in five residential communities in Hong Kong, this paper reviews the experiences of action research projects and identifies the current situation of household recycling. Through the action research process at Sai Wan Estate, we enabled stakeholders to express their views to understand their actual practices, which will insight for researchers and designers to improve public design. This paper aims to highlight the participatory action research (PAR) as a valuable strategy that contributes to household recycling. This paper also discusses the reflections and limitations of using action research to improve public design and encourage public participation in recycling.

Methods

Action research, which is also known as community-based study, co-operative enquiry, action science and action learning, is an approach commonly used to improve conditions and practices (Lingard, Albert, & Levinson, 2008; Whitehead, Taket, & Smith, 2003). It is essentially a ‘step-by-step process’ that occurs over ‘varying periods of time and a variety of mechanisms’ (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Its on-going nature enables researchers to review, evaluate, adjust, modify and improve practices based on immediate feedback (Bell, 1987; Stringer, 1999). Actions are taken and data are collected, the early hypotheses or principles are revised and more appropriate action can then be carried out, with further principles or hypotheses being generated. PAR can also help to achieve empowerment of those involved (Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006). Both action and reflection are of great importance in PAR (Jansen, Baur, de Wit, Wilbrink, & Abma, 2015).

Research design

To identify the current barriers and solutions for public design for household recycling, we divided our project into a series of studies. As seen in Figure 1, a pilot study, collaborative workshops, design exploration and evaluation were carried out in conjunction with a literature review on public design and household recycling in Hong Kong.

Figure 1.

Case study methodology.

In the initial stage, research methods involving non-participant observations, questionnaires and interviews were adopted to identify the problem and current behavioural phenomena. In Phase 2, drawing on the findings of the pilot study, the main user study was conducted to encourage different stakeholders to voice their views on public design for recycling. We worked collaboratively with the participants from five housing estates. Close interaction with end users could allow designers to obtain valuable information from them while encouraging their participation in the design process (Kujala, 2003). Collaborative workshops enable the participants to be open and to develop ideas through the use of scaled-down models provided by researchers (Kwok & Ku, 2008).

Tangible tools and ‘best practice’ models are effective in participatory development (Tremblay & de Oliveira Jayme, 2015). In Phase 3, which is ongoing, design exploration and evaluation were conducted iteratively to identify the barriers and opportunities for public participation in recycling. Based on the data generated in Phase 2, full-scale prototypes were developed and provided in situ. Observations and interviews were conducted in the buildings on weekdays and weekends. Critical reflection and evaluation are necessary in this study. In this paper, we focus on the processes and findings of Phases 2 and 3. Further details on the methods and findings of Phase 1 can be found in Xiao and Siu (2016).

The cases

In January 2015, in collaboration with Caritas Mok Cheung Sui Kun Community Centre and Caritas Ngau Tau Kok Community Centre, we began to conduct action research in five housing estates in Sai Wan District and Ngau Tau Kok District (i.e., Sai Wan Estate, Ngau Tau Kok Estate, Choi Ying Estate, Choi Fok Estate and Choi Tak Estate). Sai Wan Estate was selected as the core site for in-depth study because its spatial characteristics were quite distinct from the other four housing estates.

Sai Wan Estate is a public housing estate comprising 640 flats in five linear blocks of 10 to 14 storeys. The buildings of this estate, which is the one of the oldest existing public housing estates built by Hong Kong Housing Authority, have been in use for nearly 60 years. They were built in the ‘old slab’ style according to old-fashioned standards for resettlement estates. ‘Old slab’ style residential blocks involve one or more elongated rectangular buildings with a long corridor linking the housing units. In Sai Wan Estate, five buildings are joined to a large shared platform by long public corridors. Elevators are provided in each building, but the elevators located on the ground floor can only carry people to the shared platform and not to their own buildings. Therefore, people have to transfer to another elevator after reaching the shared platform and then walk through the long corridors.

Collaborative workshops

Meyer (2000) states that when conducting PAR, it is important to ensure that participants are willing to play an active role in the research process. In Phase 2, with the assistance of Caritas Community Centre, we invited 30 participants who live in or work in these five housing estates to participate in the workshops. Each of the participants understands that his or her responses can contribute to community sustainability and thus was willing to participate in this research. According to Fahy and Davies (2007), three vital characteristics should be considered in action research: participatory character, democratic impulse and its contribution to change. To enable people from different positions to voice their views on public design for recycling, various stakeholders were involved in this study. Among the 30 participants, 26 were local residents, two were recyclers, one was a member of the property management staff and one was a cleaner. Of the 24 local residents, 54% were female. The ages of the residents ranged from 25 to 80 years: 21% were 25–44, 46% were 45–64 and 33% were 65 or above. In terms of educational attainment, 4% had a tertiary degree, while 8% had only a primary or lower degree.

To enable the participants to articulate their suggestions in the workshops, they were randomly divided into five groups. Each workshop took about 60 minutes. We provided a series of scaled-down models (on a 1:100 scale) representing the infrastructure and recycling facilities, including the housing estate, recycling organisations, recycling bins, second-hand stores, private collectors/recyclers and recycling vehicles. A set of cards representing various recyclables was provided to each participant. In this stage, we acted as facilitators to coordinate the research process and ensure that participants had equal opportunities in the decision making. There were three steps in this section: (1) discussing the arrangement of the recycling networks; (2) cooperatively constructing the ideal recycling networks; and (3) placing the cards on the models according to the participants’ preferences (Figures 2 to 5).

Figure 2.

A series of scaled-down models for the workshops.

Table 1 shows the problem addressed and brief concepts generated from the participants. There were different attitudes among different stakeholders depending on their positions. Although the residents complained about the lack of recycling facilities, both the cleaner and property management staff insisted that as few facilities should be provided as possible. Normally, cleaners collect waste from the rubbish bins on each floor once or twice a day. Spending time handling recyclables in addition to general waste from each floor would increase the workload for cleaners. Thus, the cleaner indicated that having fewer recycling bins would make it easier to collect recyclables from the housing estates.

Cleaner: Some of the recycling bins are located in public areas, such as the corner of the stairs, where there are no lifts. I have to drag the plastic bags full of recyclables up and down the stairs. It is terrible. Moreover, I have to clean these facilities if they are dirty.

Table 1.

Problems addressed and brief concepts generated from the workshops.

Stakeholders	Problem	Ideas
S1 (residents)	• Inconvenient recycling facilities • Small size of the openings • Limited number of recycling bins • Difficult to identify the bins • The recycling bins are dirty and always full of recyclables • No facilities to collect food waste • Some cleaners put the recyclables together with rubbish • No facilities are available to share second-hand materials	• Increase the number of recycling bins • Enhance the accessibility and equity of public recycling facilities • Enlarge the openings • Provide effective and clear guidance for collecting recyclables • Ensure the cleaners maintain the cleanliness of the bins and collect recyclables • Give the recyclables to neighbours or scavengers who collect recyclables • Sell them to private recyclers • Provide some facilities/places to collect food waste • Provide some facilities/places to share second-hand materials
S2 (cleaner)	• Not enough time to collect recyclables frequently • Improper location of recycling bins makes it difficult to deliver them • Improper separation • Limited space for storage • Hygiene issues • No effective way to deliver the recyclables	• Do not provide too many recycling bins • Do not install the recycling bins in places where no lifts can access • Do not store recyclables in the refuse room for too long
S3 (property management staff)	• There are many restrictions on installation of recycling bins • Some scavengers pick up recyclables from recyclable bins • Some improper disposal behaviour occurs when nobody witnesses it	• Install recycling bins in refuse storage rooms or corners to avoid hindering people’s movement • Do not provide too many recycling bins • Provide recycling bins in places where people can supervise one another easily
S4 (recyclers)	• Low profit of some recyclables, e.g., plastic	• Make it easy to collect recyclables

Private recyclers and scavengers were active in recycling practices because they had to earn a living. Some residents mentioned they collected recyclables and then sold them to subsidise their household income. Compared to the other estates, the participants from Sai Wan Estate were more active in selling recyclables because there was a private recycling enterprise nearby. However, they were only willing to collect certain types of recyclables such as cans and paper because of the rewards for them, and they showed little interest in low-profit material.

Property management staff: I noticed that some scavengers took recyclables, such as newspaper, from recycling bins and sold them to private recycling enterprises. A great deal of unexpected behaviour took place appeared when no one else was nearby. If these facilities were placed in a public space where people could supervise one another, it would be much easier for us to manage household recycling.

Although the participants mentioned they were willing to make comments on environmental sustainability, they had no confidence that their suggestions would be put into action. Nearly half of the participants had negative attitudes towards environmental issues. In some cases, the participants felt that there could be no follow-up actions based on their comments and that it was difficult to enter a new phase in collaboration with other partners such as local authorities and property management. However, the participants still advocated that their personal experiences and suggestions in this process be taken into consideration in actual practice.

Design exploration and evaluation: The iterative prototyping process

The outcome from Phase 2 was considered to provide a valuable opportunity for future development. By summarising the above concerns, design exploration was conducted in situ to find solutions to practical problems. Considering the limited sample of participants in previous workshops, more residents, cleaners as well as scavengers were required to give their comments during prototyping process.

Stage 1

As mentioned above, the living environment in Sai Wan Estate was quite particular (Figure 6). Four public spaces were taken into consideration (i.e., one area in front of the elevators, two areas near the elevators and one near the corridor). After further discussion with the property management officer, one area near the elevators was considered to be an appropriate place to install full-scale prototypes (Figure 7). According to findings from the previous main user study, the participants desired more public space or facilities to enable them to share their materials. Because of the limitations of public space, it was not possible to provide a large area or tables for sharing. We provided a cabinet near the recycling bins to collect items that could still be used.

Figure 3.

Participants construct their ideal recycling network.

Figure 4.

Participants discuss the arrangement of their recycling network.

Figure 5.

Participants place cards on the models.

Figure 6.

The living situation in Sai Wan Estate.

Figure 7.

Full-scale prototypes were provided in situ.

In practice, many residents noticed the new recycling facilities when they passed by. Some residents were curious and approached the facilities to better see the design. According to the observations, some residents tossed rubbish such as used tissue and peels into or near the bins (Figure 8). There was actually a rubbish bin located nearby; however, the cleaners often closed the lid. Many residents were not willing to open it because of the hygiene issue. In practice, inappropriately decreasing the convenience of refuse disposal may lead to improper behaviour. Many residents put their recyclables next to the rubbish bins on their own floors (Figure 9). They mentioned that people who collected these items would be appreciative because they could earn money by selling them.

Figure 8.

Residents tossed rubbish such as used tissue and peels into or near the bins. The lid of rubbish bin was often closed by the cleaners.

Figure 9.

Many residents put recyclables next to the rubbish bins on their own floors.

Figure 10.

All of the sharing items were collected by the cleaners as rubbish.

Interviews with residents and cleaners showed that they had some disagreement and different concerns about household recycling. Table 2 compares several major differences generated in stage 1.

Table 2.

Interviews with residents and cleaners during stage 1.

Week 1

Resident 1: I asked the cleaner why she did not collect the recyclables even though they were full and she told me that nobody asked her to collect them. I felt so angry! Did she mean it was the residents’ responsibility to deal with the recyclables? So I went to the property management office and complained about this issue. Cleaner 1: I don’t know… Our managers didn’t tell me to collect them from these new facilities. I will only do what I have to do.

Week 2

Resident 2: I put some used stationery on the cabinet once because I think other people may need it. But I don’t think many residents realise that the cabinet is for sharing materials. Moreover, I think it would be more helpful if there was someone to supervise it. Cleaner 1: You mean the materials on the cabinet? I think they are rubbish! I would be punished if I do not collect the rubbish every day, so I threw them away (Figure 10).

Week 3

Resident 3: I notice some cleaners put all the recyclables into large rubbish bags together with other rubbish! Why should we spend a lot of time to wash and separate recyclables? It makes me so disappointed! Cleaner 2: All of these are rubbish, I have to clean them away. Some residents cursed me when they noticed I put them [recyclables and rubbish] together but I have no choice. Only a few trucks come here to collect recyclables, perhaps every few days, perhaps every few weeks… I am not sure. It may cause a lot of hygiene problems if we store too many recyclables in the refuse room, especially the plastic bottles. They may attract rats and roaches.

Week 4

Resident 1: After I complained about the collection issue to the property management department, the cleaners started to collect them. However, I still found that the cleaners did not empty them frequently. The recycling bins were always full, especially the bin for plastics. Should I have to push them every day? Resident 4: Actually, the cleaners, elderly people and scavengers often pick up recyclables from the recycling bins and sell them to private recyclers. They can earn money by selling them! Cleaner 3: Yes, some cleaners and scavengers collect and sell them [i.e., recyclables] but only some valuable materials such as paper and metals. The plastic bottles are very cheap – only 40 cents [HK dollars] per kilogram – of course no one is willing to sell them. Moreover, the private recyclers often give short weight. Anyway, I never do that. I am very busy, and the reward is so small. You can’t depend on us to deal with all the recyclables.

During the process, the researchers also conducted interviews with the EPD to understand the practical difficulties of household recycling from the government’s perspective, and to evaluate the effectiveness of this stage. It was pointed out that property management companies contacted the recycling companies by themselves. Thus property management companies play an important role in the implementation and management of household recycling. Although local governments provide some information and regulations as a reference, the extent to which recycling can be achieved mainly depends on its implementation by property management companies. Scavengers and cleaners are not encouraged to pick up recyclables from bins and then sell them, but it is not necessary to stop these activities as they are active recycling in the whole process. Moreover, this ‘ha lan’ money (a Cantonese term that means earning money by selling cheap things) from selling recyclables can supplement family incomes.

Stage 2

Based on previous action and findings, this stage improved the design with consideration of the recommendations generated from stage 1. In this stage, the authors attempted to recruit more respondents to give their opinions in the following eight weeks. The barriers and experience of PAR within the context should be further identified.

Because of the limitations of public space, the cabinet for sharing items was replaced with a rubbish bin. The rubbish bin was designed with non-transparent material and with a small circular opening in the lid. Moreover, based on the suggestions from residents, another set of prototypes was provided in another building. After further discussion with the residents and the property management officers, we placed the prototypes according to their suggestions (Figure 11). They had three main concerns: (1) ensuring the convenience of recycling facilities; (2) preventing recyclables from getting wet in bad weather; and (3) ensuring the accessibility of fire hydrants.

Figure 11.

The revised design in stage 2.

In this stage, 85 residents, five cleaners, three property management staffs and four scavengers were selected randomly to report their behaviour change and give their comments.

Residents who were interviewed in previous studies, some of whom had been non-recyclers at the beginning of this study, were more active in the process and were willing to provide support when they noticed their suggestions had been implemented. Workshop participants continually encouraged their neighbours to recycle and supervised recycling activities, developing further collaboration with increasing numbers of residents. Several participants who were members of the mutual-aid committee spontaneously took photos and notes and reported to our researchers frequently.

After setting up the prototypes in another area, the amount of recyclables increased quickly on that day. Two days later, the bins for collecting waste paper and plastics were almost full. However, cleaners did not collect them immediately. On the following day, residents put the recyclables directly on the top of the bins since the bins were full already.

Respondent: I asked the cleaner last time… she told me that she did not think it was her responsibility to collect them [the recyclables] because nobody asked them to do that. I think the property management office may solve this problem.

Some residents thus reported this situation to property management office spontaneously. The management officers listened residents’ suggestions carefully and treated them seriously. They arranged the cleaners to collect the recyclables every day. On the next day, one of the residents reported that the recyclables had already been collected by the cleaners. However, the resident noticed that some cleaners still treated these recyclables as rubbish.

Respondent: Frankly speaking, I never recycled before. It was my first time to participate in recycling. I washed all of the plastic bottles before disposal. You know, the plastic bottles are very difficult to wash – especially the bottle of shampoo! I washed them again and again. Imagine how angry I was when I noticed the cleaner threw them away!

Since no effective way to solve this problem temporary and they urged for change, some residents then asked the elderly people and scavengers to collect them before final disposal. During the research period, scavengers often got recyclables from the recycling bins. Besides, some residents still left recyclables next to the bins, with the purpose to make it easy for scavengers to collect them. At the same time, with the help of community centre and property management company, we continued to negotiate with related local authorities regarding the issues.

Among the 97 interviewees, 36 residents, two cleaners, four scavengers and three property management staffs mentioned this project was able to facilitate them to participate in household recycling. Twenty-two residents mentioned this project enhanced their motivation and changed their undesired behaviour at the beginning, however, their willingness to form sustainable behaviour declined due to poor implementation and management. Since people felt disappointed and unpleasant, they showed reluctant and reacted in a passive way afterwards. For the rest of the interviewees, they mentioned they had little interest in adopting any sustainable behaviour and simply ignored it. Moreover, some of them responded in another undesired way if inappropriate interventions were made.

Reflections on the process

Given the aforementioned concerns of action research, several questions need to be borne in mind: did the project enhance people’s awareness to participate in the process? Did the project balance different attitudes from different stakeholders appropriately? Will the project bring any changes to the community? What aspects of the project work and do not work and how these could be adjusted or developed?

During the collaborative workshops, the participants were encouraged to freely discuss household recycling. However, in some groups, the participants were initially hesitant, as they were unaccustomed to voicing their opinions. In contrast, some participants actively participated in the process and functioned as supervisors. As a result, these groups required more time than the others for all of the participants to explicitly express their views.

During the iterative prototyping process in situ, participants who had attended the workshops previously were excited when they noticed their recommendations had been put into practice. Some interviewees who never or seldom recycled began to participate in recycling. They began to recognise their competency in the community and played an active role in the process. Residents who were members of the mutual-aid committee spontaneously encouraged their neighbours to participate in this project and also supervised recycling activities. They collected the comments from other residents and then gave some suggestions to researchers frequently. Moreover, they informed property management company and discussed how to improve the situation. As mentioned above, the property management companies play an important role in the implementation and management of household recycling. Compared to the other housing estates that were not willing to participate in the project, both property management company and housing authority in Sai Wan Estate were urged to improve the situation. They listened residents’ suggestions carefully and treated them seriously. However, it took some time for them to implement because they had to negotiate with different departments. For the residents, since no effective way to collect the recyclables temporary and they urged for change, they began to seek another way to deal with this problem at the same time (e.g. informing the elderly people and scavengers to collect recyclables). This project helped to enhance people’s competency in sustainable community development and strengthen their sense of community. Mr Lee, a workshop participant expressed his feeling of the project:

Actually, I seldom participated in housing recycling and community activities before. It is the first time for me to become one of the participants. I felt so excited when I noticed our recommendations had been put into practice. Here I can do something for the community, and for the environment.

However, we must admit that there are some weaknesses in this PAR project. It is not easy to conduct this project in housing estates because it is difficult to obtain the consent and support of the property management companies and households (residents) to participate in the studies and provide information. So we had to choose several public housings that were willing to. Moreover, parts of the concepts generated from the process were not able to be tested in the project. For example, food waste recycling was unavailable due to property management’s own concerns. Many paths have not been travelled due to the constraints of practicality.

Residents were the most active stakeholders in this project. They helped to improve the project and push it forward. Although some people have changed undesired behaviour during the research period, it cannot ensure long-term sustainable behaviour after the project. In effect, poor implementation and management may decrease people’s willingness and lead to failure. In this project, both property management company and housing authority provided a lot of supports, and social workers also helped to coordinate different stakeholders. However, it was still difficult for cleaners to implement. They need governments to provide effective way for transferring the recyclables in time. In this regard, we need to continue to negotiate with related local authorities regarding the suggestions.

Besides, though we tried to balance different attitudes from different stakeholders appropriately, we found that it was impossible to meet all people’s satisfaction. Compared to the residents, cleaners were more passive in participating in the project. They were initially reluctant to tell the truth. The researchers had to spend more time to listen to their views. Due to a lack of communication, there were some conflicts between residents and cleaners in the project. After being negotiated by the researchers and social workers, some residents began to understand the situation and find alternative solutions. Moreover, although some people may simply ignore the project or response in another way, we need to continuously pay attention to their opinions because any irrational and inappropriate interventions may generate social issues.

The experiences of the action research process

Data collected by collaborative workshops and on-site prototyping processes tend to provide more information than traditional surveys. This PAR in situ not only explored design opportunities in household recycling but also revealed some barriers in actual practice. However, it is not easy to conduct PAR in community activities, especially as relates to the household participation in recycling. The spatial characteristics of residential housing estates were quite different across institutions and companies. In many modern cities with high-rise buildings, residential housing estates are managed by property companies and have security guards. It is impossible to conduct an investigation in a residential building without obtaining approval from various stakeholders, including the housing department and the property management company. In practice, many housing estates had their own concerns and were reluctant to participate in the project. In addition, conducting observations inside the buildings may have caused annoyance because of the intrusion into habitants’ living area, which includes the public space. Furthermore, the demographic structure of the residential housing estates was diverse and stratified in terms of age, household income and educational attainment, which made it difficult to motivate all the residents to participate in recycling practices.

With reference to the case study, the key experiences of PAR in household recycling were as follows:

Seeking the assistance of community centres that work with and for the residents is necessary. Social workers have close contact with many local residents in the buildings, which makes it easy for researchers to reach habitants without intruding on their private living spaces.

Support from different stakeholders, including the local government, property management companies, private recyclers and cleaners is pivotal for improving public facility design.

The outcome of PAR is important, as it allows different stakeholders to voice their needs and preferences during the process. The step-by-step and on-going nature of the process ensures that researchers can review, plan, evaluate, adjust and implement the design based on immediate feedback to fit people’s needs and concerns.

To promote participatory and democratic design for recycling, it is necessary to involve users in a project’s early stages. PAR in public design can enhance people’s competency in sustainable community development and strengthen their sense of community.

PAR in household recycling involves a hierarchy that includes implementation, management and policy (Siu & Wong, 2013). Higher degrees of user satisfaction and public participation can be achieved if participants witness follow-up actions based on their comments.

The iterative prototyping process is effective in decision making. Once it is set in motion, barriers to and opportunities for change at all levels can be explored. The iterative prototyping process also helps to achieve greater involvement and to find solutions to practical problems.

The roles of project members must be identified before the project. Both participants and researchers played active and important roles in the design process (Siu & Kwok, 2004). The researchers acted not only as facilitators to coordinate all matters but also provided professional suggestions and support during the process.

Conclusions

Based on the findings and experiences of the project, two major aspects are worthwhile highlighting for researchers and designers.

In terms of the research method, PAR is a valuable strategy for public design issues. This project has especially focused on the process, rather than on the designs (or tools) themselves. As this study has shown, obtaining the support of local community centres is pivotal for the effectiveness of participatory design in a community, as this support makes it easier to obtain approval from other stakeholders and to build trust with residents. Collaborative workshops help to balance this situation and enable stakeholders to develop ideas together. Conducting an iterative prototyping process enables researchers to review, plan, evaluate, adjust and implement the design step by step, providing an in-depth understanding of various concerns that are often neglected or misunderstood by designers and governments. It can also result in equal opportunities for different stakeholders to improve and maintain public design for sustainability. Moreover, constraints and challenges to public design can be examined in situ during the iterative prototyping process.

Regarding the specific findings of this project, to promote participatory and democratic design for recycling, efforts to facilitate active involvement in recycling must also consider different stakeholders and encourage them to voice their views in the early design stage. In practice, different stakeholders, including residents, cleaners and property management staffs, had different attitudes towards public facilities because of their positions. PAR is a good way to empower them to express their opinions and to enhance people’s competency in the community. Through the action and reflection, the project helps researchers understand the situations and what aspects could be adjusted in future studies.

Long-term and continuous actions on different levels of the hierarchy, including implementation, management and policy, are necessary. If participants witness follow-up actions based on their comments, a higher degree of public participation can be achieved. As most studies have relied heavily on quantitative surveys of reported behaviour and attitudes to identify the barriers to and opportunities for public participation in recycling, this study contributes to finding solutions and challenges to change human behaviour by PAR. It not only explores opportunities, but also reveals the barriers to and experiences of using PAR in actual practice. Although PAR in public space may not be easy for researchers and designers to implement, especially in residential areas, the practices of PAR are necessary. Admittedly, the findings and discussion of the study may not be widely applicable to different contexts. This study does not provide a universal set of design guidelines for public design at the global level. Nevertheless, it provides insights into how to conduct action research into public design issues. A tangible tool and ‘best practice’ model has potential in the co-creation of community knowledge (Tremblay & de Oliveira Jayme, 2015). This paper highlights how to transform and inspire communities for participatory development through iterative prototyping process. It also shows how PAR projects and activities can provide opportunities for participants to express their concerns and broaden to more stakeholders, and the policy-makers. This paper also contributes to the action research in design for developing sustainable community. Although there are quite a lot of constraints and challenges in the process, its results are nevertheless promising. Finally, the key experiences and methods in this project provide references for greater mobilisation and changes in other public design issues.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Caritas Mok Cheung Sui Kun Community Centre, Caritas Ngau Tau Kok Community Centre, Hong Kong Housing Authority and Creative Property Services Consultants Limited for providing full support for the research. The authors would like to thank the Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong) for providing a lot of useful information. The authors also thank the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the Visiting Scholar/Professor Sponsorship to one of the authors, Prof. Siu, during the final analysis and preparation of this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors have received the General Research Fund (RGC Ref.: 547412) from Hong Kong Research Grants Council. The School of Design and the RIUSD of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University provided partial research support for the study.

Kin Wai Michael Siu is a chair professor & Public Design Lab Leader of Public Design Lab of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He is a chartered engineer and chartered designer. He is fellow and council member of the Design Research Society. He was visiting scholar of UC Berkeley, ASIA Fellow of the National University of Singapore, Fulbright Scholar at MIT, and visiting scholar of the Engineering Design Centre of the University of Cambridge. He is visiting professor of Tsinghua University. His research and design focus is on both technological and social perspectives. He has been involved in a number of funded research and design projects related to public design and participatory design. He promotes action research and worked closely with end users. He has received more than 50 international design and invention awards. He owns more than 50 US and international patents. He has published over 300 journals in top tier research and design journals.

Jia Xin Xiao is a research assistant and PhD candidate of School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

References

Barr

Ford

N. J.

Gilg

A. W.

(2003) Attitudes towards recycling household waste in Exeter, Devon: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 8(4): 407–421.

Baum

MacDougall

Smith

(2006) Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60(10): 854.

Bell

(1987) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Chung

S. S.

Leung

M. M. Y.

(2007) The value-action gap in waste recycling: The case of undergraduates in Hong Kong. Environmental Management 40(4): 603–612.

Chung

S. S.

Poon

C. S.

(1999) The attitudes of Guangzhou citizens on waste reduction and environmental issues. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 25(1): 35–59.

Cohen

Manion

(1994) Research methods in education, 4th ed. London: Routledge.

Environmental Protection Department (EPD). (2005). A policy framework for the management of municipal solid waste (2005–2014). Hong Kong: EPD.

Environmental Protection Department (EPD). (2010). Programme on source separation of domestic waste: Annual update 2010. Hong Kong: EPD.

Fahy

Davies

(2007) Home improvements: Household waste minimisation and action research. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52(1): 13–27.

10.

Farrelly

Tucker

(2014) Action research and residential waste minimisation in Palmerston North, New Zealand. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 91(1): 11–26.

11.

Hage

Söderholm

Berglund

(2009) Norms and economic motivation in household recycling: Empirical evidence from Sweden. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53(3): 155–165.

12.

Jansen

Baur

de Wit

Wilbrink

Abma

(2015) Co-designing collaboration: Using a partnership framework for shared policymaking in geriatric networks. Action Research 13(1): 65–83.

13.

Keremane

G. B.

McKay

J. M.

(2011) Using PhotoStory to capture irrigators’ emotions about water policy and sustainable development objectives: A case study in rural Australia. Action Research 9(4): 405–425.

14.

Kujala

(2003) User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology 22(1): 1–16.

15.

Kwok

Y. C. J.

H. B.

(2008) Making habitable space together with female Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong: An interdisciplinary participatory action research project. Action Research 6(3): 261–283.

16.

Lee

Y. J.

de Young Marans

R. W.

(1995) Factors influencing individual recycling behaviour in office settings: A study of office workers in Taiwan. Environment and Behaviour 27(3): 380–403.

17.

Lingard

Albert

Levinson

(2008) Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. British Medical Journal 337(7667): 459–461.

18.

C. H.

Siu

K. W. M.

(2012) Failure of household recycling participation in a densely populated city: Insights for public design. The International Journal of the Humanities 9(6): 23–33.

19.

Martin

Williams

I. D.

Clark

(2006) Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste recycling: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 48(4): 357–395.

20.

Meyer

(2000) Using qualitative methods in health related action research. BMJ Clinical Research 320(7228): 178–181.

21.

Neuman

W. L.

(2000) Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

22.

Siu

K. W. M.

Kwok

Y. C. J.

(2004) Collective and democratic creativity: Participatory research and design. The Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving 14(1): 11–27.

23.

Siu

K. W. M.

Wong

M. M. Y.

(2013) Promotion of a healthy public living environment: Participatory design of public toilets with visually impaired persons. Public Health 127(7): 629–636.

24.

Siu

K. W. M.

Xiao

J. X.

(2016) Design and management of recycling facilities for household and community recycling participation. Facilities 34(5/6): 350–374.

25.

Stringer

E. T.

(1999) Action research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Tam

W. Y.

Tam

C. M.

(2006) Evaluations on existing waste recycling methods: A Hong Kong study. Building and Environment 41(12): 1649–1660.

27.

Tremblay

de Oliveira Jayme

(2015) Community knowledge co-creation through participatory video. Action Research 13(3): 298–314.

28.

Whitehead

Taket

Smith

(2003) Action research in health promotion. Health Education Journal 62(1): 5–22.

29.

Xiao

J. X.

Siu

K. W. M.

(2016) Public design and household participation in recycling for sustainability: A case study in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Environmental Sustainability 12(1): 27–40.

30.

Yau

(2010) Domestic waste recycling, collective action and economic incentive: The case in Hong Kong. Waste Management 30(12): 2440–2447.