Wetlands in threats

“Study on the Ownership of Fish Ponds in North West New Territories” revealed the environmental threats in North West New Territories through strategic research on the land hound by private developers. The fish ponds may be developed through “land sharing” scheme by the Government. 

Full Report

Brownfield in the NT

“Brownfields in Time: Tracing the course of Brownfields expansion in the New Territories” tracked the proliferation of brownfields
between 1993 and 2017, and through case studies discuss the causes of their significant spread, with a view to lay the foundation for public discussion on a brownfield policy.

Full Report

Missing Options

In the “Missing Option: Research on Temporary Use and Vacant Government Land in Hong Kong”,  we discovered 532 pieces of vacant government land with a total area of 301 hectares. The land parcels, being left vacant or “under-utilised” by the Government, can be found in all 18 districts in Hong Kong.

Full Report

“Honest Consultation” on Land Supply

“Your Real Choices: Honest consultation on land supply” was written by Liber Research Community and the Citizens Task Force on Land Resources to provide counter-arguments on the official “big land debate” by the Task Force on Land Supply in 2018. We have printed 12,000 copies of the booklet for free distribution to the public.

Full Report

The Next Ecotourism Hotspots at Risk

 

The Next Ecotourism Hotspots at Risk

Originally published in Chinese on 7 February 2026.

Whenever holiday is near, and news of visitors damaging the countryside is likely to follow. What is hard to predict is which new place will be hit. If we saw it coming, the departments concerned and the public could at least be prepared.

How can we sharpen our foresight? A hidden countryside spot becomes an “ecotourism hotspot” for two main reasons:

(1) the government promotes it, and

(2) it gets attention on social media.

When both conditions are met, crowds can surge in. Po Pin Chau, Tai Tung Shan and Sharp Island are examples: all were promoted by the government as ecotourism sites, then “went viral” on social media. The Sharp Island incident, where tourists trampled coral, also revealed that the waters off the island lie outside any protected area, so offenders face no criminal liability.

Last week Greenpeace published a report identifying 22 places across Hong Kong, like the waters off Sharp Island, that the government favors as ecotourism sites but that have little legal protection. These places have special ecological or geological value and are inherently fragile. With the government promoting them, all that is missing is a social media algorithm to “kill them with praise”. If they become famous, the government has no law to enforce, and they will become another Sharp Island.

These high-risk places already appear in popular social media posts, including on Xiaohongshu: Ha Pak Nai and Nam Sang Wai in Yuen Long; Tap Mun, Tung Lung Chau and Po Toi islands among the outlying islands; and Yim Tin Tsai and Sham Chung in Sai Kung [Note 1]. The latest news is that a developer has opened a ferry route linking Sham Chung, known for its grassland, to Sai Sha Go Park, and that someone plans to turn the grassland into a paid luxury campsite, which may draw more people to take photos there. The government’s plan to rebuild piers in Sham Chung and nearby ecologically sensitive areas such as Lai Chi Chong effectively paves the way for such plans, and the environmental pressure may grow [Note 2].

Damage does not require crowds. To generate social media traffic, a few content creators seek out remote spots even without government promotion. Such places lack infrastructure and staff, and visitors without conservation awareness can easily damage the ecology. At Tung Sam Kei in Sai Kung, dozens of snorkelers wearing fins were seen trampling coral [Note 3]. Besides the 22 places named by Greenpeace, our researcher found several remote ecological sites outside protected areas, either because past development pressure was low or because they are in the sea (natural reserves mostly cover land, so marine protection is weak), yet they are shared in news or social media “adventure guides”. The following are examples of second-tier high-risk places:

➤ Fo Shek Chau, Sai Kung: “seafood buffet” [Note 4]

➤ Wong Mau Chau, Sai Kung: “Bali-like glass-clear sea” [Note 5]

➤ Pak Lap Tsai, Sai Kung: “Hong Kong’s Maldives” [Note 6]

➤ Bluff Island, Sai Kung: “Hong Kong’s psychedelic beach” [Note 7]

The 22 high-risk places and 13 second-tier places found by Greenpeace and us all lie outside protected area management. Our researcher compiled them into the Potential Ecotourism Black Hole Map 2026 for reference (link in the comments).

To stop more scenic spots from turning into “theme parks”, the departments concerned must review how they promote ecotourism, watch social media trends, and prepare ahead for places that may “blow up”. Greenpeace’s report looks at the system level: setting up an ecotourism policy framework to replace the current mass tourism model, expanding protected areas, and other long-term measures for sustainable development, so that future generations of Hong Kong people can still enjoy green spaces.

[Note 1] Liber Research Community. 23 October 2025. [Wild and Viral] Five ways Xiaohongshu users imagine the Hong Kong countryside

[Note 2] Liber Research Community. “Mission accomplished: why rebuild 23 remote piers out of the blue?”

[Note 3] HK01. 5 October 2025. Dozens of snorkelers in fins trample coral in Sai Kung; clownfish “homes” may be destroyed

[Note 4] Sing Tao Headline. 29 July 2025. Mainland woman in Hong Kong makes a “seafood buffet” at Fo Shek Chau in Sai Kung: free sea urchin, abalone, scallops and crab soup, then asks “can this be eaten?” after catching an unexpected creature

[Note 5] Hong Kong People Travel Hong Kong. 19 May 2022. Sai Kung attractions: [Hidden snorkeling spot Wong Mau Chau! Bali-like glass-clear sea! Sea urchins and fish within reach!]

[Note 6] Hong Kong Zai. 7 May 2025. Comparable to Hong Kong’s Maldives: Pak Lap Tsai

[Note 7] Yahoo Travel. 20 August 2021. Sai Kung attractions | Yung Kong Wan, Sha Tong Hau and Shan Yat day trip: Hong Kong’s psychedelic beach / world-class holiday resort / colorful coral reef

 

Buckle Up, Yet Most Bus Injuries Happen Without a Crash

 

Buckle Up, Yet Most Bus Injuries Happen Without a Crash

Originally published in Chinese on 8 January 2026.

Hong Kong may soon have the world’s toughest bus seat belt law. In two weeks, passengers who sit on a public bus fitted with belts must wear them, or face a fine of up to HK$5,000 and three months in jail. The government held a press conference this morning (8 January) to answer public doubts, but several key questions remain unanswered.

The government says it studied overseas examples and that mandatory belts on buses are an international trend. A few months ago our researcher wrote that the foreign laws the government cited actually apply to long-distance coaches, which run at very different speeds and risk levels. Requiring belts on urban buses would make Hong Kong the first advanced place to do so [Note 1].

In interviews, our researcher explained why other places do not impose a blanket rule on both coaches and urban buses. Urban buses are already very safe given their size, speed and routes; belts add little, and cannot solve the problem of standing passengers, so those buses are simply exempted.

▍”A Few Seconds Can Cut Serious Injuries and Deaths.” But by How Much?

Belts are always safer, at least for seated passengers. The real questions are the cost of enforcement, the social friction it may cause, and how much benefit it brings. How many injuries can belts actually prevent? That has never been seriously discussed.

Using the Code on Access to Information, we obtained ten years of bus safety data from the Transport Department. On average, collisions caused 0.7 injuries per million vehicle-km, while non-collision incidents caused 1.71, or 71% of the total. In other words, over 70% of bus casualties come from incidents belts cannot prevent, such as losing balance inside the cabin or falling while boarding or alighting. The benefit of mandatory belts is therefore smaller than people imagine.

Looking at collisions alone, the very risk the amendment targets, buses are already fairly safe: 1.44 accidents and 0.7 casualties per million vehicle-km. That is far lower than trams, at 7.6 accidents and 2.3 casualties, which have no belt requirement.

There is a further risk. To avoid criminal liability, more passengers may choose to stand rather than take an empty seat, exposing themselves to the non-collision injuries that the law does not address. Collision casualties, already rare, may fall slightly, but the 70% share from non-collision incidents may rise. Overall bus casualty rates may not fall, and could even go up.

The benefit of mandatory belts is doubtful, and many questions remain: how to enforce the rule, how passengers will judge when to buckle or unbuckle, and whether services will be delayed. These may create more social conflict than the law is worth. With the law taking effect in two weeks, the government can only keep collecting accident data after implementation, review the results, and adjust the installation and wearing rules later.

The full interview and the data obtained from the Transport Department are in the comments / Story.

[Note 1] Liber Research Community. 5 November 2025. [Safety First?] Most overseas cities do not require belts on urban buses; is Hong Kong going it alone?

Sing Tao Daily. 6 January 2026. New seat belt law is here: school bus nannies caught between duty and compliance | Sing Tao Headline

Transport Department data: “Traffic accident statistics by vehicle class and accident type”

 

1,003 Hectares Gone: Ten Years of Permanent Habitat Loss in Hong Kong

 

1,003 Hectares Gone: Ten Years of Permanent Habitat Loss in Hong Kong

Originally published in Chinese on 30 April 2026.

Since 1998, the government has required Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before major projects, to provide a scientific basis for compensating habitat loss and mitigating impacts. In recent big development plans, however, EIAs have become a tool for lending “legitimacy” to controversial projects, as with the shelved Kau Yi Chau artificial islands reclamation plan[Note 1].

Even with compensation, such as replanting trees or relocating species, permanently lost habitats cannot be fully replaced. When cities expand into natural habitats, it is hard to say that the overall ecological value afterwards is better than before. In recent decades Hong Kong has faced the Ten Major Infrastructure Projects and many other works, often clustered close together, so the cumulative impact is large. There is a lack of overall view of how much habitat Hong Kong has lost over time, and few studies of the speed and extent of recent urbanization. Permanent habitat loss recorded in EIAs is one important indicator.

Our researcher reviewed all EIA reports from 2015 to 2025 for projects that assessed “Ecological Impacts”, and found that the hectares of land these projects have caused, or will cause, to be permanently lost as habitat comes to 1.8 Lion Rock Country Parks.

▍Four NM Zones Account for Nearly Half of the Loss?

We counted the non-urbanized or disturbed habitats permanently lost in 26 EIA reports over ten years [Note 2, Note 3]. The accumulated permanent loss is 1,003 hectares, 1.8 times the area of Lion Rock Country Park (557 hectares). It breaks down as follows:

Type of permanent habitat loss | Area lost

➢ Farmland (of which in active use) | 56.73 ha (23.16 ha) = over 9 times the Lai Chi Wo restored farmland

➢ Fung shui woods / woodland / plantation | 151.94 ha = about 27 Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens

➢ Village / orchard | 184.29 ha = about 1.2 Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden

➢ Shrubland and grassland | 137.29 ha = about 0.8 Fanling Golf Course

➢ Marsh and fishponds | 114.71 ha = about 2 Hong Kong Wetland Parks

➢ Watercourses | 16.61 ha = about 4 times the revitalized Kai Tak River

➢ Intertidal zone and sea surface | 169.64 ha = about 16 Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelters

➢ Seabed | 200.01 ha = about 1.3 times the artificial island of the HZMB Hong Kong Port

Of this, 485 hectares (over 40%) of permanent habitat loss comes from four projects within the Northern Metropolis:

NM projects | Permanent habitat loss | Main habitat types lost

➢ Lok Ma Chau / San Tin development | 219.36 ha | Fishponds, village/orchard, fung shui woods/woodland

➢ Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area | 103.83 ha | Village/orchard, plantation

➢ Ngau Tam Mei area development | 72.96 ha | Village/orchard, fung shui woods/woodland, fishponds

➢ Yuen Long South housing sites | 35.47 ha | Village/orchard, fung shui woods/woodland, active farmland

Overall, the five largest projects alone account for over 800 hectares of permanent loss, more than four-fifths of the total, and three of them are Northern Metropolis projects:

Top five projects | Permanent habitat loss | Main habitat types lost

➢ Tung Chung New Town Extension | 314.67 ha | Seabed, sea surface and water bodies

➢ San Tin / Lok Ma Chau development* | 219.36 ha | Fishponds, village/orchard, fung shui woods/woodland

➢ Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area* | 103.83 ha | Village/orchard, plantation

➢ Tseung Kwan O Area 17 and related reclamation | 91.83 ha | Seabed, sea surface and water bodies

➢ Ngau Tam Mei area development* | 72.96 ha | Village/orchard, fung shui woods/woodland, fishponds

*Northern Metropolis project

The full list of permanent habitat loss from major projects (2015-2025) is in the comments / IG Story.

▍Mitigation Does Not Make Habitat Loss Acceptable

Since “1:1 area” compensation is hard to achieve in Hong Kong (the “no net loss” principle for wetlands was recently broken [Note 4]), recent environmental compensation thinking is moving toward “environmental capacity” or “no loss of ecological function” [Note 5], substituting “quality” for “quantity”. Its feasibility is unknown. It is worth asking whether the current measures that make up “quantity” with “quality” actually work, because any new compensation approach built on similar thinking may share their problems:

🚩 Wildlife crossings through fragmented woods and wetlands?

Ngau Tam Mei and Lok Ma Chau / San Tin developments will “cut up” wetland and woodland habitats. Both EIAs recommend “wildlife corridors” so that animals ranging from the common East Asian Porcupine to the rare Leopard Cat can “cross” the Northern Metropolis.

Wildlife corridors are widely used around the world to let animals move safely after part of their habitat is developed. But simply building a crossing does not solve the problem. Many ecologists have questioned their effectiveness, which depends on design and species behavior and, above all, on how badly the original habitat is destroyed (remaining area and quality). It is not a once-and-for-all fix [Note 6]. In dense cities, corridors can also lead to roadkill [Note 7], and Ngau Tam Mei and Lok Ma Chau / San Tin, next to the high-rise San Tin Technopole, may be no different; green groups have raised the same concern [Note 8].

🚩 compensating habitat elsewhere?

There is also off-site compensation. For example, the reed/marsh habitat lost to Ngau Tam Mei development is “flown” two or three kilometers away, beside Yoho Fairyland in Yuen Long, on the other side of Kai Kung Leng [Note 9]. The failure rate of such “wetland reconstruction” is as high as 70% internationally [Note 10], and a “new” wetland squeezed between private estates and busy roads is likely to fail even more often.

▍”Urban-Rural Integration” Myth and Reality

The recent wave of major infrastructure has cost Hong Kong over a thousand hectares of net habitat. In the past, only projects of 20 hectares or more needed an EIA (the threshold has recently risen to 50 hectares), so the permanent loss from countless smaller projects is not counted. The negative impact is clear and undeniable, even after compensation, and some compensation measures help little.

Notably, the areas of Hong Kong richest in ecology and habitat have suffered the most permanent loss over the past decade. The Northern Metropolis’s most important natural habitat is wetland, along with farmland. It holds an internationally important Ramsar Site, the Mai Po Nature Reserve, surrounded by fishponds. Villagers who farm and fish nearby, with the wetlands, woodlands and farmland, make up the rural landscape, the “rural” half of the “urban-rural integration” planning principle that is supposed to be conserved. But rural habitats have been shrinking and deteriorating for years.

Although the Northern Metropolis seems to be at an early stage, it is already under way, because the largest projects with the greatest effect on natural habitat are already part of today’s Northern Metropolis, even though no complete Northern Metropolis plan existed when they began (Lok Ma Chau / San Tin, Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area, the Lok Ma Chau Loop development, and others). The “rural” in “urban-rural integration” has been vanishing all along, so real integration will be a bigger challenge than imagined. Making up for the huge accumulated habitat loss, and for the losses from future projects, cannot be achieved by urban design or by creating “environmental capacity” alone.

[Note 1] Civil Engineering and Development Department. 23 May 2025. Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands: preliminary proposals.

[Note 2] Only urban-development projects are counted, not transport projects. Where permanently lost habitat overlaps geographically between projects, it is not double-counted.

[Note 3] “Developed Area / Wasteland” excluded.

[Note 4] Ming Pao. 23 February 2024. Making way for the Technopole: 247 hectares of the Wetland Buffer Area proposed for removal, no need to follow the “no net loss” principle; seven green groups sign joint letter urging the Town Planning Board to safeguard it today.

[Note 5] Planning Department. October 2016. Sustainable development for environmental protection and nature conservation.

[Note 6] Sustainability Atlas. February 28, 2026. Myths vs. realities: Wildlife corridors & habitat connectivity — what the evidence actually supports.

[Note 7] Liber Research Community. Travel Without Care: A Study of the Ecotourism Crisis Amid a Policy Vacuum (《旅見不善 政策真空下生態旅遊危機研究報告》)

[Note 8] HK01. 8 October 2024. Green groups fear San Tin Technopole development will bring drastic changes to otter habitat.

[Note 9] AECOM. Ngau Tam Mei Area Development, Executive Summary. Section 3.8.8.

[Note 10] Hong Kong Bird Watching Society. We urge the Environmental Protection Department to reject the EIA report for the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line.