關於 why urban farming is important ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

近來我發現，在那些針對「熱衷探索自然」的戶外活動愛好者和發布秘境貼文者所日益增長批評裡，最常見的莫過於：

「遊客會製造垃圾！」
「這些地方很多人去的話，接下來就等著看到滿地垃圾吧！」
「這些『熱愛大自然』的人們就是最大的問題！」
「我們不能開放戶外景點給一般大眾，因為他們都不負責任，而且會破壞環境！」

但，真的是這樣嗎？這些遊客是將大量塑膠垃圾傾倒在山林河川當中的主力嗎？讓我們來深入檢視一下這個議題：「為什麼有些廢棄物的最後下場，不是在掩埋場、焚化爐、回收廠、或是相對應的公共衛生處理單位呢？」

不幸的是，一些不成熟的遊客走進了大自然，把垃圾丟在那裡。如果您拜訪任何受歡迎的瀑布或溫泉，可能還會在那裡看到一些垃圾。

遊客傾向於做出兩個錯誤的假設:
<露營垃圾全是可燃的>
這是錯誤的。就像您在家一樣，應將垃圾分類為廢物和可回收物，並隨身攜帶離開。您的垃圾都不應進入營火中。

<食物會迅速分解在自然裡>
雖然沒錯，但蔬菜和加工食品分解可能需要幾個月的時間，橘子皮，蛋殼，骨頭可能需要數年。如果您將麵條或白菜扔進河裡，它們就不會被魚吃掉。它會在那兒呆數周和數月，聞起來酸味並腐爛。即使魚類和動物確實吞噬了您的垃圾，但餵養野生生物也不是您的工作。有生命力的食物種子最終會成為入侵物種，奇怪的食物會使動物生病或死亡。所有多餘的食物都應隨身帶離開。沒有例外。

更糟糕的是隨處可見的煙蒂頭。為什麼吸煙者不認為這些有毒的塑料和化學物質是垃圾？這是無法接受的。

儘管這真令人氣憤，但它並不是山上垃圾的最大來源。嚴重的系統問題是與垃圾收集和處理需求有關

這支影片當中，展示了位於高雄六龜葫蘆谷瀑布的一些垃圾堆。這裡的地勢陡峭，任何被丟進森林裡的垃圾都會沿著斜坡滾下。每當雨水來臨之際之際，重量較輕的塑膠製品就會被沖刷到河流，一路漂流至下游，也就是大家會去玩耍的瀑布那兒；最終，它們進入海洋，並被海浪打上遙遠的某處沙灘。

不過，這隻影片清楚地展示了何謂「誤解」：第一眼看過去，覺得只是幾個保麗龍手搖杯和一些大家會為了踏青而帶出門的東西。但當我們再次細看，裡面居然出現水桶、巨型農用塑膠布（通常寬幅至少為一公尺，幅寬則可長達數十公尺）、農藥空罐、傢俱、和一般家庭垃圾：那些「沒有」任何一個去健行的人會帶著走的物品。這些廢棄物源自山裡，最有可能的來源也就是那些住在山裡的人們。那些垃圾，並非外來者所帶去的。

這並不罕見，也非單一事件。只要在任何山路旁停下，低頭向山壁下望去，就能看見成堆的垃圾袋。那些都是在家裡打包綁好的家庭垃圾，然後在行進中的車上往車窗外扔。家庭垃圾，是來自家庭，並非來自露營者；只要能檢視這些垃圾裡所含有的文件或郵件，便能揭曉它的來源。

即使這些會任意丟棄垃圾的人們只佔了山間居民的極小部分，他們還是有著極大的影響力。而在山區違法傾倒垃圾有過之而無不及的破壞力。無論是什麼原因，有部分居住在山上的住戶，偏好將家庭垃圾棄置於河川勝於妥當的處理。這裡所討論的並非這裡一個、那裡一個的零星垃圾。一個住在台灣的四口家庭，年平均垃圾製造量大約1600公斤。這樣的垃圾量，實屬相當巨大。

而正是因為一個家庭所能產生的垃圾量如此龐大，我們實在很難切確了解這樣的（隨意扔丟家庭垃圾）行為究竟擴及到什麼樣的程度。我在路旁的樹叢裡看過不下數百件垃圾⋯⋯或許數千件了也不一定。但這是因為數十或數百個家庭這麼做，我並無法斷言。唯一能確定的是，塑膠垃圾將「傳承」好幾世代。

如果今天去到偏鄉，將垃圾丟進垃圾桶裡，那些垃圾下場的可能性之一是，人們請來收垃圾的那些車隊將垃圾從民宿或餐廳接走，沒有依照環保署的規定處理，不但沒有把垃圾載到目的地，他們會找個在附近不為人知的地點就隨便把垃圾給倒了。山林裡滿滿都是這樣的情況。我們在河裏所見的一部分垃圾，就是從這些非法掩埋場所洗刷出來的結果。
除了上述提到的部分之外，卻還有其他來源也正在為這樣的情況有所「貢獻」：在許多地方，整卡車的垃圾就是直接傾倒於山路邊，直落山腳的河中。這裡所指的，並非單純的家庭垃圾或傢俱，而是包含來自建築、農業、和工業等的大型廢棄物。諸如此類的物件並非一般民眾所能接觸的到；那麼，之所以會在這裡看到這類型的垃圾只有一個原因：無論是本身製造這些垃圾的單位，或著是他們委託的民間清潔業者，最終選擇不按常規處理廢棄物，選擇違法私了，隨意傾倒。政府的相關單位真的應該要發展一套策略，來確認這些垃圾最終有好好抵達該去的地方。

每年颱風來臨，就會把這些成千上噸的垃圾帶到海洋。但那些垃圾堆卻不會因此減少：因為卡車會帶著新一批的垃圾來再度傾倒。

在對這一切麻痺之前，我那時還會拍攝影片來講述這樣的情況；但現在，我只會假裝眼不見為淨。

話說回來，我倒是能夠理解為何有些偏鄉的家庭垃圾並無法抵達該去的目的地。我本身就是來自於美國的偏鄉地區。在我的成長過程當中，並沒有「公共收垃圾」的這項服務。我們將廚餘做成堆肥，埋在遠離主建築的庭院一角，用落葉堆在上方，放置兩年後再挖來替花園施肥。垃圾和回收物會分在不同的袋子裡。每週一次，我父親會將這些袋子用車子載去離家約二十分鐘車程的郡屬廢棄物集散地和回收中心。的確，整個過程費力費時，但做好回收和妥當處理廢棄物對我爸爸來說非常重要，而我們當時也有這過程裡所需的一切資源來達成這項任務。

但並非我們的街坊鄰居都這麼做。有些家庭沒有時間好好處理垃圾，所以就把成堆的垃圾、生活用具、壞掉的車子和玩具等等，隨意散落在他們的住家四周。這也是相當常見的街景一隅。

在很多方面來說，偏鄉跟都市的生活條件比較起來，的確是不方便許多。以現實層面而言，實際的生活、家庭、經濟狀況，樣樣都會佔去不少時間。並不是所有家庭都能每每在需要之際，花上一個小時來丟好垃圾。但也有人是「能做，但我就是不想做」。沒有垃圾車的時候，他們便會選擇最為便捷的方式。政府真的應該針對山間社區提供更多的收垃圾選項。

我在這裡所訴說一切其實大家都了然於心，卻鮮少被提起。大部分在山林間那些路旁和河邊的垃圾並非來自登山客或是瀑布遊客。那些垃圾來自於那些從未抵達掩埋場的一般人類消耗結果。住在山間那些人們也不願見到如此景象。但這就是現實狀況。

這也是為什麼當我看到像是「殺風景！苦花潭遍地遊客垃圾 部落擬封閉」這樣的標題時，總會不由自主地翻個大白眼。沒錯，遊客不應該留下任何垃圾，但在不到百米之外，就有個在森林深處的家庭垃圾集散地。幾乎到哪兒都有垃圾。

如果大家有興趣前往探勘現場狀況的話，以下提供三個例子：
(大型): 24.035258, 121.170819
(大型): 24.6080971,121.2830025
(小型): 22.705481, 120.669413

面對這樣的狀況，針對個人的罰鍰並沒有太大幫助。大家平時在生活裏已經有夠多的煩惱了，否則也不會這樣處理事情。就是把收垃圾這件事情弄得再簡單一些就能幫上很大的忙了。山區的垃圾廢棄必須得簡單又方便，如同城市裡所提供的一樣。

最後還是要呼籲大家，因為疫情影響，人民改為國內旅遊，這是一件好事，多了親山近水的機會，也增加露營野餐烤肉樂趣，讓朋友家人感情更融洽!但是大家在拜訪大自然的同時，更需要以身作則，帶來多少食物垃圾，也請一件不留帶走。野生動物不需要被人類餵食，牠們喜歡自己自食其力，所以不用擔心動物會餓，而故意留下吃剩食物殘渣。揮揮衣袖，請帶走全部垃圾，包含烤肉架，野生動物不需要自己烤肉啦~

還有，大家不要再報復性集中旅遊啦~明明台灣美景青山綠水多到數不清，要記得分散人流，防疫新生活還是要落實，真的不知道去哪裡玩嗎?歡迎大家逛逛我的部落格，我製作了全台300多個景點地圖，可以選偏僻冷門的景點去唷~

One of the most common criticisms I see raised against nature goers and people who post 秘境 online is that visitors bring a lot of trash with them. If these areas have a lot of visitors, the result will be that there is a lot of trash. Nature-lovers are the problem. We can’t open up the wilderness to the general public, because they are irresponsible, and will trash the place. But is that really true? Are tourists the main driver of plastic waste in rivers and mountains? Let’s examine this issue a bit further and try to determine why some waste ends up in the rivers instead of landfills and public waste processing centers.

Unfortunately, some of immature tourists go into nature and leave their trash there. If you visit any popular waterfall or hot spring, chances are you will see some trash there too.

Tourists tend to make two false assumptions. One is that camping trash is burnable. It’s not. Your trash should be separated into waste and recyclables, just like you do at home, and taken out with you. None of your trash should go in the campfire.

The other is that food degrades quickly. It doesn’t. Vegetables and processed foods can months, orange peels, egg shells, bones can take years. If you toss noodles or cabbage into the river, it won’t be eaten by fish. It will stay there for weeks and months and rot and smell. Even if fish and animals did eat your garbage, it’s not your job to feed the wildlife. Viable food seeds end up as invasive species and strange foods make animals sick or die. All excess food should be taken out with you. No exceptions.

Even worse are cigarette butts. Why do smokers not think these toxic bits of plastic and chemicals are trash? This is unacceptable.

As infuriating as this is though, it’s not the biggest source of mountain garbage. There are serious systemic problems relating to garbage collection and disposal that need to be addressed.

This video shows a large trash pile at Hulugu Waterfall in Kaohsiung City, Liugui District. The terrain here is very steep. Any trash thrown into the forest will roll down the hill. When it rains, the lighter plastic products will be washed into the river and flow downstream, into the waterfalls you play at, and eventually to the ocean, and eventually onto a remote beach somewhere.

However, a closer look at the piles shows that this can be misleading: at first glance, it looks like a few styrofoam tea cups and items that people might bring on an outing with them. But as we look closer at the waste, we can see there are buckets, plastic farm sheeting, pesticide bottles, furniture, and general household waste. Items that no hiker would ever bring with them. This waste originated in the mountains, by people who live in the mountains. It was not brought by outsiders.

Neither is this a rare or isolated incident. If you stop at literally any section of mountain road and look over the edge you will see entire trash bags down below you. These are household trash bags that were packed and tied shut at home, then thrown out of the window of moving vehicles. It’s household trash, from houses, not campers, and critical examination of this waste would reveal the source through mail and other documents inside.

Even if it’s only a small percentage of the mountain population, they still have a big impact. Illegal trash dumps in the mountains have an even bigger impact. For whatever reason it is, some mountain dwellers prefer to throw their household waste into the river than dispose of it properly. This is not a stray bag here and there. The average 4 person household generates 1600KG of trash per year in Taiwan. That’s a lot of trash.

Because a single family can generate so much garbage, it’s difficult to tell how widespread this practice is. I’ve seen hundreds of trash bags in the forest by the side of the road. Possibly thousands. But if this is by dozens of families or hundreds of families I can’t say. Plastic lasts for generations.

If you visit rural communities and dispose of your trash in their trash can, there is a possibility that the private trucks they hired to pick up those waste from the restaurant or minsu aren’t taking it to an EPA landfill. Instead of delivering the trash to the final destination, they find an isolated spot nearby and just dump the garbage there. It may end up in one of these dumping sites instead. The mountains are full of them. Some of what you will see in a river is washed down from these illegal landfills.

In many places, entire truckloads of trash are dumped over the side of the roads and into the river below. This isn’t just household waste and furniture, but also construction, farming, and industrial waste too. This type of waste is not something that tourists bring into the mountains. Whoever was in charge of disposing of this waste properly decided to dump it into the forest instead. The government needs to develop a method of confirming that mountain waste reaches its intended destination.

Every year typhoons carry tons of this trash away to the ocean, but the trash piles never go away, because new trucks arrive to refill them.

I used to make videos about them before I became desensitized, but now I just pretend I didn’t see them.

I do understand why some rural household waste doesn’t make it to the correct locations though. I’m from a rural area myself. I didn’t have a trash service where I grew up. We composted food waste. It was dumped into piles far away from the house. We covered them with leaves and let them sit for two years before using it for soil in the garden. Trash and recyclables were separated into different bags. Once a week my dad drove these bags 20 minutes into town to the county dump and recycling center. It was a lot of effort, but recycling and proper waste disposal were very important to my dad, and we also had the resources to do it.

Not everyone on my street did though. Some families did not have the time and resources for proper waste disposal, and so they had piles of trash, appliances, broken down cars, broken toys, etc around their property. It was a very common sight.

In many ways, country living isn’t as easy and convenient as living in the city. Sometimes real life, family, and financial problems take up all your time. Not all families can spend an hour each time they want to take out the trash. Some people can, but just don’t want to. When trash trucks are not available, they will take the most convenient option. The government needs to increase trash pickup options for mountain communities.

What I’ve written here is well known, but not often talked about. Most of the roadside and riverside trash in the mountains isn’t from hikers and waterfall goers. It’s from normal human consumption that never makes it to a landfill. People who live in the mountains don’t like it either. But that’s what it’s like.

That’s why when I see headlines like (殺風景！苦花潭遍地遊客垃圾 部落擬封閉), I can’t help but roll my eyes. Tourists shouldn’t be leaving trash there, but there is also a household forest trash dump less than 100 meters away. There’s trash almost everywhere.

Here are a few examples if you wanna go check em out yourself:
(big): 24.035258, 121.170819
(big): 24.6080971,121.2830025
(small): 22.705481, 120.669413

Fines to individuals won’t help. People have enough problems, otherwise they wouldn’t act this way. Just make it easier to take the trash away. Trash disposal needs to be easy and convenient for mountain communities, just like it is for urban communities.

Finally, I still want to appeal to everyone. Because of the impact of the epidemic, the people have changed to domestic tourism. This is a good thing. There are more opportunities to get close to the mountains and rivers. It also increases the fun of camping and picnic barbecues, so that friends and family can feel more harmonious! But everyone is visiting nature At the same time, it is more necessary to set an example, and please don’t leave any food waste with you. Wild animals do not need to be fed by humans. They like to support themselves, so there is no need to worry that the animals will be hungry and intentionally leave leftover food residue. Flick your sleeves, please take away all the garbage, including the barbecue grill, wild animals don’t need to barbecue by themselves~

It’s clear that Taiwan’s beautiful scenery, green mountains and green waters are countless, remember to disperse the flow of people, and the new life of epidemic prevention still needs to be implemented. Do you really know where to go? Welcome everyone to visit me In my blog, I have made maps of more than 300 scenic spots in Taiwan. You can choose remote and unpopular scenic spots to go to

See how our research demystifies the land politics of the northern New Territories

本組向HK Magazine專題提供了反對新界北淪陷的重要理據，而新界東北正正就是撐住新界融合戰的橋頭堡!
--
[cover story] What Will Happen to the New Territories?
http://hk.asia-city.com/…/…/what-will-happen-new-territories

The government’s little-publicized plans for developing the northeastern New Territories are much bigger than it would have you believe—under the current plans, huge tracts of green land will be turned to concrete. Grace Tsoi takes a closer look at the many complex issues and concerns surrounding the project.

On September 2, while secondary school students were hunger striking at Tamar, a smaller-scale but equally vociferous protest was being staged. Several hundred villagers from Kwu Tung North, Fanling North, Ping Che and Ta Kwu Ling also staked out the government offices. They chanted slogans protesting against demolition and removal—their homes are slated to be destroyed, according to the government’s plan to develop the northeastern New Territories.

The development plan is not a new one. As early as 1998, former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa floated the idea to develop Kwu Tung North, Fanling North, Ping Che and Ta Kwu Leng into three new development areas (NDAs). However, the plan was halted due to a slower-than-expected population expansion in 2003. Then in 2007, Donald Tsang restarted the Hong Kong 2030 Planning Vision and Strategy scheme, and the Northeastern New Territories were again slated to be developed. The three NDAs will total 787 hectares, of which 533 hectares will be built upon. The consultation was done in the dark, and the majority of the public only learnt of the development plan at the last stage of the consultation. Originally the consultation was set to conclude at the end of August, but due to staunch opposition, the government has extended the deadline until the end of September. Here, we line out the many problems and shortcomings of the government’s plans.

Can It Satisfy Housing Demand?

The government backs up the development plan by stating that more homes will be built in the northeast New Territories—an appealing idea in the wake of rocketing house prices. Around 54,000 homes will be built, with 40 percent of the flats set aside for public housing. During her tenure as Secretary for Development, Carrie Lam said the ratio of public housing should be kept at less than 50 percent in order to avoid a repeat of the disastrous Tin Shui Wai new town in Yuen Long. “The problem with Tin Shui Wai is not that there is too much public housing. It is because of the monopolies [for example, the community is served only be The Link and Li Ka-shing’s shopping malls and there are very few independent vendors] and insufficient jobs for the working class. Even hawking is prohibited,” says Chan Kim-ching, a researcher from Local Research Community, a think-tank focusing on urban planning. On the other hand, the project’s 21,600 public housing flats, which will be made available by the year 2022, don’t even come close to satisfying the government’s target of building 15,000 public housing homes per year. We have to ask—is getting rid of all this precious green space worth it? On the private housing side, low-density homes will be built. However, it is questionable whether these flats will be affordable for the majority of the Hong Kong public—Chan worries that they will be snapped up by mainland buyers instead of satisfying local housing needs.

Overestimating Population Growth

In order to justify the project, the government has, once again, cited population growth in its push to build more housing. A government press release states: “According to the latest population projections, there will be an increase of about 1.4 million people in the coming 30 years. There is still a strong demand for land for housing and economic development.” However, the Census and Statistics Department has a track record of overestimating Hong Kong’s population growth. In 2002, the department predicted that Hong Kong’s population would hit 7.53 million by 2011. But today, Hong Kong’s population is 7.14 million—way off government estimates. The department itself has also lowered its population estimates. In 2004, it predicted that Hong Kong’s population would surge to 8.72 million by mid-2031. But latest predictions stand at 8.47 million by mid-2041. So if the government’s predictions are not accurate and consistent, how can it justify such a large-scale development?

Non-indigenous Villagers Lose Out

It is estimated that more than 10,000 villagers will be affected by the plan, and that more than 10 villages will be demolished. Almost all of the villages that are under threat are largely inhabited by non-indigenous villagers. Non-indigenous villagers migrated to Hong Kong after World War II. They farmed in the New Territories and built their homes near their fields. However, they are not landowners because land in the New Territories belongs to indigenous villagers. So even though the non-indigenous villagers have lived in the area for decades, according to authorities, they have no rights to the land. “The most ridiculous thing is, even though non-indigenous villagers have been living there for 50 or 60 years, their houses are still classified as squatter huts, a temporary form of housing. The authorities don’t recognize their housing rights… Non-indigenous villagers are easy targets of bullying because their rights are not protected by law,” says Chan.

Although it is the non-indigenous villagers who will be most affected by the development plans, no one sought to gain their input. In fact, the first and second phases of the consultation, which were conducted in 2009 and 2010, did not actively engage them at all. “The villagers of Ping Che did not know about the plan before—they only learned of the plan when they were invited to a poon choi banquet hosted by gleeful indigenous villagers. Some of the elderly villagers attended, and they were only told at the feast that the celebration was because the government would claim the land for development. They only learned that they would have to move at the banquet,” Chan says.

Unlike urban renewal projects, the government has not conducted any studies to investigate how many villagers are going to be affected; neither has it come up with any compensation or resettlement plans for the affected villagers. The only thing the government has done is to carve out a 3.2 hectare parcel of land in Kwu Tung North, where a public housing project will accommodate the non-indigenous villagers.

Meanwhile, indigenous villagers are set to reap huge profits. All the land in the new Territories land is either owned by indigenous villagers or property developers. As the government has allocated $40 billion to buy land, it is certain that indigenous villagers will pocket part of the money. To add insult to injury, while their non-indigenous counterparts face the demolition of homes, the indigenous villages will be kept largely intact. Also, the government has saved land for the future expansion of indigenous villages. Within the three NDAs, around six hectares of land has been set aside for this purpose.

Loss of Farmland

Another inevitable consequence of developing the New Territories is the loss of farmland. A spokesperson of the Planning Department tells HK Magazine that 22 hectares of land under active cultivation will be affected by the development. That figure is significantly lower than estimates by environmental groups, which have come up with the figure of 98 hectares. “The government data refers to the land being farmed currently, but we focus on arable land. When we talk about arable land, it also includes abandoned land which has the potential to be rehabilitated. It is for sure that the government has not included such land in its figure of 22 hectares. From the perspective of agricultural development, abandoned land can be rehabilitated. So why don’t we protect and rehabilitate this land?” says Roy Ng, the Conservancy Association’s senior campaign officer.

Displaced Farmers

The government has pledged to maintain a total of 54 hectares as agricultural zones. However, 37 of these so-called “protected” hectares are found in Long Valley, a well-established and very active farming area. The government plans to relocate many of the farmers who have been displaced by the project to Long Valley, a move that’s bound to cause friction between agriculturalists. “If we move all the affected farmers to Long Valley, it means that some of the farmers [who are already] in Long Valley have to move away,” Ng says. “The agricultural practices of the farmers are very different. In Long Valley, most of the farmers are growing wetland crops. But most farmland in Ping Che and Ta Kwu Ling is not wetland… If we move all these farmers to wetland areas, it may have an adverse impact on the conservation of Long Valley.”





Word on the Street

Villagers are fighting for the right to remain in th eir homes, undisturbed by government intervention. Here’s what they have to say.

I have been living in Ping Che for almost five decades, and all my children were born there. Ping Che is a large village, where thousands of people reside. We only knew that our village would be demolished a few months ago, and we only caught wind of some rumors before. Ping Che is spacious, and we grow produce for ourselves. When we first came to Ping Che, it was a primitive place. We have been renting land from the villagers since then. And Ping Che has become a beautiful village due to our efforts. I don’t want to see our village be destroyed. My children have grown up, and they don’t want to move out either.
Amy, 50s, Ping Che resident



Our family has been living in Kwu Tong for three generations. Two years ago, we found out that our land had to be claimed back [by the government]. The development plan had been formulated for a long time, but the officials never told us about it. We were shocked to learn of the plan, and we think the government has kept the plan in the dark. There are a few hundred villagers, and we all know each other. Even though I am young, I love the rural life a lot. I lived in private buildings in Fanling for more than two years as it was closer to my school. The feeling was very different. In our village, everyone says hi to each other; we even know the name of each dog! [In Fanling], I didn’t know my neighbors, and I didn’t even notice when they moved away. I hope our village will not be demolished because we want to keep our lifestyle. We will continue to fight for our rights.
Hiu Ching, 18, Kwu Tung North resident



I have never joined any protest. This is my first time because the government wants to take away the land from our village. The officials never consulted us, and it seems that we have to comply with every order of the government. There are fruit trees in front of our house, and the trees are 20 to 30 years old. We get all kinds of fruits to eat. Lychee, longan, jackfruit, aloe and melons…you name it. It’s no different from an orchard. When we were kids, we didn’t need to close our doors because we would just go next door to play with other children. A lot of structures are very old, and they are our heritage. We have gotten used to the rural way of living, and it’s difficult for us to adapt to a city life. We don’t want any compensation. There are many elderly people in our village, and they have been living here for decades. For those skeptics who think that we are only demanding more compensation, try to think from our perspectives. We have been living here for decades, and our home will be lost!
Mr. Lee, 30, Kwu Tung North resident


Development By Numbers

An outline of the redevelopment plans by region.

1. Kwu Tong, Fanling North, Ping Che/Tai Koo Leng New Development Areas (NDAs)
Size: 533 hectares.
Progress: Stage 3 of public engagement.

2. Hung Sui Kiu NDA
No outline development plan has been released, but it will be turned into an NDA that caters a population of 160,000. The government will also save land for the development of “Six Industries”—testing and certification, medical services, innovation and technology, cultural and creative industries, environmental industries and education services.
Size: 790 hectares.
Progress: Stage 2 of public engagement to be commenced; in operation by 2024.

3. Lok Ma Chau Loop
Once the property of Shenzhen, the Loop was allocated to Hong Kong after realignment of the Shenzhen river in 1997. The area will be turned into a higher education zone.
Size: About 87 hectares.
Progress: Stage 2 of public engagement completed; in operation by 2020.

4. Liangtang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point
Progress: construction will start in 2013; in operation by 2018.

5. Frontier Closed Area (FCA)
Established by the British for strategic reasons, the FCA will be downsized and land will be released for development. Due to the area’s history, it hasn’t been touched by any development.
Use: A country park will be designated near Robin’s Nest. Other areas are zoned as green belt and for agricultural uses. But a comprehensive development zone and residential areas are designated for Hung Lung Hang. Hoo Hok Wai, another ecologically sensitive area that occupies 240 hectares, is zoned under “other specific uses,” which also means that further development is possible.
Size: 2,400 hectares.
Progress: 740 hectares of FCA has already been opened up in the first phase.

6. Southern Yuen Long
The government is planning to build housing—both private and public—in the area.
Size: About 200 hectares.
Progress: The Development Bureau will conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), planning and engineering study at the same time. In operation by 2015.

7. Sha Lo Tung
It has been earmarked as one of the 12 sites of ecological importance. The site is an important habitat for butterflies and fireflies. Under the government’s Public-Private Partnership scheme, the developer wants to build a columbarium with 60,000 niches, while establishing an ecological reserve.
Size: The columbarium is set to be four hectares in size.
Progress: The EIA has already been completed, but the Advisory Council on the Environment halted the decision.

8. Nam Shen Wai
Another spot for the Public-Private Partnership scheme. The developer is planning to build 1,600 housing units, including 600 Home Ownership Scheme flats, in the southern part. It also wants to build elderly care homes to increase the social care elements. The Northern part of Nam Shen Wai and Lut Chau will be designated as a conservation area. Green groups oppose the plan because parts of the wetland will be lost.
Size: 121 hectares.
Progress: The EIA has been completed. The application will be submitted to the Town Planning Board in September.

9. Fung Lok Wai
The area is also classified as one of 12 areas with significant ecological value. Five percent of the land will accommodate luxury homes, while 95 percent of land will be turned into a conservation area. Fung Lok Wai is very close to Mai Po.
Size: 4.1 hectares (development area).
Progress: Awaiting a decision from the Town Planning Board.

--
請加入反對新界東北融合計劃專頁：
http://www.facebook.com/defendntnorth