Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lai Chi Wo Community, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: History, Agroforestry and Recent Revitalization

Summary of Case Study

Lai Chi Wo village is a small village in the north countryside of Hong Kong, far away from the urban centre. The Indigenous villagers there are the ‘Hakka’, who have been living there for over 300 years. They grew fruit trees in the western part of the villages, fished in the ocean at the eastern part of the villages, farmed rice paddy inside the villages. The village population was once over 200 households, until 1950s, many villagers moved out to cities. As a result, degradation of abandoned farmland gradually led to a loss in traditional fishery and agroforestry culture.

In the late 70s, the western part of the village was declared part of the protected Country Park, it provided a statutory protection of that area, but restricted the access of vehicles, further restricting the socioeconomic development of village. In 1990s, more villagers moved out and more farmlands were abandoned.

In 2013 to 2018, funded by the local business sector, the Policy for Sustainability Lab of University of Hong Kong launched a revitalization program, which worked closely with villagers, government departments, business sector and local schools. They restored the traditional agriculture livelihood, and added new elements such as sustainability, social innovation and cross-sectoral collaboration into the village.

Keywords

Lai Chi Wo community, Indigenous People, Hong Kong, Agroforestry, Feng Shui Woods, Sustainability

Positionality Statement and Introduction

Positionality Statement

I am not a Hakka and do not speak Hakka, nor am I a Lai Chi Wo villager. This page was completed as part of a coursework assignment and was not created in consultation with the Lai Chi Wo community or its villagers. Most of the information on this page was obtained from reliable sources, such as reports published by the Policy for Sustainability Lab at The University of Hong Kong and other academic journals.

Introduction

In metropolitan Hong Kong, which consists mainly of cities and high-density skyscrapers, rural villages still exist, but their number and size are gradually decreasing due to urbanization. The case of Lai Chi Wo Village demonstrates how local NGOs, government agencies, the business sector, and villagers collaborated to revitalize a traditional village using a sustainable model.

Description

1.History of the village

Lai Chi Wo Village is a small agricultural village in the north-eastern corner of Hong Kong . Its history dates back to the 17th century, when the 'Hakka' clans began to settle there and gradually became the Indigenous People and owners of the village. In the 1890s, Hong Kong became a British Colony, however, the livelihood of the Indigenous villagers largely remained unchanged.

During the Colonial era, the British-Hong Kong government had no interest in disturbing the village, as the development focus of the entire colonial period was on urban areas, mainly Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. The village's remote location, near the border between Hong Kong and China, was intentionally maintained as a low-development buffer zone. As a result, the Hakkas were able to maintain their traditional lifestyle. This village has now existed for over 300 years .

In the village's prime, in around the 1900s during the British-Hong Kong colonial era, there were more than 200 households . The main income sources of the villagers were fishing and rice paddy farming. During this time, there were a few temples for villagers' religious and social activities, and a primary school was set up to provide basic education to children . Basically, the village was a self-sustained community.

Since the 1950s, many new cities were established in Hong Kong, and many villagers moved out to these cities, abandoning their houses, farmland and fishing boats . The western part of the village was a large woodland, in the 1970s, this part was designated as part of the Plover Cove Country Park . The positive environmental influence is within this area, activities that could damage the ecosystem, such as logging, are prohibited. However, vehicle access and the establishment of traffic roads are also banned in that area, severely restricting transportation to and from the village. Even today, the village is only accessible by boat or a 2-hour walk, with no connecting traffic roads . This seriously limits any socio-economic development of the village. As a result, more villagers moved out, and more houses and farmland were abandoned. By the 2000s, the village was largely deserted .

Figure 1. Abandoned farmland in the village.

Figure 2. Abandoned dwelling in the village.

Table 1. The chronology of development of the village.

Years	Development status of the Lai Chi Wo Village
1700s	The Hakka clans begin to settle in the village.
1800s	The village gradually developed and its population slowly grew
1890s	Hong Kong becomes a British Colony, but the livelihood of the Indigenous villagers largely remains unchanged
1900s	The prime era of the village, with more than 200 households.
1950s	Many new cities were established in Hong Kong, villagers moved out to cities and abandoned their farmland and dwelling.
1970s	The woodland in the western part of the village is designated as part of the Plover Cove Country Park. Traffic roads and vehicles are banned there, isolating the village from the outside world. From this point on, the village is only accessible by boat or a 2-hour walk across the country park. As a result, more villagers moved out to cities and more farmland was abandoned.
2000s	The village was largely abandoned.
2013-2018	Led by the Policy for Sustainability Lab of The University of Hong Kong (PSL) and other NGOs, the Sustainable Lai Chi Wo program was implemented in the village. It successfully revitalized agricultural activities and developed the village as an environmental education and sustainable development hub.
2018 to current	The Sustainable Lai Chi Wo program continues to operate autonomously.

2.The geography and environmentally friendly agriculture model

Figure 3. The aerial photo of the Lai Chi Wo village .

Figure 4. The map of Lai Chi Wo village .

The Lai Chi Wo village is situated in a natural valley embraced by mountains on the north side. The valley acts like a natural basin, rainfall naturally runs off from the surrounding mountains and accumulates at the Lai Chi Wo village . To avoid flooding, the ancient Hakkas intentionally preserved forest on the north side of the village and also planted many fruit trees and camphor trees there. Villagers call this forest behind the village as 'Feng Shui Forest' , which literally means a geomancy forest that can protect against natural disasters, such as flooding, and acts as a windbreaker.

Figure 5. An old photo shows the village as it was around 100 years ago, with the dense and highly visible Feng Shui forest behind the traditional Hakka houses .

Villagers have formulated collective rules for protecting such Feng Shui Forest, deforestation is strictly forbidden . These customary rules are not written or codified legal requirements, but community regulations strictly followed by many generations of villagers since time immemorial. During rainy seasons, rainfall runs off from the surrounding mountains, then is absorbed and accumulated by the Feng Shui Forest. It acts like a natural catchment, holding the rainwater and then slowly releasing it to the village creeks . This continuously provides fresh drinking water to the village and irrigation water to the rice paddy fields even in dry season.

The eastern side of the village is a mangrove swamp/forest, with the ocean further to the east. Villagers built a pier near the mangrove forest since many years ago, where they accessed the ocean and fish. The villagers have been preserving and protecting the mangrove forest from time immemorial, long before any codified mangrove protection laws in Hong Kong, as they used the mangrove forest as a natural buffer to protect the village from sea waves, tsunamis, and tropical typhoons .

Figure 6. The Feng Shui forest in the northern side of the village .

Figure 7. The Feng Shui forest in the northern side of the village, a walking trial is constructed for eco-tourism .

The mangrove forest, preserved and protected by the villagers, was found to have high biodiversity value. According to studies, Lai Chi Wo mangrove forest has 10 mangrove species comprising 76.9% of the total number of mangrove species in Hong Kong . In addition to high carbon sequestration ability, mangrove forest also plays many roles such as coastal stabilizer, disperser of storm energy, tidal bores and winds, barrier to saltwater invasion of inland areas, and producer of nutrients .

Figure 8. The mangrove forest in the eastern side of the village .

Figure 9. A walking trail was constructed to allow tourists to view the mangrove forest without stepping on it .

Modern scientific studies somehow just echo traditional wisdom. It is only in recent decades that natural scientists have discovered the high environmental values of mangrove forests and urged the necessity to preserve them, while the Lai Chi Wo villagers have known the benefits of mangrove forest and have been preserving them for over hundreds of years.

3. The Sustainable Lai Chi Wo Program

In 2013, the Policy for Sustainability Lab (PSL) in the Faculty of Social Sciences of The University of Hong Kong launched the ‘Living Water & Community Revitalization – An Agricultural-led Action, Engagement and Incubation Program’ (also briefly known as the Sustainable Lai Chi Wo Program) in the village .

The program aimed to revitalize Lai Chi Wo's traditional agricultural livelihood and maintain it as a sustainable village that achieves environmental conservation, social and economic development . The program had three main objectives :

1. To revitalize agricultural activities by adopting innovative farming methods;

2. To develop the village as an environmental and sustainable development education hub;

3. To develop diverse local products and services, thereby creating job opportunities and financial returns to sustain the local economy.

The program was a 5-year initiative, from 2013 to 2017. However, after 2017, it still remains self-sustaining, and all related stakeholders continue to have limited monitoring of the village.

4. Key achievements of the Sustainable Lai Chi Wo program:

A. Restoration of abandoned farmland:

The abandoned farmlands were leased from villagers for agricultural rehabilitation. By the end of the program in 2018, more than 5 hectares of farmland had been restored . Rice paddy was the main crop planted, as it was the original traditional main crop in the village, and the cultivation of paddy creates a wetland habitat for fishes, insects, frogs, snakes, birds and other creatures .

Figure 10. Rice paddy farming revitalized in the village .

B. Enhanced biodiversity:

The program reintroduced Oryzias curvinotus, a species of tiny fish that grows in the rice paddy fields . It consumes algae and pests growing in the fields (including mosquito larvae). By the end of the program in 2018, ecological surveys were conducted throughout the village. The results showed that the village had significant biodiversity value. For instance, 28 reptile species were found, and all native turtle species are of conservation concern in Hong Kong were found in the village; moreover,149 butterfly species were recorded and 7 of them are considered rare with conservation concern

Figure 11. Rice paddy fish reintroduced into the farmland .

C. Improved economic production:

In addition to rice paddy, another 50 crop species were planted, including ginger, turmeric, papaya, white radish, etc. . Ginger and turmeric were particularly well-harvested in the village. They were processed into ginger slices and turmeric powder, then promoted to visitors during special festivals and outreach markets organized by the government and retail partners .

D. Became a regional education hub:

The revitalization of the village became a vivid example of sustainable development. The Conservancy Association, one of the co-organizer NGOs of the program, conducted many educational activities, such as organizing rice paddy farming activities for students, interns, volunteers, and even villagers . The Conservancy Association is based in the cities, not from the village. Their organization mission is to ‘‘Safeguard the environmental and cultural resources by advocating, monitoring and promoting sustainability within the community’’ . Their work scope is the entire Hong Kong, working in the Lai Chi Wo village is only one of their programs. The Conservancy Association is an outsider NGO from the city, the bought school students, volunteers and tourists from cities to the village, to participated agriculture work, or join their guided eco-tours .

Figure 12. Rice paddy planting education programs were organized to engage youth.

Figure 13. The aerial photo of the revitalized village in 2024, with plenty of rice paddy fields restored .

Tenure arrangements

Most houses and farmland in Lai Chi Wo are privately owned by villagers . However, there are two types of villagers in Lai Chi Wo:

1. Indigenous inhabitants: They are members of Hakka clans and the legal village dwelling and farmland owners. Most of them have moved out to cities but occasionally return to the village for religious events and special festivals. Even though they no longer live and farm in the village, their abandoned houses and farmland remain their legal properties. Only a small number of indigenous inhabitants constantly live in the village, and most of them are retired elderly.

2. New settlers: They are not members of Hakka clans and considered outsiders who rent village houses and farmland from indigenous inhabitants. They constantly live in the village and are the main participants in the agriculture and ecology revitalization program. Village houses can be traded from an indigenous inhabitant to a new settler, but this rarely happens as very few indigenous inhabitants want to sell their ancestral land, few new settlers want to buy it due to inconvenient traffic to the village, and difficulty in finding someone else to re-buy it in the future when they want to leave the village.

For the revitalization program, one of the co-organizing NGOs, the Hong Kong Countryside Foundation (HKCF), acted as a middleman, setting up rental agreements with indigenous inhabitants and then distributing the village houses and farmland to new settlers, volunteers, and school students who participate in farming and/or ecology restoration works .

Institutional/Administrative arrangements

The revitalization program involves multiple stakeholders including Government, Business sector, NGOs, villagers and volunteers. These stakeholders are in charge of different roles and functions, together forming an institution with a clear division of labor.

Table 2. The stakeholders and institutional arrangements of the program :

Stakeholders	Position in the Sustainable Lai Chi Wo Program
Government:	Five Hong Kong government departments were involved, namely: 1.   The Environment Bureau 2.   The Environmental Protection Department 3.   The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department 4.   The Planning Department 5.   The Home Affairs Department They maintained the legal framework for the program's operation and also provided policy consultation and monitoring.
Business Sector:	The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC) provided funding for the program and monitored its operation. Through participation in the program, HSBC achieved its corporate social responsibility and community development aims.
NGOs	Four Hong Kong NGOs were involved, namely: 1. The Hong Kong Countryside Foundation (HKCF): co-organizer of the program, responsible for leasing farmland from villagers who are unable or don't want to farm, and distributing it to new village settlers, volunteers, school students, and villagers who want to restore rice paddy farming. 2. The Produce Green Foundation (PGF): co-organizer of the program, responsible for providing professional technical support in agriculture, farmland restoration, and production. 3. The Conservancy Association (CA): co-organizer of the program, responsible for environmental education. Through organizing student tours, public talks, and volunteer schemes, they informed the general public in Hong Kong about the program and the latest sustainable development of the village. 4. Policy for Sustainability Lab in the Faculty of Social Sciences of The University of Hong Kong (PSL): program manager and director, responsible for collaborating with different stakeholders, distributing resources, and setting up the revitalization agenda.
Villagers	There are two types of villagers: 1. Indigenous inhabitants: They are members of Hakka clans and the legal village dwelling and farmland owners. Most of them have moved out to cities but occasionally return to the village for religious events and special festivals. Only a small number of indigenous inhabitants constantly live in the village, and most of them are retired elderly. Indigenous inhabitants leased their houses and farmland to the above-mentioned NGOs. A small number of indigenous inhabitants also participated in the program. 2.New settlers: They are not members of Hakka clans but outsiders who rent village houses and farmland from indigenous inhabitants and constantly live in the village. They were the main participants of the programs, conducting agriculture and/or ecology-related work in the village.

The key stakeholder is the Policy for Sustainability Lab of the University of Hong Kong, which initiated and led the entire program, coordinated and worked with different stakeholders .

Affected Stakeholders

In this case study, the Indigenous villagers (Hakka clan members) are the sole affected stakeholders, as they are subject to the effects of any changes that happen in the village, both positively and negatively.

An example of a negative effect is from the 1970s, when the western part of the village was designated as part of the country park. Since then, no vehicle access and establishment of traffic roads have been allowed, which seriously lowered the accessibility of the village and isolated villagers' connection with the outside world.

An example of a positive impact is from 2013-2018, when the Sustainable Lai Chi Wo program revitalized the agriculture and ecology of the village, transforming it from an abandoned village to a regional education hub and tourist spot for ecology and agriculture.

Indigenous villagers can be divided into two groups:

1. Indigenous villagers who constantly live in the village and participate in agricultural work. They are the most affected stakeholders as they are directly influenced by any positive or negative changes in the village. Their objectives are agricultural rehabilitation, including looking for increase in agricultural production and sales channels. They also wish to maintain their traditional Hakka cultural heritage and connection to their ancestral land.

2. Indigenous villagers who moved out to live in cities and only return to the village during religious events or special festivals. They still remain the legal property owners of their dwelling and farmland in the village. They indirectly participate in the revitalization program by leasing out their houses and farmland to the Hong Kong Countryside Foundation. Any changes in the village still affect them, but as they usually live in cities, the impact is minimized. Their objectives are the revitalization of the entire village, especially in ecotourism and attracting more new settlers to the village, so that their houses and farmland can be leased out at better prices. On the other hand, they also wish to maintain their traditional Hakka cultural heritage and connection to their ancestral land.

Indigenous villagers (both groups) have higher power in the village and in the entire revitalization program, as they are the legal property owners of the houses and farmland in the village. Their right is protected by the government and respected by the Policy for Sustainability Lab.

Interested Stakeholders

There are many Interested Stakeholders involved, they are linked to the revitalization program, but don’t have a long-term dependency in the village.

Table 3. A list of Interested Stakeholders :

Interested Stakeholders	Objectives	Power
The 4 co-organizer NGOs: 1.The Hong Kong Countryside Foundation (HKCF) ; 2.The Produce Green Foundation (PGF); 3.The Conservancy Association (CA); 4. Policy for Sustainability Lab in the Faculty of Social Sciences of The University of Hong Kong (PSL) The program lasted from 2013-2018. After 2018, they maintain limited operation on the development of the village.	1. To conduct research regarding sustainable development in rural areas in Hong Kong. 2. To promote sustainable agriculture and ecology restoration. 3. To use the revitalization program and the village as an education hub for environmental conservation and community development.	These 4 NGOs, especially the PSL, have higher power, as they are the leaders of the revitalization initiative and the key decision-makers of the entire program.
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC): They funded the program from 2013-2018, but their patronage ended with the program in 2018.	To achieve their corporate social responsibility by providing funding support to the revitalization program.	Has low relative power, as they only provided funding and monitored the revitalization program, but didn't/weren't interested in making key decisions.
The 4 Hong Kong government departments involved: 1.     The Environment Bureau 2.     The Environmental Protection Department 3.     The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department 4.     The Planning Department 5.   The Home Affairs Department The program lasted from 2013-2018. After 2018, they maintain limited monitoring of the village's development.	1. To maintain the legal framework for the program's operation in the village. 2. To help the village achieve rural revitalization and conservation objectives, while maintaining limited input from the government side. 3. To enhance environmental conservation and heritage protection in the village.	Have low relative power, as they devolve their power to the Policy for Sustainability Lab (PSL), and PSL made most of the key decisions in the program. These government departments only maintain the basic legal framework for the program's operation and provided policy consultation to NGOs. They monitored but were not heavily involved in the program. However, the government can have the highest power if they want to be involved. For instance, in the 1970s, the government merged the western part of the village into a country park and prohibited vehicle access and construction of traffic roads in that area. Neither NGOs nor villagers had the power to veto this decision.
New settlers from the cities: They constantly live in the village and participated in agriculture and ecology work in the program. However, most of them rent houses and farmland from indigenous villagers; they are tenants without ancestral and customary connections to the village. If the revitalization program didn't work, they would likely just leave the village and return to cities.	1. To establish organic farms and participate in the revitalization program. 2. To experience and enjoy rural life.	Have low relative power, as they are tenants who rent houses and farmland from indigenous villagers. They participated in the revitalization program but were not the key decision-makers; the 4 NGOs made key decisions and defined the framework of the revitalization program.
Tourists and volunteers They only occasionally visit the village and usually leave within the same day. They have no long-term dependency to the village.	1. To experience and learn about sustainable agriculture and rural revitalization. 2. To experience the traditional Hakka culture.	Have lowest relative power, as they don’t participate in the decision-making process, and in a rather observer’s position.

Discussion

The intention of this case study is to use Lai Chi Wo as an example to demonstrate how to revitalize an abandoned village through the cooperation of community, NGOs, government, and the business sector.

The Sustainable Lai Chi Wo program not only restored the agriculture of the village, most importantly, it improved the livelihood of the villagers and transformed the village into an eco-tourism spot and education hub for sustainable development. This case study shows that achieving sustainability in a small rural community is both doable and pragmatic.

Critical Issues

There were a few critical issues about the village and the revitalization program:

1. Balancing conservation and development:

In order to protect the rights of indigenous inhabitants, the Hong Kong government has a Small House Policy. Under this policy, there is a List of Recognized Villages, and male Hakka clans/indigenous inhabitants of Lai Chi Wo are on this list. Once approved by the Hong Kong government, they and their male descendants have the right to build more new houses in the village . This means that after the village is revitalized, the number of returning indigenous inhabitants might increase, or there might be more new settlers from cities wanting to settle down in the village. Either way, it might increase the demand for more housing in the village.

The Small House Policy gives descendants of indigenous inhabitants the right to build more houses in the village. They could lease the new houses to new settlers while themselves still remain living in the cities, which can create conflicts with conservation and revitalization land use .

2. Power imbalances related to land ownership and rights:

There are tensions between indigenous villagers who have traditional land rights and new settlers participating in the revitalization program . Essentially, it was the 4 NGOs and mainly new settlers who restored the agriculture and ecology of the village. However, indigenous inhabitants who live in cities, despite contributing very little to the restoration work, can receive fixed monthly rent from the NGOs and new settlers who actually did most of the work.

3. Succession issue of traditional culture:

Lai Chi Wo is a traditional Hakka village, with distinctive Hakka language, customs, festivals, food, and housing style…etc. However, the new generation of indigenous inhabitants (descendants of the Hakka clans) who live in cities, and the new settlers living in the village, have very little interest in preserving the Hakka cultural heritage .

4. Lack of statutory protection:

The restored agricultural and high-ecology areas in the village still remain privately owned and without formal protection, potentially threatening their long-term preservation .

5. Reliance on third-party organizations:

The Sustainable Lai Chi Wo program ended in 2018. After that, the organizer NGOs only maintain limited operation and monitoring. It is questionable that current practices can sustain village life without assistance from NGOs and other outside organizations in the future .

Assessment

The governance of the Sustainable Lai Chi Wo Program involved multi-level collaboration between local villagers, NGOs, government support, and the business sector, which provided the funding . Such governance provides a flexible framework allowing input from diverse stakeholders, while the PSL played the coordinating role to facilitate communication and distribute resources throughout the entire program .

Recommendations

Based on the above-mentioned critical issues, here are some recommendations for the village's future development:

1.Providing secure tenure to new settlers:

At the end of the revitalization scheme in 2018, only around 5 hectares of farmland had been revitalized. Many abandoned farmlands in the village remain fully covered by weeds. To address power imbalances related to land rights and acknowledge the contributions of new settlers to the village, NGOs can convene a multi-stakeholder meeting, involving government officials who rule the area covering the village, and Indigenous village leaders, or the village management committee. Collectively, they should discuss the possibility of re-distributing abandoned farmland in the village.

With the help of Indigenous village leaders, or the village management committee, NGOs could first identify abandoned farmlands with legal owners (Indigenous inhabitants) have been confirmed deceased, have no descendants, or have permanently relocated to a foreign country and are unlikely to return. Secondly, after verifying the status of the abandoned land, NGOs should seek formal permission from the village leaders, elders, or management committee to proceed. Thirdly, prepare rental agreements. NGOs can then prepare contracts to rent out the identified abandoned lands to new settlers willing to engage in agriculture and ecological restoration. The rent should be relatively low, and the lease tenure should be a minimum of 10 years to provide stability.

Rental income should be reinvested into the village management committee to benefit the entire community. This could include funding public road renovations, facility upgrades, or other communal improvements. New settler tenants should be clearly informed in the contract that, in the unlikely event that the legal owners (Indigenous villagers) reappear, the settlers may need to vacate the farmland on short notice.

Such multistakeholder convening should not be a one-off process, but on-going. Meeting should be organized at least once a year to review the policy and latest situation.

2. Improve accessibility to the village while maintaining its environmental integrity:

The village is only accessible by boat or a 2-hour walk across the country park, with no connecting traffic roads . Many agricultural products (such as ginger slices and turmeric powder, mentioned in the above Key Achievements section) could be sold more easily with better transportation route. Additionally, the village has great potential for eco-tourism, but this is hindered by limited accessibility.

The NGOs and the government could work out a solution, such as building a small trail on the western side to allow mini-van access to the village, encouraging more socio-economic interaction between the villagers and the general public of Hong Kong. Such convenience could bring more economic income to the village while minimizing interruption to the protected area.

3. Set up statutory protection for the village's ecology:

The NGOs could identify restored biodiversity hotspots in the village, and the government could provide statutory protection for these areas and prohibit disturbance. It's also necessary to maintain wetland crops on farmland at any time to preserve the water habitat for fish, birds, snakes, frogs, and other animals and insects. These high-biodiversity spots could also become eco-tourism spots. Profits of eco-tourism could be shared to villagers by hiring them as tour guides and maintenance workers of these spots.

4. Engage youth indigenous inhabitants and new settlers to preserve traditional culture:

To ensure the succession of traditional Hakka heritage, the NGOs and government could work together to establish Hakka Cultural and Creative Centers in the village. These centers would encourage young indigenous inhabitants and new settlers to promote Hakka culture through art works such as painting, dancing, making handicrafts, and organizing festival events and religious activities related to Hakka culture. Such Cultural and Creative Centers could also combine with eco-tourism to generate synergistic effects.