Title

Author(s)

Understanding the transformation of a traditional

agricultural landscape in Hong Kong: a case study of
LongValley
Chick, Hiu-lai.; .

Citation

Issue Date

URL

Rights

2011

http://hdl.handle.net/10722/174437

The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent

rights) and the right to use in future works.

Understanding the Transformation of a Traditional Agricultural

Landscape in Hong Kong: A Case Study of Long Valley

by

CHICK HIU LAI

Student no.: 1998146759

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Science in Conservation at the University of Hong Kong

August 2011

Abstract
Cultural landscapes, as the products of long-term interaction between human and nature,
have been increasingly recognized by different international bodies for their importance in
heritage conservation. However, cultural landscapes usually do not enjoy specific protection
and are subject to most dynamic landscape changes in modern society that impair the
significance. The traditional agricultural areas in the New Territories, display unique features
of organically evolved cultural landscape in Hong Kong, have disappeared in drastic rate in
recent decades. Long Valley, as one of the remarkable local example of traditional
agricultural landscape, was studied to illustrate the spatial and landownership transformation
connected with socio-economical transition over the last century. Aerial photos comparison
and Geographic Information System (GIS) were employed, and stakeholders interviews were
conducted to aid landscape analysis.

The significance of Long Valley is embodied in the setting, natural features, resources of
land and cultural context associated with the indigenous settlement and farming tradition in
Hong Kong. The long history of agriculture by indigenous clans and more recently by tenant
farmers defines the major landscape features of Long Valley. The aerial photographs
comparison revealed that road widening, river training works, urbanization, industrialization
and infrastructure development during 1960s 1990s caused drastic environmental change
and direct loss of farmland area in and surrounding Long Valley.

Combining current cadastral map with historic land plot records shows that the past lots
boundaries are still influencing on todays fieldscape of Long Valley. On the other hand, the
landownership pattern of Long Valley is fragmented and complicated, and has changed
continuously over the century. Indigenous clans have dominant ownership control of Long
Valley but their influence is diminishing. Certain portion of lands has been transferred to
developers and outsiders hands. The complicated and fragmented landownership, however,
protects the site from being developed yet.

Although conservation efforts have been paid by local NGOs and the Government, Long
Valley is still under threats of illegal dumping and unauthorized land-use change initiated by
some indigenous landowners as well as development pressure. Traditional agricultural

landscapes represent part of local natural and cultural heritage and are key component of local
indigenous identity which should receive proper attention and protection. Therefore, adequate
conservation and agricultural policy, effective legislation enforcement and planning control,
development of adaptive conservation strategies and engagement of local stakeholders are in
urge to safeguard and sustain local traditional agricultural landscapes, as well as other
significant rural landscapes in Hong Kong.

ii

Declaration
I declare that this dissertation represents my own work, except where due
acknowledgement is made, and that it has not been previously included in a
thesis, dissertation or report submitted to this University or to any other
institution for a degree, diploma or other qualification. All illustrations
(maps, drawings and photographs) reproduced in this dissertation, except
where due acknowledgement is made, are the original work of the author.

Signed ____________________________________________
CHICK HIU LAI

iii

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to
complete this thesis.
First of all, I want to thank Dr. Lynne DiStefano and Dr. Lee Hoyin of Architectural
Conservation Programme (ACP) for their stimulating suggestions and encouragement in all
the time of research and writing of this thesis. The opportunities offered to me for further
exploring cultural landscape are highly appreciated. I enjoyed every moment in ACP, every
jokes from classmates and also every meals paid by Hoyin.
I am deeply indebted to the support of my company, The Conservancy Association,
for giving me permission to commence this thesis, to carry out the necessary research works
and to use the data. Special thanks should be given to my team members in particular Pang
who took up many of my duties during the thesis writing period, and Mr. Kan Wai Hong who
provided important information for my research and helped us to finish many harsh field
works in Long Valley under the hottest sun. I would also like to sincerely thank the project
partner, Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, and Miss Vicky Yuen for their genuine efforts
and enthusiasm in protecting Long Valley.
I can never repay the generosity and kindness of all of the farmers, villagers, local ecoguides and helpers from Long Valley. Without the kindest support of the local stakeholders,
the conservation projects and this research definitely would never have come this far. Special
thanks are given to Mr. Hau Kam Chai and Mr. Hau Nam from Yin Kong village, Mr. Alex
Lau, Miss Monica Lung and Miss Chan Kam Mui from Tsong Pak Long village, Mr. Hau Jo,
Miss Iris Hau and Miss Jovi Kam from Ho Sheung Heung village, Mr. Yeung Ying Kou and
his wife, Mr. Wong King Chau and his wife, Mr. Lam Tsuen and his wife, Mrs. Leung, Mr.
Chan Yau Cheong, Mr. Chan Shu, Mr. Wong Yung Sing, and many others who have been
interviewed and provided information to this research. I am also grateful to District Councilor
Mr. Hau Kam Lam for his advices to the project and his tremendous help of bridging local
stakeholders with environmental NGOs. Government support and funding from Environment
and Conservation Fund are indispensable for the conservation of Long Valley and much
appreciated.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to express my greatest gratitude to Dr. Billy
Hau and his family. He is the supervisor of my first master degree. He is the first indigenous

iv

villager I knew. He brought me to Long Valley, starting my career in conservation. His

continuous inspiration, encouragement and support to my career and personal life are in heart
and deeply appreciation.
Finally, I would like to give my hearty thanks to my family and Wincy whose patient
love enabled me to complete this work.

Contents
Preliminaries
Abstract
Declaration
Acknowledgement
Table of Contents

i
iii
iv
vi

Chapter 1
Introduction: Issues, Theoretical basis, Hypothesis and Methodology.

Chapter 2
Understanding the History of Long Valley and Associated Communities

Chapter 3
Understanding the Landscape Transformation of Long Valley

26

Chapter 4
Understanding the Landownership Transformation of Long Valley

47

Chapter 5
Management Challenges of Traditional Agricultural Landscapes in Hong Kong and
Recommendations
84

Bibliography

95

vi

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

What is cultural landscape?

Cultural landscape embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between
humankind and its natural environment. They illustrate the evolution of human society and
settlement over time, in response to the influence of natural environment and successive
social, economic and cultural force (UNESCO, 2008). In 1992 the importance of cultural
landscapes was firstly recognized on an international scale with their inclusion in the World
Heritage Convention as important heritages which need protection.
The Operational Guidelines 2008 of the Convention (UNESCO, 2008) defines cultural
landscape into 3 categories, namely, 1.) clearly defined landscape designed and created
intentionally by man, 2.) organically evolved landscape and, 3.) associative cultural landscape.
The second category, organically evolved landscape is defined as a landscape type which
results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has
developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment.
Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features. This
category is further sub-divided into a.) relict (or fossil) landscape, which

has ceased

evolutionary process, and b.) continuing landscape where the process of landscape evolution
still continues today as the landscape retains an active social role in contemporary society.
The continuing landscape is closely associated with the traditional way of life and exhibiting
significant material evidence of its evolution over time. Traditional agricultural landscape is a
typical representative of organically evolved continuing landscape.

Traditional agricultural landscape

Traditional agricultural landscape is characterized with its rich ecological resources,
associated cultural identity, strong sense of place, reflection of traditional wisdoms and social
role in indigenous community (Erickson, 2003). Nevertheless traditional agricultural
landscape usually does not enjoy specific attention in its cultural heritage aspect in many
regions. Until recently conservation attention had not be paid as it was regarded as being
related to economic activity. The ecological, cultural and social value of agricultural
landscape was always ignored by academics in the past.
1

The situation has changed in Millennium as more and more international bodies
recognized the importance of traditional agricultural landscape and its associated culture in
the evolution of humankind. Convention of Biological Diversity designated the years theme
for the International Day for Biological Diversity 2008, Biodiversity and Agriculture, to
highlight the linkage of agriculture, biodiversity and human livelihoods. Globally Important
Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) setup by Food and Agriculture Organization of
United Nations (FAO) is an initiative aiming to conserve remarkable agricultural land use
systems and landscapes which are rich in globally significant biological diversity evolving
from the co-adaptation of a human community with its environment. GIAHS has summarized
the significance of traditional agricultural landscape in a few sentences
Building on local knowledge and experience, these indigenous agricultural
systems reflect the evolution of humankind, the diversity of its knowledge, and its
profound relationship with nature. These systems have resulted not only in
outstanding landscapes, maintenance and adaptation of globally significant
agricultural biodiversity, indigenous knowledge systems and resilient ecosystems,
but, above all, in the sustained provision of multiple goods and services, food and
livelihood security and quality of life. (FAO, 2011)

Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras is the first and the most spectacular
organically evolved continuing landscape inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in
1995. According to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention (UNESCO 2008), the interaction of human and nature featured by organically
evolved continuing landscape is also recognized as an important value for the selection of
World Heritage List Criterion (iii) to be an outstanding example of a traditional human
settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human
interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact
of irreversible change. The Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, built in 2000 years
ago, are the living traditional agricultural landscapes illustrating a harmony between
humankind and the nature of great beauty. The site exhibits the persistence of traditional way
of techniques and forms for over centuries virtually unchanged. The traditional farming
practice still alive in terraces today also demonstrates the knowledge of sustainable use of
natural resources.

Traditional agricultural landscape in Hong Kong

Agriculture was traditionally the major economic activity in Hong Kong. The farming
tradition was strongly interlinked with the development of indigenous culture. Farmlands had
vital role in villagers life. Hong Kong has rugged topography. Only 20% of the territory is
flatlands where human can easily utilize for housing and farming. Just a century ago, this flat
portion was still covered by agricultural lands. Agricultural activities is believed has been last
at least 6000 years in Hong Kong as the earliest archaeological discovery of Neolithic relicts
was found in Hong Kong (, 1999). Until Song dynasty, large influx of war refugees
from Central China moved southward and settled along the southern coast of China. They
usually occupied plain or valley to establish village and opened arable lands for growing
paddy rice and other crops for living. These Chinese inhabitants built villages and towns of
various sizes on the Hong Kong island, in Kowloon and on the vast tracts of land later known
as the New Territories. There they engaged in farming (mainly paddy farming), fishing, salt
refining, growing incense, lime production, navigation or shop keeping, ran schools, built
temples, and led a peaceful, tranquil and self-sufficient life (Siu, 1984). The landscape was
later vanished in Kowloon peninsular and Hong Kong Island side because of foci urban
development led by colonial government (, 1999).

This long history of agricultural land management has shaped the New Territories
rural landscapes. Throughout the centuries, this led to a rich cultural and natural heritage that
was reflected in a wide variety of traditional agricultural landscapes, most of which preserved
their traditional character until the recent decades of economic boom. These traditional
agricultural landscapes form an important type of cultural landscape in Hong Kong and also
unique rural characteristics of the New Territories.

However, modern anthropogenic pressures cause gradual decrease and losses of

agricultural land towards other land use, mainly for housing, industrial and commercial
purpose. (, 1999). Prior to World War II, the New Territories was structured as a stable
farming society. People were lacking motivation to change their living. Because of industrial
development demand and population growth pressure, the Government commenced largescale land development in the New Territories after war. The new town development, land
reformation and competition of agricultural import which impeded local agricultural industry,
leading disastrous loss of agricultural lands in the New Territories. Figure showed that the
3

total active agricultural area (including crop land, flower farm, orchard, paddy and fishpond)
in Hong Kong was 12,366 ha in 1954 but it dropped to 4,390 in 1988 (, 1999). The
latest figure indicated the current active agricultural area is 1,385 ha in 2010 (AFCD, 2010)
which is only 11% of 1954. These typical landscapes are almost disappeared in many
previously important farming districts, such as Yuen Long and Kam Tin (Lee & DiStefano,
2002).

Rural agricultural landscape is a typical representative of cultural landscape in the

New Territories, having inseparable aesthetic, historic, ecological, cultural and social value.
Traditional agricultural landscape has a nature of undergoing continuous dynamic change
(Kristianova & Adamkova 2010). But how this transformation proceeds in local traditional
agricultural landscape and its impacts on significance are unclear. More importantly, this kind
of landscape is vanishing in devastating rate. How to manage the changes becomes a critical
issue to prevent detrimental damages and sustain the values of cultural landscape. It needs
careful study on the landscape transformation and its driving forces. The information will be
useful for developing adaptive conservation strategies for protecting local cultural landscapes.

Goals and objectives of study

Located at the urban fringe of Sheung Shui in Northern part of the New Territories
(Figure 1.1), Long Valley is the largest piece of active, low-lying, contiguous agricultural land
ever left in Hong Kong. It represents a typical local example of traditional agricultural
landscape in the New Territories, for centuries cultivated by indigenous and tenant farming
communities, and is facing number of difficulties in long-term sustainability. It is an excellent
example for studying agricultural landscape in Hong Kong.

There are very few local landscape research available studying ecological and cultural
or historical aspects of agricultural landscape.The current research will focus on Long Valley
as a case study in attempt to document and analyze the spatial and landownership
transformation in connection with socio-economical transition happened in Long Valley over
the century, and evaluate how these changes impact the significance of Long Valley as
cultural landscape. Aerial photographs from 1945 2009 were used for comparison and
identified the physical changes in spatial format. Historic and current landownership patterns
and distributions of Long Valley were mapped using GIS as tool to study the landownership
4

changes and implications. These methods were complemented by observation on sites and
interviews with local stakeholders. In the final section the possible solutions of managing
these changes for local traditional agricultural landscapes were suggested and discussed.

Long Valley

Figure 1.1 Location of Long Valley. (Source: Google map)

Figure 1.2

Overview of Long Valley

(Source: Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, HKSAR Government)

CHAPTER 2

UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORY

OF LONG VALLEY AND ASSOCIATED COMMUNITIES

Introduction
Prior to further analyze the transformation of traditional farming landscape of Long
Valley, a fully understanding of the history of the landscape is essential. This chapter briefly
described the history related to Long Valley as traditional farming landscape and associated
communities. It doesnt only include pieces of local history but also illustrates a historical
review in larger context of the whole New Territories as it governs the faith of landscape
transformation of all farming landscapes in the New Territories. Literature review is the basic
information source. Since historical records specified to the study site is rare, the content was
compliment with information stakeholders interviews conducted during 2005 2011.

Early indigenous settlement

Long Valley was traditionally the farming area belongs to different indigenous
settlements. Therefore the development history of Long Valley is closely associated with the
indigenous settlement culture and their history.

Before 1898, the name New Territories did not exist on the territory of China. It
existed as a part of Chinese administrative region in Southern China, which was successively
placed under the governance of the counties of Panyu (), Poklo (), Bao'an (

), Dongguan () and finally Xin'an () in Ming dynasty (, 1999).

Official record of Hong Kong as part of Chinese empire could be dated back to 2,200 years
ago, during the Qin Dynasty and since then human activity increased in the area. People did
not settle in large numbers until the 12th Century during Song Dynasty (Siu, 1984). In the
Song Dynasty (960 1279AD) due to wars and famines, many immigrants moved from north
and had acquired lands and built villages on the vast tracts of land later known as the " New
Territories". They have been living in the New Territories ever since. These Northern
immigrants have been officially regarded as Punti or local people since Qing Dynasty, in
contrast with Hakka which means guest people who moved into the New Territories after
coastal evacuation in 1669 (, 1994).

Among them were the Five Great Clans the Tangs, the Haus, the Pangs, the Lius
and the Mans as the dominant settler families in the New Territories. The Five Great Clans
represented the earliest major settlement in the New Territories. The five clans occupied the
majority of first-class land in the area mainly for double-cropped paddy rice farming (Grant,
1962). The possession of good quality land was the only ways perhaps in which a lineage
could accumulate wealth and rise to power (Baker, 1966). The Five Great Clans possessed
large quantity of high quality lands and showed their influential wealth and power over the
New Territories in the old days. These five families were united to oppose the arrival of
British when they took control of the New Territories in 1899, and became the prominent
figures of indigenous inhabitants in Hong Kong.

Long Valley and the surrounding area in the past was the origin of two families, Haus
and Lius, among the Five Great Clans as well as some minor clans. According to a senior

villager, conflicts among clans were frequent in the past for competing resources such as
lands and water 1.

The Hau clan ()

Following the Tangs, the Haus is the second large clan settled in Hong Kong. The Haus
ancient ancestor had moved from north to Sheung Shui in the Southern Song Dynasty since
900 years ago. The Haus genealogy records (, 1985) that Hau Ng
Long () is the common ancestor of the whole Hau clan in the New Territories. He
moved down from Panyu in the Song dynasty. Hau Cheuk Fung (), the 11th generation
ancestor of Haus, found Ho Sheung Heung () as a place with rich water supply and
spacious farmlands, so built the first Haus village in Ho Sheung Heung in 600 years ago
during Ming Dynasty. The lineage later split into three branch-villages at Yin Kong, Kam
Tsin and Ping Kong. Another Haus lineage, Hau Mei Fung (), their descendents also
settled in Kam Tsin and Ping Kong (, 1985). The Haus built their
traditional farming villages with ancestor halls, temples, study halls, security village walls
and watch towers (Figure 2.1). The Haus occupied the majority of surrounding fertile plains,
cultivated paddy rice, gradually accumulated their wealth and became the most influential
clan controlling lands in Long Valley.

From Mr. Hau Jo, interview conducted in 2010 at Ho Sheung Heung village.

10

Figure 2.1 Kuk Shek Hau Ancestral Hall in Ho Sheung Heung. Originally it was a
family ancestral hall and later became the major clan hall for worship Haus ancestors.

11

The Liu clan ()

The Lius were the fourth among the Five Great Clans arriving the New Territories
(Baker, 1966). The Liu clan immigrated to Hong Kong later than Haus from Fujian Province
during the Yuan dynasty in the 14th century. The clan later built their village, Sheung Shui
Wai (), at the eastern side of Long Valley across Shek Sheung River () where
had been previously occupied by Kans (). The acquisition of the Sheung Shui land
enabled the Lius to expand as one undivided lineage still living together in one village cluster.
At the height of their power in the 18th century, they erected several landmark structures to
project the clan's affluence. Though they came later than Haus, the Lius rose quickly after
coastal evacuation and their power and wealth accumulated, became the major competitor for
resources of Haus in the area.

Other clans

Minor clans arrived later than the big clans who already occupied the best lands were
usually in an inferior position in struggle for resources against the big clans. In order to
protect themselves, sometimes several different minor clans united to form a stronger
collective power to fight against the other clans. Tsong Pak Long at the S.E. of Long Valley
is a typical example of mixed clans village. Tsong Pak Long is a walled village situated
closed to two Great Clans, the Haus and the Lius. The village was formed by different
indigenous lineages. Five ancestral halls placing in a line at the village front serve, from left
to right, the ancestors of the Wongs, Kans, Laus, Kwongs and Chans (Figure 2.2). These five

12

surnames represent the most important families in the village and among them Kans and Laus
are the dominant in the village.

History about these families is not clear. Kans originally inhabited at the location where
Lius built Sheung Shui Wai. The reason was unknown that Kans later were persuaded to
vacate their village and lands and mover to Tsong Pak Long where the Haus settlement who
already occupied most of the high quality low-lying fertile lands in the area, therefore, only
inferior lands on the upper terrain were acquired (Baker, 1966).
Inside Tsong Pak Long there is another walled-village, Hakka Wai () . The size
of Hakka Wai is small and it was originally built in 1903 by Wongs branched from Lai Chi
Wo. Wongs are Hakka people and they bought lands from Tsong Pak Long to build their
village. They are different from Wongs of Tsong Pak Long village.

13

Figure 2.2

Five ancestral halls of Tsong Pak Long placing in a line. The unique

terraced design of the ancestral halls reflects the harmony and equality among the clans
in the village.

14

Leasing of the New Territories

In late Qing dynasty, the weak Imperial China Government was unable to resist the
military and economic pressures from foreign powers. China and Great Britain signed the
first unequal treaty, Treaty of Nanking, in 1842 in the wake of the First Opium War led to
cession of Hong Kong Island (, 2010). The Kowloon Peninsula as far north as
Boundary Street, including Stonecutters Island was later ceded to British Government under
The Convention of Peking in 1860. The Qing Dynasty's defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War
had shown that it was incapable of defending itself. The consequence was European countries
and Japan subsequently demanded concessions from China. The Great Britain demanded the
extension of Kowloon in June 1898 to counter the influence of France in southern China. The
Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory signed in Peking on 9 June 1898,
comprised the area north of Kowloon up to the Shenzhen River and 235 outlying islands as
well as the sea areas of Mirs Bay and Deep Bay, which was leased for 99 years from 1 July
1898. The area was declared to be part of the overall territory of Hong Kong but was
administered separately from the urban area. These leased areas were later called the New
Territories of Hong Kong, which accounted for about two-thirds of the area of original
Xin'an County. The physical occupation commenced in April 1899 and as mentioned in the
previous section, the indigenous inhabitants who had lived and worked in the New Territories
for generations, they rose to oppose Britain's armed takeover of the area ( 1999). This
heroic battle gave rise of the name Five Great Clans and also turned a new page of the New
Territories history.

Though data of local history about Long Valley at this period was generally lacking,
the social, economic and political environment of the whole New Territories processed a

15

drastic change after the leasing, resulting to a revolutionary transformation of landownership

system which governed the land-holding tradition of the whole New Territories. This resulted
a great impact on the later land management and would be discussed in details in Chapter 4.

Abandonment of paddy farming by indigenous communities

Written records of local farming history is very rare. Lau reviewed the relationship of
land-use change and decline of local agricultural industry (, 1999). Before World War
II, the New Territories basically was a traditional agricultural society and inhabitants, mainly
indigenous villagers, farmed their lands in generations for living. Rice cultivation was long
the major farming mode operated by indigenous villagers. After WWII in 1954, over 70% of
farming area in Hong Kong was still rice field, account for 9,466 ha. After the peak, however,
the rice cultivation area dropped continuously to less than 10 ha in 1986. By 1988, only less
than 1 ha of farmlands was dedicated to rice cultivation. Lau summarized the decline of rice
cultivation was related to new town development started since 1950s, policy motivated shift
of vegetable cultivation and also by influx of skillful farmers from mainland China since
1950 - 60s. They were the refugees from the civil war and establishment of Peoples Republic
of China (Lee & DiStefano, 2002). The double-cropped rice cultivation was less competing
with 8 10 cropped of vegetable growing. The indigenous landowners thus shifted to rent out
their lands to earn higher rent return from those immigrant vegetable growers. Together with
the factor of economic change, the traditional agricultural economy operated by indigenous
community was greatly impacted. The indigenous villagers abandoned their farming career
and starting from late 50s, these indigenous villagers, particularly male villagers, left their
home and moved to overseas to search for new opportunity. Many farmlands in Long Valley

16

were left abandoned at that period. This indigenous male story is typical in many native
villages and Mr. Hau from Yin Kong was an example from Long Valley 2:

Senior villager Mr. Hau who aged around 70 years old is native of Yin
Kong village. He cultivated double-cropped paddy rice with his parents when he
was 10 years old in 1930s. Though he is native but his family was poor and they
did not own any land. They rent lands from land lord of the same village. They
pay 2 piculs of grains as rent. Later the remaining was not enough to feed the
family. Therefore he went to nearby Lo Wu military camp to take British
soldiers to Fanling Station or Bars by bicycle during fallow period to earn extra
money to support life. Some other villagers mentioned another popular P/T was
collecting shot game birds for foreign gamers. Each bird could earn 1 HK dollar.
Later, introduced by brothers from the same village he moved to UK (UK and
Holland was the most popular destinations for Haus). Mr. Hau confessed that the
life in UK was very harsh but could earn large money. He brought back money
from UK to build House in Yin Kong. He traveled between Hong Kong and UK
forth and back and finally settled down to Yin Kong since 90s.

Hay days of vegetable growing for tenant farmers

Like most places in the New Territories, the abandoned farmlands by indigenous
villagers were quickly resumed by a group of mainland China immigrants arrived Long
Valley in late 60s. Mr. Yeung was one of the earliest tenant vegetable growers in Long

From Mr. Hau Kam Chai, interviewed conducted in 2009 at Yin Kong.

17

Valley 3. Mr. Yeung came to Hong Kong in 1956 when he was 18. At the beginning he
worked in construction site and then changed to raise livestock and then he rented farmlands
from indigenous villagers for vegetable growing. Mr. Yeung is one of the typical immigrant
growers in the area. They re-opened the lands, started the new agriculture period of Long
Valley.

Later on more people were being attracted to Long Valley for farming, including a
group of fishermen from Tuen Mun. They operated fish and bloodworm farms in Long
Valley 4. A thriving farming community gradually developed in the area and Long Valley
became an important agricultural area in the New Territories. Agricultural activities
diversified in this specific period. Some farmers grew vegetables, like lettuce, Pakchoi, and a
significant number of the community involved in fish raising and bloodworm raising. On the
upper terrain, there were also pigs, poultry, golden fish and bees farms. The farming
community dwelled in Long Valley and established a squatter village, Tin Kong Po, situated
on the farmlands between Tsong Pak Long and Yin Kong in SE Long Valley.

Until 1980s, most of the farmers in Long Valley have shifted to grow Water Spinach in
summer and Watercress in winter as fish and bloodworm raising was no longer financially
viable and they found these two crops are more favourable in wet condition which fit the lowlying terrain of Long Valley and need less labour-intensive. Indeed Watercress and Water
Spinach production was once a very profitable agriculture during early 1990s. The wet
agriculture of Water Spinach / Watercress rotation pattern is still the major practice in Long
Valley now (Figure 2.3).

From Mr. Yeung Ying Kuo, interviewed conducted on 6 August 2006 at Long Valley.

From Mrs. Leung, interviewed conducted on July 2011 at Long Valley.

18

Coincide with this period there was new town development in Fanling and Sheung Shui,
and huge amount of farming areas were urbanized or industrialized. It kicked off the later
decline of agriculture and disappearance of farming landscape in the district.

19

Figure 2.3

Watercress farming is currently the major farming type in Long Valley

which requires less manpower input comparing with dry cultivation.

20

Agriculture to wetland conservation

Agriculture in Hong Kong has declined quickly in 1990s because of the strong
competition with vegetables imported from mainland China. It has impacted the entire local
agricultural industry that Long Valley could not get rid of. Because of low income from
farming, many tenant farmers abandoned their farmlands and sought new job in the city. The
chemical fertilizer is by-product of petroleum. The oil price peaked in 2008 2010 further
suffocated local agriculture.

Agriculture in Hong Kong is being regarded as sunset industry. On the other hand,
public environmental consciousness started awaking in 1990s. The KCR Lok Ma Chau
Spurline incident in 1999 made Long Valley became a legendary milestone in local
environmental movement.
The Chinese name of Long Valley did not appear on Hong Kong Map before
1999. The place was indeed a farming landscape relict of the big Fanling Plain and originally
without official Chinese name. Some senior villagers recalled a local name Tai Bei ()
but it is believed the name was used to described part of the farming area of Long Valley near
Ho Sheung Heung. The English name Long Valley was believed starting at early colonial
period to described the flood plain by foreign inhabitants who come to Long Valley for game
bird. The translated Chinese name has become popular since KCR Lok Ma Chau
Spur Line incident in 1999.

Long Valley became notable among Hong Kong people when KCR decided to build
Lok Ma Chau Spur Line viaduct across the heart of Long Valley in late 1990s. This proposal
aroused great concern from environmental groups and others because the construction would
21

greatly affect the habitats of Long Valley. The low-lying topography of Long Valley and wet
farming activities makes Long Valley as an artificial wetland which supports thriving
biodiversity. It is a popular local bird watching location which supports arrays of
internationally concern bird species. The project had raised a great controversial in the
society. The proposal raised great dispute between local indigenous landowners and
environmental groups because they feared conservation would damage their interests of
selling the lands. This is the most remarkable battle between development and environmental
conservation in Hong Kong. The debate was ended as EPD director rejected to approve
environmental permit for the project under EIAO. KCR then changed to a tunnel design
passing through Long Valley underground which greatly reduced both environmental and
visual impacts from the project.

Subsequent to the revised spur line proposal, the Government of HKSAR has launched
New Nature Conservation Policy in 2004 to address societys increasing demand on nature
conservation. The Policy aims to regulate, protect and manage natural resources that are
important for the conservation of biological diversity of Hong Kong in a sustainable manner
for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future generations of the community (AFCD,
2006a). The Policy is unprecedentedly addressed the conservation issue of ecologically
important sites which are in private ownership. Long Valley is listed as one of the 12 priority
areas in Hong Kong for enhanced conservation under the Policy. Funding from Environment
and Conservation Fund have been granted to The Conservancy Association and Hong Kong
Bird Watching Society since 2005 to run nature conservation projects in Long Valley by
entering into management agreements with farmers and landowners for enhancing
conservation of the site (AFCD, 2006a).

22

The project objective is to enhance overall biodiversity of Long Valley through series of
management measures and also aims to develop Long Valley into a site for conservation
education. Two organizations have cooperated with local farming community to carry out
various agricultural and ecological management works, including re-introduction of paddy
rice farming. The project has trained local villagers (both indigenous and non-indigenous
members, and farmers) to become eco-interpreters of the site. They are now responsible to
provide regular tour services for the general public. The income generated is used for further
trainings or community activities for the villages.

23

Figure 2.4

Resumption of paddy rice farming does not only benefit the wildlife, it

also enhances the landscape vista, and reconnect the farming with local tradition.

24

Conclusion
Long Valley is a place with parallel history with the development of local indigenous
culture and local agriculture. It is a historic farming site in Hong Kong with approximately
600 years of history. It demonstrates a human induced evolution on a natural landscape,
shifting from a natural flood plain, to a major paddy rice production area in rural Hong Kong,
and then a modern agricultural zone with diverse farming activities. The place and people
here are also a living record of local farming history. The change of society value is also
reflected in Long Valley that public awareness and demand on conservation is increasing.

Today, Long Valley is not only a private asset, it also represents diverse meanings for
different group of people. During the course of history, the social, economic and political
environment has changed, affecting the landscape functions. The next chapter moved to
discuss how these factors influence the spatial context and landscape feature of Long Valley.

25

CHAPTER 3

UNDERSTANDING

LANDSCAPE

TRANSFORMATION

THE
OF

LONG

VALLEY

Introduction
Traditional agricultural landscapes are subject to dynamic landscape change because
they are the express of dynamic interaction between natural and cultural force (Antrop, 2005).
In the modern context, the change becomes so devastating and destructive to the significance
of these landscapes, and even vanishing the landscapes. The facts urge for the understanding
of landscape transformation and its forces.

Chapter 2 comprehensively reviewed the history of Long Valley and the associated
communities. The site has experienced significant socio-economic changes over time. But
how these changes have shaped the spatial context of landscape Long Valley?

Historical aerial photographs are precious and truthful materials for landscape study,
which show all physical features such as terrain, vegetation type and distribution, river widths
and courses, roads, buildings and so on at the time the photos were produced. However, the
imprecision due to deviation of photo angle and attitude, of aerial photographs makes the task
of comparison very difficult. The problem can be solved by incorporating the aerial
photographs into GIS after rubber-sheet transformation, i.e. geometric correction. It makes
possible comparing and overlaying aerial photographs from different time periods and also
matching the historical aerial photographs with present features such as contour lines for
spatial analysis.

26

Chapter 3 illustrated the method of using historic aerial photographs to study the
landscape transformation of Long Valley from 1945 - 2009. Descriptive explanations of the
changes would be discussed and the factors causing the transformation would be evaluated.
Historical photos of the sites was also used to provide supplementary aid for analysis.

Methodology
Survey and Mapping Office under Lands Department of HKSAR Government
undertakes aerial photography in the whole territory of Hong Kong, producing various types
of aerial photos including colour, false colour infrared and oblique. The aerial photographs
were taken periodically at different altitudes. Hard copies or enlarged copies can be ordered
at SMO Map Sales Centers.

The earliest aerial photographs of Long Valley could be dated back to 1945. In this
research the following years of aerial photograph of Long Valley were used for comparison:
1945 (1:20,000), 1956 (1:16,700), 1961 (1:30,000), 1972 (1:3,000), 1985 (Color, 1:5,000),
1994 (B/W, 1:4,000), 2001 (Color, 1:4,000) and 2009 (Color, 1:3,000). Rubber sheeting was
performed and all aerial photos were aligned using ArcGIS 9.2 for qualitative analyses of
landscape transformation. Major water courses and road features of present Long Valley were
overlaid to some old aerial photos to assist reading.

The aerial photograph study boundary was shown as Figure 3.1.

27

Figure 3.1

Study area for aerial photographs comparison.

A = Ho Sheung Heung (farming)

B = Long Valley (farming) area

C =Sheung Yue River

D = Shek Sheung River

E = Castle Peak Road

F = Ho Sheung Heung (village)

G = Yin Kong (village)

H = Kam Tsin (village)

I = Tin Kong Po squatter (village)

area

J = Tson Pak Long (village)

28

Results
The modified aerial photos of different years were illustrated in Figure 3.2.

29

1945

Figure 3.2

1956

Modified aerial photographs of Long Valley (Soruce: Survey & Mapping Office, Lands Department, The Government of HKSAR)

30

1961

1972

Figure 3.2

1985

1994

Modified aerial photographs of Long Valley (Source: Survey & Mapping Office, Lands Department, The Government of HKSAR) Contd

31

2001

Figure 3.2

2009

Modified aerial photographs of Long Valley (Soruce: Survey & Mapping Office, Lands Department, The Government of HKSAR)

32

Discussion
Landscape features and changes of the study area were summarized into the following
section.

Terrain

Long Valley is a typical lowland floodplain landscape lying on the flat, low-lying
Fanling Plain in the Northern New Territories. It is inland area along the river plains of the
River Indus, Sheky Sheung River (River Sutlej) and Sheung Yue River (River Beas).
Landscapes characterized by rivers and lowland floodplains are distinctive scenery only
occurred in North-western New Territories (Owen & Shaw, 2007). Terrain of S. Long Valley
is slightly higher than N. Long Valley and Ho Sheung Heung area. The area where Tin
Kwong Po squatter located today is further elevated with less fertile soil due to relatively
poor irrigation (Figure 3.2).

Long Valley lies less than 2 km from Shenzhen Special Economic Zone. The river
system of Long Valley is physically connected with Shenzhen River, linking Long Valley
with the fish ponds and wetlands of Hoo Hok Wai, Lok Ma Chau, San Tin, Mai Po and Deep
Bay area. This forms an extensive green passageway at the backyard of HKSAR for wildlife,
particularly for birds.

33

Watercourses

Sheung Yue River and Shek Sheung River are the most essential elements which
vitalize the culture of local indigenous communities and sustain the agriculture and habitats
in Long Valley. They were originally natural rivers running across the floodplains. The aerial
photos show that two streams were narrow and winding before the commencement of river
training works in 1980s (Figure 3.2). They run through the floodplain and converge to
connect River Indius near Ho Sheung Heung. It is unknown that what extent of the River
Beas and River Sutlej had been altered by the villagers for irrigation before 1945 but the
rivers did shift over time in minor extent.

Previous literature indicated that the area was prone to flooding in the past but indeed
the flooding storage capacities of the area has been greatly reduced because of rapidly
expanding built environment of nearby area for transport infrastructure, new town and
industrial development over the last decades, causing more frequent and severe flooding
problems (Grant, 1962). As a result of these human impacts on the area, the Government has
launched major flood prevention programme since 1980s (DSD, 2010). Section of Shek
Sheung River run along Tin Kwong Po and Tsong Pak Long was firstly straightened and
widen with the establishment of Sheung Shui Resettlement Area in vicinity of Tsong Pak
Long (Figure 3.2). The most extensive drainage works began in 1994, one year after a serious
flooding incident in 1993 which submerged the whole Long Valley and Ho Sheung Heung
area (Figure 3.3). The Shek Sheung River was straightened, widened and lined with concrete
to form sterile-looking nullahs in the drainage enhancement to alleviate the flooding problem
of the area. The nullahs are designed to cope with the runoff from severe storms that might
occur once in 200 years (Owen & Shaw, 2007)! It was followed by the training work of
Sheung Yue River which was finished in 2003 (DSD, 2011). Five mitigation wetlands were
34

established along the right hand side of Sheung Yue River in Long Valley as the
compensation measure for the wetland loss induced by the river training project.

The river training works have reduced much farming area both sides along the rivers
and also altered local hydrology and river ecology greatly. Widening of the river courses
leads to other environmental problem. River water is now back flow from lower stream
during high tide, transporting polluted water and rubbish from Shenzhen River.

35

Figure 3.3

Extensive flooding in Ho Sheung Heung during Typhoon Dot in 1993.

(Source: Drainage Services Department, HKSAR Government)

36

Fieldscape

Until recent decades the New Territories was still primarily an agricultural district.
The farming activities have direct impact on both quality and quantity of the landscape
features.

Long Valley was one of the origin of local indigenous community who practiced
traditional paddy rice cultivation with hundreds years of history. Grants research showed
that the soil of Long Valley and Ho Sheung Heung area was very fertile and well irrigated.
The high productivity with more than 300 catties per dau chung of paddy rice production
(Grant, 1962). The historic photo of the area taken in 1910 showed that paddy fields
extensively spread over the floodplain (Figure 3.4). The paddy rice farming was usually
reflected on the larger plot size (usually more than 1 dau) in Long Valley and Ho Sheung
Heung area comparing with smaller plot size of vegetable farming plots in Tin Kwong Po
area (Figure 3.2).

Large-scale abandonment of farmlands in N. Long Valley and Ho Sheung Heung as

shown on photos of 1972 can be linked with the emigration trend of indigenous villagers
during 1960s 1970s. Vegetation overgrew on the abandoned farmlands, covering up the
original fieldscape pattern. The fieldscape was resumed later by tenant farmers who started
fish and bloodworm raising career in N. Long Valley and Ho Sheung Heung area. The plot
size had been enlarged to suit fish and bloodworm raising management but were split into
smaller pieces for Watercress / Water spinach farming later in late 1980s (Figure 3.2).
Farmland abandonment was shown again on photo of 2001. This related to the abandonment
by some tenant farmers who left their farmlands to seek new opportunity in the city (Chapter
2). Although part of the abandoned farmlands resumed by the implementation of
37

conservation project, abandonment still can be found outside the core management zone of
the conservation project at Ho Sheung Heung and Southern end of Long Valley near Yin
Kong (Figure 3.2).

The irregular farmlands form a contiguous and mosaic pattern of fieldscape which is
unique in today Hong Kong.

38

Figure 3.4

Historic photo of Long Valley and ex-Lo Wu colonial military camp in

1910s (Source : )

39

Village and setting

There are four major villages and one squatter village in closed vicinity to Long
Valley. They are Ho Sheung Heung village, Yin Kong village, Kam Tsin village, Tsong Pak
Long village and Tin Kwong Po squatter area.

The setting of Long Valley is tightly tied with the culture of indigenous communities.
Generally speaking, the indigenous ancestors followed the Fungshui principle to determine
the sites for houses, graves, and for planning of dwellings (Knapp, 1992). The main aim of
following the principles of Fungshui is to live in an environment which is in harmony with
nature so as to receive fortune and to repel harmful influences. A very typical traditional
Chinese farming village setting based on Fungshui principle is with mountain and Fungshui
Wood at the back, water and fields in the front. Ho Sheung Heung village is the earliest large
village built in the area, its context is the most typical following the Fungshui village
principle Figure 3.2). The setting of Ho Sheung Heung village has Ah Ying Mountain and
patch of Fungshui wood maintained at the back and the winding Sheung Yue River which is
slowly running across the fields in Long Valley at the front of village. However, the setting
was altered by the widening and straightening of Sheung Yue River in 2000s.

Some fishponds near village was abandoned and changed to open storage space in
early 1990s (Figure 3.2). The built area of the village is also expanding and invading to Ho
Sheung Heung farming area. From the latest aerial photo in 2009 (Figure 3.2), the Ho Sheung
Heung area connected with the village have been altered greatly by fly-tipping. The fishponds
and farmlands were filled with construction waste and leveled. The infected area reached
over 300,000 sq ft of farming area. A private barbecue site Long Valley Farm was built on
the fly-tipping site and had been operated illegally until 2010. The fly-tipped site has not been
re-instated until now. Reinstatement order was enforced by Planning Department but the
40

construction waste has not been removed. Grass mats and Papaya trees were grown in
response to the greenery requirement on the Reinstatement order in attempt to restore the
original fish pond habitats in the area.
Yin Kong is a small village has closed lineage relationship with Kam Tsin village (
, 1985) and physically connects with Tin Kwong Po squatter area. It
locates at the Southern tip of Long Valley and slightly elevated on the farming area. At the
village front there is a row of pigsties which were used by the villagers in the past. The
village was expanding at its original location but also on the farmlands at the right during late
1990s (Figure 3.2).

Kam Tsin village at the South is isolated from Long Valley area by Castle Peak Road
and Fanling Highway (Figure 3.2). A row of Fungshui Wood was planted at the back and a
Fungshui pond was set in front of the village. Despite increased in density, the village itself
has not changed much since 1945. Nevertheless, many large-scale property development
projects have been launched near Kam Tsin village since 1990s, leading to completed
transformation of farming landscape at this area.

Tsong Pak Long is situated at the flat land behind Tin Kwong Po. The area was
thought less productive than the nearby floodplains (Baker, 1966). The village has been
slightly expanded eastward but the surrounding environment has been greatly altered due to
various infrastructure developments (Figure 3.2). The river training work of Shek Sheung
River, flooding prevention facilities, Fanling Highway, Sheung Shui resettlement area and
later industrial development have removed most of the farmlands near Tsong Pak Long.
Only a small patch of farming area remained between Tai Tau Lang () but it is also
diminishing under development pressure.

41

Comparing with the indigenous villages, Tin Kwong Po squatter area is much
younger and its development can been completely reflected on aerial photos. Squatter houses
could be firstly found on the aerial photo in 1961 (Figure 3.2). There were about 30 squatters
scattered over the elevated Tin Kwong Po area. This coincided with the infux of mainland
China immigrants after WWII. Many immigrants were vegetable growers and they rented
farmlands from indigenous villagers for farming and also building their home. The immigrant
farmers occupied Tin Kwong Po rather than the low-lying Long Valley area probably
because the area was less susceptible to flooding, favoring vegetable growing and also house
building. Number of buildings increased quickly during mid 1960s 1970s and reached a
stable number of several hundred in late 1970s. Besides squatter houses, people also built
pigsties, poultry houses, gold fish farms and etc. Tin Kwong Po became a busy farming
district.

After 40 years, the physical environment of Tin Kwong Po does not change much but
all livestock farms were closed, majority of residetns left, leaving many squatters and
building structures abandoned and collapsed.

Railway and roads

Fragmentation by infrastructures could be dated back to 1910s as KowloonCanton

Railway and Castle Peak Road were established in the area. Connecting Kowloon and
Guangzhou, KowloonCanton Railway was built in 1904 and commenced service in 1911
and become the chief transportation mean between Hong Kong and mainland China.
However, in terms of landscape integrity, the intrusion of the railway separated the farming

42

area of Sheung Shui Wai and later it became a watershed that the farming landscape of the
railways right side (i.e. Sheung Shui Wai) disappeared quickly.

Castle Peak Road is the second road established serving Kowloon and New
Territories and it is the longest road in Hong Kong. The Kwu Tung Section at the Southern
end of Long Valley was built in 1914. Its impact on the landscape fragmentation was lesser
extent and vice verse it became the major traffic road of the area and along both sides was the
foci point of development where shops and villas built. The later construction of Fanling
Highway during 1983 1987 besides Castle Peak Road has widen the loss of farmlands and
its fragmentation has caused permanent and irreversible impact on the significance of Long
Valley.

Development and urbanization

Obviously major loss of farming landscape of the study site and nearby environment
is resulted of urbanization, industrialization and infrastructure development. The water
treatment plant established near Sheung Shui Wai in early 70s kicked-off the story of
destruction (Figure 3.2). Meanwhile the industrial boom in the New Territories led to
conversion of farming area into industrial space, just like the factories and industrial facilities
near Yin Kong and many other examples along Castle Peak Road and Kwu Tung. During
1980s further loss happened along Shek Sheung River owing to expansion of water treatment
plant and establishment of Sheung Shui resettlement housing near Tsong Pak Long in
response to influx of mainland immigrants. The resettlement housing was cleared in late
1990s and replaced by industrial buildings. Farmlands next to Ho Sheung Heung village near
Kwu Tung have been abandoned since river training work of Sheung Yue River. The factory
43

land is invading to this area and some portion was already resumed by MTR for building
railway facilities.

44

Conclusion
The current aerial photograph study demonstrates and explains how social and
economic factors manipulating the physical context of cultural landscape. The indigenous
ancestors followed the natural environment to construct the cultural landscape to
accommodate their basic needs of food and living space. Various social and economical
forces (settlement and expansion of indigenous community, withdrawal of indigenous
farming, influx of mainland immigrants, industrial development, small house policy,
infrastructure and transport development, urbanization, rise and fall of local agriculture)
effected in different periods, leading to continuous transformation of the cultural landscape.
Some of them impact the landscape positively and some others give negative influence on the
environmental, ecological or visual significance of the study site as cultural landscape.

In Long Valley case, infrastructure and transport development, urbanization and

industrialization cause the strongest, irreversible negative transformation to the landscape.
These subdued landscapes have been radically changed in recent years by extensive
urbanization and infrastructure development. Most of the former paddy fields have now
disappeared and the characteristic winding streams have been mostly straightened and lined
with concrete or stones to form sterile-looking nullah. The site was fragmented and the site
integrity was already impaired. It is estimated that the total farmland loss since 1945 within
the study boundary may reach 40%. Only about 50 hectares of farmland are left. The
percentage loss outside the boundary is believed far more than this number.

Due to limitation of time, the current study only provides descriptive analysis using
aerial photos on the transformation of cultural landscape. Further analysis such as

45

graphicalizing the landscape feature for further comparison would be useful to quantify and
evaluate the transformation level for planning and management.

46

CHAPTER 4

UNDERSTANDING

THE

LANDONWERSHIP TRANSFORMATION OF LONG

VALLEY

Introduction

Antrop (2005) suggested that human action in landscape is economically motivated

and determined. One aspect of this economic relation between human and landscape is
expressed by property rights and land ownership Division of land into parcels followed
natural conditions of landscape, properties respected natural boundaries and vice versa,
boundaries of division, ownership of land expressed in landscape spatial forms created
valuable historical structures of cultural landscape. In terms of practical management, land
ownership is always the most critical factor controlling the success of cultural landscape
conservation. Understanding the pattern of land ownership therefore is fundamental in the
planning process for effective protection and management of cultural landscape.

Before examining the ownership details of each farmland, it is necessary to first

define the special status of the New Territories in Hong Kongs colonial history and also
understand the history of the land administration in the New Territories. The New Territories
was inherently different from the Kowloon and the Hong Kong Island since it was leased, not
ceded. The special land status of the New Territories raised much complication and disputes
on dealing with landownership problem in the New Territories.

47

History of land administration in the New Territories

Land was an important resource for living in the past which ensured survival, related
to its primary food production function and agricultural use. When the local indigenous first
arrived Hong Kong during Song dynasty, they occupied waste land and cultivated it to
maintain some sort of right to such land while keeping it under cultivation during Imperial
China period. Baker (1966) wrote in his article about how the Five Great Clans derived their
power and wealth from controlling the more important part of the New Territories. He
pointed out that land-holding is equated with wealth and power in the early indigenous
history. At the period, land transactions were secured in the form of red deed and/or white
deed for centuries in Chinese history. Deed registration system was widely used throughout
the territory of the Imperial China and subsequently adopted by the Hong Kong Government
after the lease of New Territories in 1898.

Imperial China deed registration system, however, was a loose system which had
problems of incompletion, unclear boundary, no coordinates, inaccurate and inconsistent
measurement (PolyU, 2003). The leasing of the New Territories led a completely different
approach to lands administration than that adopted for Hong Kong Island and Kowloon
Peninsular. The new land administration basically inherited the deed registration system of
Imperial China but the landowners who enjoyed freefold (permanent ownership of the land
with no time limit to his period of ownership) have been changed to leasehold where the
ownership of indigenous community of land property granted by British Colonial
Government is bound to a fixed number of years and the possession of the property would be
subject to the payment of an annual ground rent (, 1999).

The Peking Convention was signed on 9 June 1898, giving Great Britain a 99-year
lease of the New Territories. Immediately after the confirmation of the Peking Convention
48

1898, the Colonial Government began the land survey and registration work of all privately
owned lands to declare sovereignty. The survey mapped every field and house and
completed in 1903, by which nearly 41000 arcs of land with about 350 000 separated
holdings had been demarcated (Nissim, 2008). These plots of land were classified into
Demarcation Districts or Survey Districts and numbered in sequence. A Land Court was also
set up under New Territories (Land Court) Ordinance 1900 to confirm land ownership and
adjudicate disputes.

The New Territories was divided into 477 Demarcation Districts (DD) (Nissim, 2008).
Lots within the same DD sheet were recorded collectively under a common lease called the
Block Crown Lease (now called Block Government Lease after 1997). The villagers marked
and claimed their paddies on lots, and the claimants have to provide evidence of title
including deed of transaction. Some of these documents were registered under Chinese
officials, the "red deeds" having a red chop as against the unregistered "white deeds". If a
claimant established his title to the satisfaction of the Land Court, his particulars would be
entered into the Schedule to the Block Crown Lease opposite the Lot Number allocated to his
piece of land, together with description of the user of the land at that time, the area of the lot
and the amount of Government rent payable. These lots are now referred to as Old Scheduled
Lots as they were already in existence before the leasing of the New Territories and
registered in the Schedule of the Block Crown Lease. The Block Crown Lease were for 75
years from 1st July 1898 renewable at a reassessed Crown Rent, for a further period of 24
years less the last three days. The further extension of these leases as agreed in the Join
Declaration of 1984 was granted by the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance (Cap.
150) enacted in 1988, which extended virtually all these leases until 30 June 2047 after
transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China( Nissim, 2008).

49

After 1905, Crown land (i.e. land not claimed during the DD survey) was disposed by
way of auction or by direct sale. These lots are known as New Grant Lots (NGLs). GLs were
sold subject to standard sets of conditions that were published in the Government Gazette.
Copies of all new grants are kept in the Land Registry, but owing to the Japanese Occupation
all the copies of the New Grant prior to New Grant No. 7660 dated 2.6.1947 had been lost.
The rest are filed in the New Grant Guard Books (PolyU, 2003).

Land register database setup by the British Colonial Government provides the most
completed and useful land status information from 1898 to present for landscape study in
Hong Kong. The current study examined the general pattern of ownership transformation in
Long Valley over the last century and in particular the trend of major clans and owners in
the area.

Methodology
Study area and lots boundary

It is about 50 ha in size and there are two rivers run through the sites. There are about
400 farmlands laid on both side of Sheung Yue River and between Shek Sheung River
resulted of long agricultural history of the area. Due to the limitation of time and manpower,
the present study will focus on studying the ownership status of Long Valley and Ho Sheung
Heung farming area. Land search of squatter and farming area of Tin Kwong Po area is
neglected in the study though it shows a very closed linkage with Long Valley. The lot
boundary map was overlaid on current cadastral survey map. The study area and lot boundary
is shown in Figure 5.1.
50

Figure 4.1

Study area and lots boundary.

51

Land search

In order to conduct land search, Lot Index Plan should be acquired first to locate lot
numbers of the landscape. All Long Valley lots lay on Demarcation Districts (DD) 92 and 95.
There were 531 lots in total examined. The land register documents of the whole landscape
can be purchased by searching the corresponding lot numbers of DD92 and DD95 in
Government Land Registry Search Offices or via internet (Integrated Registration
Information System (IRIS) https://www1.iris.gov.hk/eservices).

The land register contains historical and current information of property particulars
(Lease type, lease term, Government rent rate and etc.), owner particulars (name, owner
capacity, registration date, transaction amount and etc.), incumbrances as well as deeds
pending registration. Copy of original Schedule of Block Crown Lease of some land lots on
DD92 and DD95 were also studied (Figure 4.2) which provided the earliest land registration
information of these Old Schedule Lots when the Land Court was set up in 1900. The
Schedule of the BCL contains all lots owned by each individual owner including the Address
of the owner, the Status (area and class) and Annual Crown Rent payable for the lots.

All information of land registers were input into ArcGIS9.2 database to generate land
ownership maps for analysis.

52

Figure 4.2

Sample of Block Crown Lease Schedule.

53

Results
Lots boundary

A total of 531 lots in which 195 lots come from DD 92 and 336 lots come from DD95
was examined in this study. Among them, 523 lots are Old Schedule Lots and 8 lots are New
Grant Lots. 53 lots were partly resumed by the government in 1980, 1998 and 1999
respectively as consequences of government projects. There are 13 lots in the study area were
carved out into smaller sections.

Figure 4.1 shows the lots boundary overlaid against the current topographic features.
The differentiation of lots boundary with current farmland boundary is mainly found at Ho
Sheung Heung area and N. Long Valley area. Lots are usually divided into smaller parcels
and the farmland boundary does not follow the lot boundary comparing with the high
consistence at S. Long Valley.

Ownership pattern and distribution

Land ownership pattern and distribution of different periods (1898 1905, 1928, 1958,
1988, 1998 and 2011 respectively) was ploted and analyzed to illustrate the changes of
ownership pattern in the study area.

Figure 4.3 reveals the ownership pattern of the study area in the initial register during
1898 - 1905. The ownership pattern of Ho Sheung Heung area was more united than Long
Valley area. A total of 11 different owner groups can be classified in the Initial Register.
They were Chans, Cheungs, Haus, Kans, Laus, Lius, Mans, An, Leungs, Lei and one Crown
54

Lot. The former 7 clans owned over 97% of the lands (Figure 4.4). All 11 different owner
groups can be found in Long Valley area and only Haus, Cheungs, Laus and Mans owned
lands in Ho Sheung Heung area. Haus and Cheungs were the major owners, they owned
58.5% and 16.3% of the total area respectively. The Haus controlled most of the land in Ho
Sheung Heung area whereas they are less influencial in Long Valley area particularly at N.
Long Valley (Figure 4.3). In contrast, Cheungs territory was distributed in pieces evenly on
the whole study site.

Schedule of Block Crown Lease provided information of the origon of owner groups
belong to. Chans was from Pan Chung ( / ), Cheungs from Heung Sai (), Haus
from Ho Sheung Heung (), Kam Tsin (), Yin Kong (), Ping Kong() and
Tsong Yuen (), Kans and Laus from( / ), Lius from Sheung Shui ( /
), Mans from Chou Tau () and Tai Hang ( / ) and Leungs from Pak Au
Shek (). Lei was a Tong association called Li On Yan Tong () which was
belong to Lei Ki Tongs family who is one of the prominent business and politician family in
Hong Kong at that period.

The information from Block Crown Lease Schedule shows that most of the searched
old schedule lots were described as Padi, Dry cultivation and Wasteof fewer extent and
few parcels were classified as Threshing floor. Most of the agricultural lots therefore
classified into 1st class with a crown rent rate of HKD3 for 1 arce.

The ownership pattern changed and became less complicated in 1928 (Figure 4.5).
Haus bought lands from Cheungs and Mans and they controlled 65.2% of the area in 1928
(Figure 4.6) . Cheungs was still the second major landowner but their area was decreasing to
10.6%. Ten different owner groups can be identified in 1928 and one of them did not appear

55

in the Initial Register. Wongs from Tsong Pak Long bought lands from Cheungs, Haus and
Kans and gained 2.4% control of the total land area.

The landownership after World War II in1958 showed great change with increasing
number of new owners (Figure4.7). Haus were keeping their control of 62.9% of the land but
the second major owner group was changed to Kans with 7.3% of ownership (Figure 4.8).
Surprisingly the third major owner was a group owner, Wong, Yu and Chan, who evenly
shared the ownership. They bought lands at Ho Sheung Heung area and S. Long Valley area
(Figure 4.7), holding 6.1% of total land area (Figure 4.8). Besides Wong, Yu and Chan, there
were some other sole or group owners holding a few lots. Ho Shai Lai, a General of Republic
of China, and his son Robert Ho Hung Ngai were one of them.

Landownership pattern of the study site became quite complicated in 1988 (Figure
4.9). Twenty one of different owner groups could be found in 1988s land register. Company
owners firstly appeared and they hold a total of 7.7 % of lands (Figure 4.10). One point
should be noticed that the third major landowner, Wong, Yu and Chan, in 1958 sold all of
their land property in the study area to Company A in 1969. Company A also collected lands
from Haus and Cheungs in 1973. Ho Shai Lais family also changed their land ownership
under their owned companies. Haus (61.4%) were still the chief landowners in 1988,
followed by Kans (8.1%), Wongs (6.4%) and Company A (6.2%). Cheungs territory in Ho
Sheung Heung completely disappeared (Figure 4.9).

Company possession further increased in 1998 (Figure 4.11). More than 20% of lands
were hold by 13 different company groups. Company B collected large amounts of lands
from different clans during 1993 1997 (most of the transactions were carried out in 1993)
and became the major company owner and the second major owner of the area, following
Haus (11.7% vs 51.4%) (Figure 4.12).
56

The latest landownership pattern in 2011 is more complicated and dispersed (Figure
4.13). Thirty-nine groups of people or company are involved, which is 3.5 times of the
number in initial register. Haus are still the chief owners but their lands reduce to less than
50% (Figure 4.14). They have overwhelming control in Ho Sheung Heung but much more
scattered and fragmented in Long Valley. Indeed the landownership pattern in Long Valley
area is very fragmented and no owner can dominate the area. Company A is a medium-sized
developer in Hong Kong while Company B is related to one of the biggest developer
companies in Hong Kong. These two companies, however, have stopped land acquisition
since 1969 and 1997 respectively. Their land possession has remained unchanged since then.
Nevertheless, clans lands have been kept selling to other minor company or sole/group
owners who did not appear in initial register (except Lei), ownership percentage of these
minor owners reaching over 11%.

In fact the indigenous clans who are directly related to the study area or appeared in
initial register (i.e. Chans, Cheungs, Haus, Kans, Laus, Lus, Mans and Wongs) are losing
their control in the study area. The clan ownership percentage dropped to only 69.44% in
2011 (Figure 4.15). Company control reaches over 20%. Other than Company A and B, there
are also some indigenous developer companies holding lands in the study area. Meanwhile,
Clans and companies may jointly own land property which is categorized into Mix.
Others refers to sole / group owners who are neither related to the mentioned clans nor
from companies. They accounts for 5.78% of ownership.

Sole ownership is the commonest ownership type among different owner groups,
except Mix which represents joint ownership between clans and companies. Tso, Tong and
Wui are indigenous associations and 42% of clans lands are owned under 44 different such
associations (Table 4.1).
57

Sole ownership refers to a land property owned by one party (person / company) only.
Joint ownership refers to sharing landownership by multiple parties. Joint ownership can be
further divided into Joint tenants and Tenants-in-common. All the joint tenants are treated as
one sole owner. In other words, the interests or shares of ownership of the joint tenants are
equal. When one of the joint tenants dies, his/her interest will automatically pass to the
surviving joint tenant who will own the whole property. For tenants-in-common, the interests
or shares of ownership of each tenant in common are distinct and may differ in quantity. The
shares proportion of each tenant in common is stated on the land register and they can sell
their own portion. And tenants-in-common does not involved right of survivorship that means
when one of the tenants-in-common dies, his/her interest will form part of his/her estate (i.e.
property left after a person's death), and will be passed on according to the terms of his/her
Will or the law of intestacy if there is no Will.

58

Figure 4.3
Landownership pattern of Initial Register in 1898 1905. Minor sole /
group owners include An, Leungs, one Tong owner Lei and one Crown Lot.

59

Figure 4.4
Landownership distribution of Initial Register in 1898 1905. Minor sole
/ group owners include An, Leungs, one Tong owner Lei and one Crown Lot.

60

Figure 4.5
Landownership pattern of 1928. Minor sole / group owners include
Leungs and Lei.

61

Figure 4.6
Landownership distribution of 1928. Minor sole / group owners include
Leungs and Lei.

62

Figure 4.7
Landownership pattern of 1958. Minor sole / group owners include Ho,
Sin, Ling and Lei.

63

Figure 4.8
Landownership distribution of 1958. Minor sole / group owners include
Ho, Sin, Ling and Lei.

64

Figure 4.9
Landownership pattern of 1988. Minor sole / group owners include 9
different owners. Minor company owners include 3 groups of company owner.

65

Figure 4.10 Landownership distribution of 1988. Minor sole / group owners include 9
different owners. Minor company owners include 3 groups of company owner.

66

Figure 4.11 Landownership pattern of 1998. Minor sole / group owners include 11
different owners. Minor company owners include 11 groups of company owner.

67

Figure 4.12 Landownership distribution of 1998. Minor sole / group owners include
11 different owners. Minor company owners include 11 groups of company owner.

68

Figure 4.13 Current landownership pattern of 2011. Minor sole / group owners
include 13 different owners. Minor company owners include 16 groups of company
owner.
69

Figure 4.14 Current landownership distribution of 2011. Minor sole / group owners
include 13 different owners. Minor company owners include 16 groups of company
owner.

70

Figure 4.15

Current distribution of different owner group category of 2011.

71

Figure 4.16
2011.

Current percentage distribution of different owner group category of

72

Figure 4.17

Distribution of clans lands owned under Tso / Tong / Wui in 2011.

73

Table 4.1
Chans
Total = 2
Cheungs
Total = 1
Haus
Total = 22

Kans
Total = 5
Laus
Total = 1
Lius
Total = 11

Wongs
Total = 1
Lei
Total = 1

Traditional organizations of different clans and families in 2011.

CHAN TSOI ON TSO

CHAN YUNG FUK TSO

CHEUNG HO WA TONG
HAU CHEUK FUNG TSO
HAU KAI TING TSO
HAU PIK (OR PAK) CHEUNG TSO
HAU TIN KWONG TSO
HAU WAI KAI TSO
HAU NAM SING TONG
HAU SZ PUN TONG
HUNG SHING WUI
KAN CHIU CHEUNG TSO
WAI KIT TSO
LAU HING TAI TSO

HAU CHUK KU TSO

HAU KWAN PING TSO
HAU PUN LAP TSO
HAU TING WAI TSO
HAU WUI KWAN TSO
HAU SHIU KI TONG
HAU YU HING TONG

HAU HUNG (OR KUNG) WAI TSO

HAU KWOK SHUN TSO
HAU SING KWAN TSO
HAU TONG YING TSO
WONG SHI TSO
HAU SZ (OR SZE) WO TONG
HO SHEUNG HEUNG COMMUNITY

KAN NING FONG TSO

KAN TUN HAU TONG

KAN PING TAI TSO

LIU LOK YE TSO

LIU MUI CHEONG TSO
LIU SHING CHIU TSO
LIU MAN SHEK TONG
WONG YU HING TONG

LIU LUK YU TSO

LIU PUI TSO
LIU TSAK U TSO
LIU MING TAK TONG

LIU MAN FUNG TSO

LIU SAM TSOK TSO
LIU WAI YAN TSO

LI PO CHUN

74

Discussion
The land registers offer information of land transaction, boundary and status
information. They provides another type of concrete evident of studying landscape
transformation in the New Territories.

Lot boundary
Historical rules applied in indigenous community inheritance. In the original Block
Grown Lease, each lot number represented 1 individual parcel of land. But small parcels
were further divided into smaller sections between many owners because each sibling had to
receive a portion of inherited land. Usually the land parcel would be physically divided also
into smaller pieces, gradually changing the fieldscape pattern into smaller plot size.
Remaining Portion lots (RP) also did not appear on Block Crown Lease. The 53
Remaining Portion lots (RP) imprint the impacts from different infrastructure projects on the
landscape. The original size of these lots was larger and because of the construction of
infrastructures, the lots were partially resumed by the Goverrnment. The lots resumed in 1980,
1998 and 1999 were affected by Shek Sheung River and Sheung Yu River training projects.
Some entire lots along the rivers were surrendered and disappeared in the Lot Index Plan. The
disappeared lots were difficult to trace but they were reflected by the inconsecutive lot
numbers as shown on the Lot Index Plan. Two RP lots at the northern tip of Ho Sheung
Heung area were resumed in 1968 and they were related to a small road construction project
near Lo Wu military camp.

Comparing the lots boundary with current land survey map, it is quite obvious that
most farmland boundaries follow the lots boundary. The lots boundary was mapped during
the DD land survey according to the farmland boundary at the time of survey during 1898
75

1903 (PolyU, 2003). Therefore, the lot boundary can be regarded as the historic farmland
boundary map of 110 years ago. It is interesting that the farmland boundary of present day
doesnt change much over the century except the area where the tenant farmers combined the
paddy fields into large ponds for fish or bloodworm ponds in 1970s. The bigger discrepancy
at Ho Sheung Heung area is resulted of the same reason.

Landowners seldom conduct land

boundary survey as the cost is high. Therefore, the farmland boundary becomes the evident of
the lot boundary. They use the boundary as landmark to locate their piece of land. The
landowners do not allow the tenants change the farmland bunds. Otherwise the farmers will
be requested to restore the farmland bunds into original position when they returning back the
land. This can explain the high consistence of farmland boundary and lots boundary in Long
Valley.

Ownership pattern and distribution

The landownership pattern shown in initial register gives some hints about the clan
activity in the area at the earliest history of the New Territories. Most of the area was owned
by the clans of nearby villages (Figure 4.19). Haus, Kans, Laus, Lius and Mans from Chou
Tau were from nearby villages, not far than 3km. Cheungs who were the second major owner
group were registered from Heung Sai village. Heung Sai village appeared on the Xian
report but it is actually located outside HKSAR territory in Lo Wu. Heung Sai village is
closed to Hong Kong and it is about 5km away from the study site. A newspaper interview of
an old villager of Heung Sai village may suggest the possible relationship of Cheungs with
Long Valley ( , 2009). Many villagers owned lands in Hong Kong and they
travelled frequently between Heung Sai and Hong Kong for farming. Near 90% of Heung Sai
villagers had left the village and stayed in Hong Kong since 1949 1960s. The initial register
information proved that Long Valley was one of the locations in Hong Kong where Cheungs
76

were active in the past. As mentioned by the old villager, many Cheungs have stayed in Hong
Kong. But why are they losing their control in Long Valley? The reason so far is unclear and
it is worth for further study.There were some other lots initially registered by clans living far
away from Long Valley. Chans, Mans (from Tai Hang) and Leungs were all from todays Tai
Po district (Figure 4.19). How come did they own lands far away from home? Did they farm
the lands or just rent out for tenants? The answers need further exploration. A trend of
vanishing control can be observed on these clans in Long Valley. Only Chans are exceptional.
Their ownership slightly decreased from 2.1 to 2.7%. The author wonder if the Chan clan of
Pan Chung is related to Chan clan in Tsong Pak Long and so they can still retain their
ownership proportion, but it needs further verification.

The landownership pattern shown in Long Valley is very dynamic. Transference of

landownership between clans was very active in the past. This dynamic pattern opened
opportunities to a new clan to establish their colony. Wongs were latecomers of the area.
They established their village Hakka Wai at Tsong Pak Long in 1903 (Chapter 2). According
to a villager of Hakka Wai 5, their ancestor was a smart businessman and their family was rich
though Hakka Wai is small in size. Their family had influential power as their ancestor was
the first chairman of Sheug Shui Rural Committee. Hence, it is not surprising that Wongs
could acquire lands from other clans and become the fourth major clan owner in Long Valley
in current day.

From Mr. Wong, interviewed conducted in 2009 in Hakka Wai.

77

B
C
D G
E
H

J
Figure 4.19

Distribution of clans owners of initial register in 1989 1905.

A = Heung Sai (Cheungs), B = Tsong Yuen (Haus), C = Ho Sheung Heung (Haus), D = Yin Kong (Haus), E = Kam Tsin (Haus), F = Chau Tou (Mans), G = Tsong Pak
Long (Kans & Laus), H = Ping Kong (Haus), I = Tai Hang (Mans), J = Pak Au Shek (Leungs) & Pan Chung (Chans).

78

The landownership research results also show that though clans are the major owners
of the site all the time, their control keeps shrinking, the largest owner, Haus, take no
exception. In the last two decades, large amount of clans lands have been sold to outsiders,
particularly to company owners, leading to a sharp drop of clans control from 88% in 1988
to 72.4% in 1998 and only 69.44% in 2011. Non-clan sole / group owner could also been
found in the initial registration. Li On Yan Tong as the family association of Mr. Li Ki-tong
(, 1873-1943) who joined Hsing Chung Hui () in 1900 and was son of the
wealthy businessman Mr. Lei Sing (1830-1900), owned 5 lots in initial register.

The

relationship of Leis family with the area was unclear. Another remarkable example is Ho
Tung family (). General Robert Ho Shai-lai () was a son of Sir Robert
Ho Tung and was an important historic figure not only in the history of Hong Kong but also
in the history of modern China. He and his son have owned 3 lots since 1948. Ho Tung
family has closed relationship with Kam Tsin village. Ho Tung family donated money to
build a school and clinic in Kam Tsin and they owned a private garden () near the
village in the past. According to an old villager of Kam Tsin 6, one of the old Hau lady from
Kam Tsin was a family worker of Ho Tung. Another point should be noticed that Long
Valley and nearby area was long be a famous villa district in colonial period. Many
prominent figures and companies at that time owned buildings nearby. It probably might be
the reason of high interests of these parties to the farmlands in Long Valley.

Invasion of company owner started from the alienation between Wong, Yu and Chan
and Company A in 1969. Company A was a very active developer company during 1960
1980s. This company actively bought huge amount of farmlands in the New Territories after
the riot in 1967 for potential development. Before 1997 Hong Kong handover, another
6

From Mr. Hau, interviewed conducted in 2008 in Kam Tsin.

79

developer company started large scale land buying in Long Valley. Company B is currently
one of the biggest developers in Hong Kong. Other small developers from local district
community or other indigenous clan collected lands in Long Valley though the scale is not
big. These developers are not necessary from the clans related to the study area but are very
active over the New Territories to acquire lands for small house development. The
companies activities were once very active and no large scale land buying related to
company owner has been record since 1997.

Regarding to the holding of indigenous clans, there was observation by previous

worker that clans were suffered from long history of conflicts and competitions (Baker, 1966).
Therefore, the possibility of large scale alienation between would be low. Even within one
lineage or family, conflicts related to resources are very common. Tams (2003) research on
Hau lineage pointed out that disunity of clan making Haus became less competitive with
other Fiver Great Clans.

Another important indigenous factor is the land-holding habit. Tsos () and Tongs
() are one of the traditional customs in the New Territories land administration. There are
nearly 4,000 Tsos and 2,000 Tongs controlling 6,000 acres of land in the NT registered in
1997 (Nissim, 2008).The overwhelming control of clans lands under Tso / Tong / Wui forms
a big challenge in land assembly. Tso and Tong are two traditional customary institutions of
landholding in the New Territories. Nissim (2008) explained Tso as a customary land trust
for the worship of a named ancestor and the upkeep of his grave, and Tong as similar
purpose but would be usually designed for providing funds for educational and welfare
purposes of the beneficiaries. These two institutions are similar to the current concept of
trust, where the tso and tong are holding land interests in the capacity of a trustee /
80

manager. Wui is just like a kind of Tong but it is related to religious tradition rather a family
(Tam, 2003). No matter Tso or Tong, it is the intention of the founders that the land parcel(s)
must be perpetuated and not be disposed of). Nissim (2008) therefore suggested that the Tso
and Tong system may become the insurmountable obstacle to developers who wish to try and
assemble rural land for development.

S. 15 of the New Territories Ordinance (Cap. 97) requires the appointment of Tso
and Tongs managers be reported to, approved and recorded by the Secretary for Home
Affairs (SHA). Although Managers are empowered to dispose of or in any way deal with the
said land as if he were the sole owner, the private purchase of Tso and Tongs land are
extremely difficult because it only requires one member of the Tso or Tong to object and the
sale will be frustrated. On the other hand, selling of Tso or Tongs property is subject to the
consent of the SHA, who must be satisfied the sale is for a good purpose. SHA may not be
satisfied also that the sale is for good purpose as the original purpose of perpetual
landownership within the Tso or Tong. Given that over 44% of clans lands in Long Valley
are Tso / Tong / Wui, that is account for 29% of total land area. They are distributed
dispersedly over the site. It makes land assembly in Long Valley nearly impossible and it
may become the major force of protecting the lands from development.

It is unclear that why both companies stopped their land collection to expand their
territory for development. But from the distribution pattern of their owned lands, it is obvious
that the land parcels are too scattered for large development. It is explained the
landownership of Long Valley is so complicated and fragmented. Although some owner
groups have already possessed high proportion of land area, none of them can have
overwhelming power to further assembly the land parcels for development.
81

The developers currently connived the existing farmers using the lands so the lands
are not abandoned. On the contrary, some indigenous landowners are more active in seeking
development opportunities. Some owners of land unable to profit from agricultural land use
tend to initiate the change of land use towards other land use such as housing or industrial o
use to meet real estate markets demand. The action taken by these indigenous landowners are
very detrimental to the landscape.

Long Valley and Ho Shueng Heung area is all zoned for Agriculture use under Kwu
Tung North Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) Statutory Plan (Number:S/NE-KTN/8). The planning
intention of Agriculture is primarily to retain and safeguard good quality agricultural
lands/farm/fish ponds for agricultural purposes. It is also intended to retain fallow arable land
with good potential for rehabilitation, cultivation and other agricultural purposes. However,
the planning control cannot stop destruction. Large scale fly-tipping occurred in Ho Sheung
Heung area in 2009 and 2010, destructing 10,000 sq ft of farmlands. The fly-tipping caused a
great deal of dissension among the villagers. The fly-tipping was reported led by certain
group of landowners and some other landowners of the fly-tipped site became victims as they
claimed innocent about the fly-tipping. They expressed their worry that it is very difficult for
them to safeguard the farmlands from being fly-tipped by the others. The relevant authorities
have ordered the persons concerned to reinstate the agricultural land within two months; yet,
more than year has passed since the occurrence of the incident, and the problem remains
unsolved.

82

Conclusion
The study of lot boundary and landownership pattern of Long Valley provide the most
solid and important information about the history of cultural landscape in Hong Kong over
the century. It reveals the dynamic of rise and fall of different clans and also reflects the
socio-economical forces (i.e. urbanization, government resumption for development,
developers invasion and etc.) on the landscape transformation in Long Valley.

The extremely complicated and fragmented ownership as well as disharmony

relationship among and within clans may explain the reason why the site is not yet developed .
These negative reason leads to a positive result in conservation that the site is so far being
protected from property development. But it doesnt mean that the site is safe. Development
pressure is still high and the false hope of development by some indigenous landowners may
trigger undesirable actions such as fly-tipping to damage the site significance.

83

CHAPTER 5

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES OF

TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE IN

HONG KONG AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Sustaining cultural landscape in modern urbanized and globalized society like Hong
Kong is a real challenge. It needs careful study and planning to well define the landscape
quantities, and control the context of change and future functioning to a right direction (2006,
195). The significance of Long Valley is embedded in its natural features, interaction with
indigenous culture and long history of agriculture, as well as the thriving biodiversity.
Various cultural, social, economical and political factors have effected and changed the
context of Long Valley over the last century.

Long Valley is a place with parallel history with the development of local indigenous
culture. The landscape features are mainly shaped by long history of agricultural activities.
Before 1960s, the New Territories was basically a static agricultural society. Land demand
was mainly for farming. Government resumed farmlands near Long Valley more frequently
since 1960s for infrastructure development and settling the needs of urban sprawling. The
changing economy of the society also brought severe impact on local agricultural activities.
Invisible changes of landownership pattern are non-stop over the last century. The land tenure
system was transformed after leasing of the New Territories. Ownership change was
connected to land inheritance and alienation among / within clans in early days but outsiders
influence is gradually accumulated. Development pressure of Long Valley is always high.
Though Long Valley was saved from Lok Ma Chau Spurline viaduct incident in 1999 and
conservation effort is paid, however, the site is still facing a lot of management challenges.

84

Management challenges

Illegal dumping and unauthorized development

There is the ongoing problem of illegal changes of land-use in Long Valley. Landscape
destruction by illegal dumping and unauthorized development imposed immediate and
irreversible destruction on the overall significance of the area. According to the Outline
Zoning Plan, Long Valley and Ho Sheung Heung farming area is zoned as Agriculture. The
lands are primary restricted to agricultural use. Nevertheless, illegal fly-tipping is somehow
no control on this kind of private lots. Over 100,000 square feet of private agricultural lands
were destroyed by recent fly-tipping case in Ho Sheung Heung (Figure 5.1). The dumping of
construction wastes was conducted with the intention to degrade the ecological value of the
site so as to increase the chance of getting planning approval from the Town Planning Board
later. The mode of destroy first, development later reveals the current loophole in preventing
destruction of private agricultural lands This has become the major threat to the conservation
of Long Valley landscape in recent years.

New town development pressure

The Government has newly launched a New Town Development plan in North East New
Territories (Planning Department, 2009). Long Valley is included in the proposed Kwun Tung
North New Development Area and part of the core farming landscape is proposed to be rezoned as Other Specific Use annotated Comprehensive Development & Nature
Conservation Enhancement Area (Figure 5.2). Low-density development (such as lowdensity residential and eco-lodge) will be considered under the new zoning to balance
conservation and development needs. The proposed zoning intention is a regression for Long
Valley conservation as development is allowed in the new zoning but not in the previous
Agriculture zoning. Undesirable obstructions from the new development is worried which
may affect the site integrity and degrade the visual value of the landscape. Also, the historic,
cultural and social fabrics of the landscape were neglected in the consideration process, and
ignorance may lead to total loss of the heritage value in future intervention or development.

85

Figure 5.1

Recent fly tipping in Ho Sheung Heung area, causing loss of 10,000 sq ft of

agricultural lands in Long Valley.

86

Figure 5.2

Proposed new zoning of Long Valley under North East New

Territories New Development Area

87

Negative attitudes of landowners against conservation

Conservation of Long Valley landscape gains coldly support from landowners because
of the potential high financial return from development. High land price and development
pressure in the rural New Territories makes conservation become an unfavorable option for
landowners. Landowners are unable to grasp satisfactory return from agricultural use, their
motivation to initiate the change of land use towards building use increases, which is a factor
increasing a possible threat of ad hoc development dispersed on rural landscapes. Planning
controls have stopped this so far, but the government has been facing strong political pressure
to open up the area for development.
Although not all landowners would prefer development on the farmlands, most of the
landowners thought that planning control and conservation intrudes their traditional right and
interest of free sale, use and dwelling (, 1956) to Block Crown Lease farmlands and
they request for compensation.

Shrinking agricultural industry

Agriculture is an inseparable element of traditional farming landscape in Long Valley.
Due to time limitation, agricultural factor is not elaborated in detail in the current study.
However, shrinking agriculture is indeed happening in the area. Three major problems we are
facing:

strong competition with low-priced agricultural produces from Mainland China,

increasing input cost and aging farming population. The average age of Long Valley farmers
is 60. Lacking financial return from farming as well as perception of inferior status of
farmer discourages young generation to join farming industry.
About one third of the total farming area of Long Valley was abandoned in 2005.
Agricultural abandonment is a general phenomenon all over the New Territories. One of the
reasons is lacking of comprehensive agricultural policy in Hong Kong. HKSAR Government
has no strategic planning to assist local produces in the market. Local farmers admitted that
agriculture is a sunset industry. Huge amount of agricultural lands in the New Territories
have been abandoned and become the hotbeds of fly-tipping and unauthorized development
which caused environmental disasters in numerous traditional farming landscapes in Hong
Kong. Though the conservation projects carried out by local NGOs have re-activated part of
88

the abandoned area, the future of Long Valley agriculture is still pessimistic if no adequate
agricultural policy is addressed in Hong Kong.

Recommendations
Many previous studies have indicated that organically evolved continuing landscapes
are usually the sites most threatened by the modern development and revolutionary changes in
the utilization of the rural environment (Engelhardt, 2001; UNESCO, 2003). The experience
of Long Valley tells us that traditional farming landscape in Hong Kong is facing similar
problems, alarming the urgency to implement proper conservation plan for cultural landscapes.
There is a need to protect these fragile local landscapes in an active way. Based on the
observations from this study, some recommendations to protect local traditional farming
landscapes are proposed and discussed here:

Recognition of value of cultural landscape in the society

Recognition of the heritage value of cultural landscapes has grown remarkably
worldwide. In Hong Kong, the concept landscape is often connected to visual value. The
HKSAR Government has shown their attempt to value Hong Kong landscape. A
comprehensive landscape assessment study was carried out in 2005 (Planning Department,
2005). In this study, the criteria for assessing the landscapes include aesthetic value, and key
natural and cultural features. However, the study only gives a very broad-brush appraisal in
terms of mainly visual features on the landscape value over Hong Kong. Landscape protection
is usually considered in ecological point of view. Twelve priority private sites for enhanced
(nature) conservation were designated in Governments Nature Conservation Policy in 2004
(AFCD, 2006). All of them display properties as cultural landscape. On the other hand, the
concept of cultural landscape is absent in local heritage grading system (HKSAR, 2008).
The historic and cultural values of traditional farming landscapes have never been recognized
in the current system. This reflects the need of building awareness of cultural landscapes in
local heritage conservation system and also among the general public. The recognition of
cultural landscapes can facilitate the development of integrated conservation approach dealing
with cultural, ecological and social features of the cultural landscape. The recognition may
enable the setup of proper legal protection framework for local cultural landscapes.
89

Reconnecting local community with farming landscape

The farming landscape had once been the most important resource for indigenous
community life. The modern indigenous community is totally detached from farming
landscape. Most of the indigenous villagers do not farm today. They usually do not able to use
their lands for farming and have no market opportunities to rent land, except selling for
property development. Absence of market with agricultural land, process of alienation and
unformed relations between new landowners and farmers, weaken the functional and mental
ties to the landscape, resulting in distortions in land use and physical changes of landscape
context.
It is a great deficiency in cultural landscape conservation if the most important
stakeholders, indigenous community, do not support conservation. Neglect of local
involvement in landscape conservation may probably lead to failure of reflecting the nature
and range of values expressed by those who may feel they belong to the landscape, and
result to unsuccessful management issues later (Stephenson, 2008). Hence, reconnecting the
linkage of local community with the landscape is critical.
For example, local community can be encouraged to participate in ecotourism or
sustainable agriculture development, allowing them to gain direct benefit from the landscape
via wise use of landscape resources. Since 2005, The Conservancy Association has been
promoting community-based eco-tourism development in Long Valley and encouraging local
people to join as tour guide. Benefiting the community is the first priority of the tourism
development here. The income of the tours is utilized to profit the Long Valley community.
Till now over 60 Long Valley villagers and farmers were trained to be interpreters, serving
over thousand visitors from local or overseas every year to promote the value of Long Valley.
Participation of local stakeholders generates positive effect to the community by learning
landscape value and significance, understanding the physical, social, financial and economic
benefits and constraints, and giving active support towards conservation of Long Valley.

90

Tightening enforcements again illegal dumping and unauthorized development

Rural farmlands are suffering ongoing destruction of illegal dumping of construction
and demolition (C&D) wastes and unauthorized development, causing considerable adverse
impacts to many significant rural farming landscape sites in Hong Kong (WWF, 2010). The
existing statutory regulatory system to control different types of rural destruction is obviously
deficient. The ineffective enforcement actions cannot deter against illegal dumping. It is
urgent to review existing planning, land, building and environmental ordinances, including
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354) and Town Planning Ordinance (Cap 131) to make them
enforceable and effective to protect rural landscape. Fly-tipping spotting and monitoring
should be strengthened to those rural districts in Northeast and Northwest New Territories
where large areas of important agricultural lands exist and which are particularly vulnerable to
fly-tipping. To prevent illegal dumping of C&D wastes that is intended to facilitate approval
for planning applications, the government should come up with a record system from which
Town Planning Board could make reference to in considering planning applications.

Option of land resumption or land exchange for conservation

The current conservation framework adopted by HKSAR document is unfortunately
ineffective and too passive to protect significant farming landscape. Farming landscape with
high ecological or cultural value fall under Agriculture zone, like Long Valley, would not
enjoy conservation protection from the zoning because conservation is not the stated intention
of the agricultural zone. Similarly other zoning such as Village zone which may contain
significant structures of cultural landscape may not be protected under their respective
zonings too (Nissim, 2008). For areas of conservation interest which fall outside country
parks, the conservation intension is expressed through zoning the sites as Conservation Area
(CA) under Town Planning Ordinance. Agricultural activities can often be incompatible with
conservation objectives and the ownership rights must be respected and treated fairly. As
mentioned in the previous paragraph the inability of enforcement of zoning protection may
not be strong enough to protect the site from destruction or inappropriate use. More
importantly the overriding pressure from infrastructure and new town development or small
house policy, may further weaken the enforcement power.
Therefore, option of land resumption or land exchange mechanism is advocated by
many environmental NGOs to solve the situation and give owners reasonable compensation
91

(, 2010). According to the Land Resumptions Ordinance (Cap.124), resumption of

lands by government must be for a public purpose. The Government has long stating that
conservation is not considered as public purpose in the bureaucratic system in Hong Kong
(Hau, 2006). The Government is unwilling to compensate the landowners because of the
absence of property right on agricultural zoning but also the large amount of money
potentially incurred (AFCD, 2006b). But with the recent subtle shift of public perception on
demands of conservation in Hong Kong, many local researchers argue the review of policy to
include conservation under public purpose that can trigger a compulsory acquisition of
private interests by the government for active conservation of significant landscape in danger.
However the government has failed to do so in the review. Researcher government review
(Hau, 2006; Nissim, 2008).
Nissim (2008) suggested that the leashold tenure system currently adopted in Hong
Kong has high feasibility for other options. Another possible solution is in-situ or ex-situ land
exchange. Public private partnership approach allows low density development in less
sensitive area in exchange for committed long-term conservation and management of the
remaining conservation area. Land exchange can also be considered to release the sensitive
lands from development pressure and confine low-density development to less sensitive area.
But it requires proper zoning plan. New Town Development plan in North East New
Territories proposed Other specific uses (Comprehensive Development and Nature
Conservation Enhancement Area) zoning for Long Valley, allowing development in core
area is not appropriate.

Conservation imitative or conservation trust to ensure long-term management

Currently the Government offers public grant via the Environment and Conservation
Fund (ECF) to support nature conservation projects for the designated 12 priority sites. The
constraint is that the grant is designated to these 12 sites and other sites with high
conservation value cannot be benefited. In addition, the primary objective of the funding is for
environmental conservation, cultural landscape with high cultural and historical value may
not be eligible.
A number of NGOs and also Heung Yee Kuk have urged for setting up a local
conservation initiative or trust

(Hau, 2006),

to enable better and more coordinated

management in the long term of small and scattered biodiversity hotspots. The Trust can
92

extend eligible to cultural landscape with high ecological or cultural significance. Setting up a
public trust has advantage on public relations and feasibility of fund raising (Nissim, 2008).
The government can allocate portion of land premium as working capital or utilize
development permission levy contributed by developer to maintain viable finance of the fund.

Developing adaptive conservation strategies

In regard to its ever-changing and complex nature, cultural landscape always requires
a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary management approach. It is particular the case for
organically evolving landscape such as traditional farming landscape. The site must be
carefully study and well planned to meet the management objectives of not only protecting
the site significance but also addressing the current socio-economic requirements to balance
long term ecological, social and economical sustainability. This involves a broad array of
expertise, trainings, and related project experience. Professionals from various aspects, such
as ecology, planning, historian, architecture, agriculture, landscape design and etc. should
participate in the process of planning. This substantial broadening of the concept of cultural
landscapes demands different styles of leadership that are respectful, collaborative and
flexible. And more importantly, the management should engage local people and communities.
Neglect of local involvement may probably lead to failure of reflecting the nature and range
of values expressed by those who feel they belong to the landscape, and result to
unsuccessful management issues later (Stephenson, 2008).

Adequate agriculture policy

The current Government agricultural policy adopts free market principle with minimal
government intervention (AFCD, 2010). The problem is without government intervention,
the weak local agriculture is combating in an unfair battle with agricultural imports from
subsidized countries (including china), and huge profit-making property development industry.
Local agriculture is in fact the victim of inclined land policy.

In line with the developmental pace of Hong Kong, it is urging to redefine the role of local
agricultural activities and their related ecological and landscape implications. If we look at
Hong Kong agriculture from a wider perspective, we will see that the contributions of Hong
93

Kong agriculture are not strictly economic, but that it has a much larger role to play for the
sustainability of Hong Kong. A clear and supportive policy is essential for ensuring long-term
sustainability of traditional farming landscapes in Hong Kong.

94

BIBLIOGRAPHY
English :
AFCD (2006a). New Nature Conservation Policy. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation
Department (AFCD), HKSAR Government. 21 February 2011.
URL: http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_nncp/con_nncp.html (accessed 3
August 2011)
AFCD (2006b). Nature Outlook - Consultation Document Review of Nature Conservation
Policy. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), HKSAR
Government. 6 August 2010.
URL:http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_nncp/con_nncp_prce/con_nncp
_prce.html (accessed 3 August 2011)
AFCD (2010). Agriculture in Hong Kong Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation
Department (AFCD), HKSAR Government. 9 March 2011.
URL: http://www.afcd.gov.hk/tc_chi/agriculture/agr_hk/agr_hk.html (accessed 3 August
2011)
Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and
Urban Planning 70: 21 34.
Baker, H. D. R. (1966). "The Five Great Clans of the New Territories." Journal of the Hong
Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 6: 25 - 48.
DSD (2010). Flood Prevention Project in Hong Kong - Northern New Territories. Drainage
Services Department (DSD), HKSAR Government. 28 September 2010.
URL: http://www.dsd.gov.hk/EN/HTML/266.html (accessed 30 July 2011)
Engelhardt, R. A. (2001). Landscape of Heaven Transposed on Earth: Achieving an Ethos to
Guide the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes in Asia and the Pacific. Singapore: 38th
IFLA World Congress, 1 16.
Erickson, C.L. (2003). Agricultural Landscapes as World Heritage: Raised Field Agriculture
in Bolivia and Peru. In Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation
of the Built Environment, edited by Jeanne-Marie Teutonico and Frank Matero, pp. 181204. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
FAO

(2011). Homepage of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage

(GIAHS).Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO).
URL: http://www.fao.org/nr/giahs/en/ (accessed 30 July 2011)

Systems

Grant, C. J. (1962) The Soils and Agriculture of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Government
Press.
Hau, C.H. (2006). Hong Kong Nature Conservation Trust! Porcupine! No.34.
HKSAR (2008). Homepage of Commissioner for Heritage's Office. HKSAR Government.
URL: http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/index.htm (accessed 30 July 2011)
95

Kristinov, K. & Adamkov, J. (2010). Slovak agricultural landscape transition

responses. ITU A|Z 7(2): 121 132.
Knapp, Ronald G. (1992). Chinese Landscapes : the Village as Place. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Lee, H.Y. and DiStefano L. (2002). A Tale of Two Villages: The Story of Changing Village
Life in the New Territories. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Nissim, R. (2008). Land Administration and Practice in Hong Kong (2nd edition). Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Owen, B. & Shaw, R. (2007). Hong Kong Landscapes: Shaping the Barren Rock. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Planning Department (2005). Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong Final Report.
Planning Department, HKSAR Government.
URL:
http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/prog_s/landscape/landscape_final/index.htm
l (accessed 3 August 2011)
Planning Department, (2009). North East New Territories New Development Area: Stage Two
Public Engagement Digest. Hong Kong: HKSAR Government.
POLYU (2003). Hong Kong Cadastral System. Department of Land Surveying and GeoInformatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (POLYU).
URL: http://cadastre.lsgi.polyu.edu.hk/ (accessed 3 August 2011)
Siu, A.K.K. (1984). The Hong Kong Region before and after the costal evacuation in the early
Ching Dynasty. In From Village to City: Studies in the traditional roots of Hong Kong
society, edited by David Faure, James Hayes and Alan Birch, pp. 1-9. Hong Kong: The
University of Hong Kong.
Stephenson, J. (2008). The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in
landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 84, 127 139.
UNESCO (2003). Hoi An Protocols: For Best Conservation Practice in Asia. Bangkok:
UNESCO.
UNESCO (2008). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. Paris: UNESCO.
WWF (2010). Wall of destruction 2006 2010.
URL: http://www.wwf.org.hk/en/tlw_gallery.cfm (accessed 3 August 2011)

96

:
(1994):
(2010) : 2010724
(1985):
(1999): ()
(2010): ()
(1956):
(2009) 60200994
: http://city.finance.sina.com.cn/city/2009-09-04/115412.html (2011725
)

97