DocMartin

Grassroots support for conservation is building, and surely now ahead of the government, and especially developers who too often seem out of touch with our changing society

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 375 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Beautiful Lantau – and the Concrete Plans #7881

    got larger jpg files of the Lantau maps, for up to A3 printing

    just added files for A4 printing to the article on the maps

    Post edited by: martin, at: 2006/05/02 13:01

    in reply to: save our trails campaign #7879

    email from Shaun Horrocks, one of the campaign founders:

    Quote:
    the more research we are doing the more we are finding evidence that it is the other depts that are to blame – although afcd are no saints their overezealous mainantence of trails (removing of all the rocks imbedded on lady clementis for example) are by far a lot less destructive than say the WSD

    thanks for this

    There doesnt appear to be an overall governing body that monitors all the different depts – this seem improbable but the EPD only seem to look at the bigger picture

    in reply to: Eco-tourism stifled in Hong Kong #7515

    email I’ve just circulated to members of HK Coalition on Sustainable Tourism, replying to quick flurry of emails after Paul Zimmerman reported on meeting w Travel Industry Council (TIC):

    ” The issue of “specialized tour guide” has yet to be formally discussed at the TIC.”
    – this shows the TIC has near zero interest in sustainable tourism of “ecotourism” (in very broad sense, ie inc culture, nature)

    This, perhaps, is as things should be – TIC is focused on mass market (yes, very retro).

    But helps show that tourism structure here is not at all suited to developing sustainable tourism, of ecotourism sort (with aims of benefiting local environment, communities).

    For local tours, impetus should perhaps come from consumers. While people are happy with crap “ecotours” (to Tung Ping Chau, Deep Bay etc), that’s what they’ll continue getting. Education a big part of it; seems to me local “ecotours” still novel here, so maybe people figure it ok to go in big group led by some folk who occasionally speak thro megaphones.
    May be scope here for, say, trying for media articles on what makes for a half-decent ecotour, and for a crap tour. (decent tours inc not grabbing lots of animals in rock pools, as I’m concerned may happen Tung Ping Chau)
    Did see a guy quoted in paper as saying a Hoi Ha trip was useless; so there’s scope for creating change here.

    Market forces important
    – though I know this isn’t thought true by many in Hong Kong today, but anyway

    Tour companies not essential for ecotourism. People can go by selves; witness the many thousands of Hongkongers heading to countryside each weekend and public holiday. With decent info, even some overseas visitors can go by selves. People interested in ecotourism rather more likely to be independent minded; indeed may prefer to hike, visit villages and temples etc at own pace.
    HK facilities are good to superb by comparison with many places – think of superb facilities in country parks, inc the trail system. (what other city – anywhere – can rival this?). But companies can play important roles, esp for less independently-minded people.

    Promotion important. I believe one reason hiking now popular w Japanese groups is promotion to Japanese market. Then, people have visited, hiked, enjoyed it and passed on info – also v important, esp for tourism of this kind (without huge advertising dollars, word of mouth esp important).

    Glad Paul met TIC.

    When had FirstStep Nature Tours, we joined TIC (as seemed only way could continue getting some promotion thro HKTB).
    All we got from TIC/members were a bag and an infinite number of junk emails.

    As part of joining, we joined HATA. For this, got lobbied for vote in TIC election (duly voted, Paul Leung won, but since done nothing for sustainable tourism – and why should he, he’s mass market guy?); had cheap trip to Thailand for conference w some uninteresting talks, albeit met one or two contacts.

    Again – shows that travel structure here no use for good ecotourism development here (and ecotourism isn’t just a “narrow range of interests” – spans a broad spectrum, much of what we discuss re sustainable tourism).

    These points not new.
    We talk but don’t progress.

    in reply to: Hong Kong suffers Chronic Air Pollution #7658

    Friends of the Earth has an online petition, imploring local power companies to clean up emissions (and do more than just bombard us with adverts showing blue skies – let’s see some actual blue skies!)

    Not sure if there’s cut-off date.

    English: http://www.foe.org.hk/Ealert/energy/energy_eng.asp

    Chinese: http://www.foe.org.hk/Ealert/energy/energy.asp

    in reply to: Hong Kong suffers Chronic Air Pollution #7657

    article on Xinhua about air pollution in HK:

    Quote:
    Hong Kong is famous for its harbor scenery, green mountains and blue sky, but they are now giving way to heavy smog, which not only choked the city but also made colors faded into a depressed grey.

    The Environmental Protection Department of Hong Kong said Tuesday that 23 pollution convictions were recorded in February and more than half of the convictions were under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance.

    According to the Friends of the Earth, an environment protecting organization, the number of low visibility days at the Hong Kong International Airport, where tourists get the first impression of the city, reached a record high last year. And the number of clear days in the downtown area is even less.

    Emissions of vehicles and power plants, as well as pollutants from the Pearl River Delta are considered the main reasons for the bad air of the city.

    A survey published by Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Lung Foundation said that 30 percent of elderly citizens over the age of 70 complained about respiratory problems in 2003 because of bad air, compared with 4.9 percent in 1991. The percentage has risen six times within 12 years.

    Respiratory experts have called on the government to take immediate measures in air pollution control, including a smoking ban in all catering services by 2007, the most difficult part for Hong Kong’s long delayed dream of smoke free.

    More experts are concerned that the severe air pollution will not only harm the health of the public but also damage the image of Hong Kong’s tourism industry, an important source of revenue for the city.

    Friends of the Earth said it has interviewed 129 tour guides between March 8 and 10, during which half of the interviewees rated the air quality of Hong Kong as either severe or very severeand nearly 40 percent said tourists had complained about air pollution.

    A spokesman for Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department said Monday that the government is determined to achieve the emission targets by cooperation with neighboring Guangdong Province.

    The governments of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Guangdong have agreed to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2),nitrogen oxides (NOx), respirable suspended particulates (RSP) andvolatile organic compounds (VOC) by 40 percent, 20 percent, 55 percent and 55 percent, respectively by the year of 2010.

    For the electricity generation, the biggest source of air pollution in Hong Kong, the Department has asked power companies to accelerate emission reduction projects, increase the use of ultra-low sulfur coal and use natural gas for power generation as much as possible.

    Meanwhile, a large scale of educational campaign of anti-smoke is launched this month in catering service industry in order to reach the target of eliminating smoking in all catering places in Hong Kong by the year of 2007.

    The Department also planned to pursue additional measures in its struggle for better air, such as introducing Euro IV emission standards to newly-registered vehicles.

    Choked Hong Kong fights for better air

    in reply to: Shalotung superb for scenery, and easy strolling #7876

    Hi Annie:

    Yes, a lovely place.
    Hope you make the trip, and enjoy it; maybe post a message about your visit.

    Martin

    in reply to: A Sustainable Development Plan for Lantau #7774

    Ms Ho Pui Han of the Tai O Environmental Association has very kindly sent me a Chinese translation of the Sustainable Development Plan for Lantau (much of the translation done by her friend Wong Lai Fun):

    Quote:
    大嶼山及鄰近島嶼可持續發展計劃
    (撰稿日期:2005年11月)

    引言
    大嶼山是香港各島中最大的島嶼,大部分地方相對來說尚未開發(主要例外是位於北岸的東涌和機場,以及東岸的愉景灣和香港迪士尼樂園)。不過,自香港政府成立的大嶼山發展專責小組公布《大嶼山發展概念計劃》(《概念計劃》)後,這個情況可能會出現很大轉變。

    這個《概念計劃》(應與本文一併閱讀)勾勒了一連串將令大嶼山面貌帶來重大轉變的可能發展:包括座落於北岸的港珠澳大橋、物流中心及室內人工海灘,以及水療中心和木板路。一些可能進行的計劃,明顯的如在大嶼山西北對開興建的貨櫃碼頭和索罟群島的石油氣貯存設施,卻未列入《概念計劃》之內。

    《概念計劃》受到多方批評,評語包括多個計劃可能會令大嶼山的面貌徹底改變,尤其北面沿岸地方最受影響;它對大嶼山亦缺乏清晰遠景。

    因此,本「另擬概念計劃書」現就大嶼山提出一些發展計劃建議。我提議這些發展計劃,背後所秉持的看法與「美麗大嶼山」(一個包括多個關注大嶼山未來發展的團體聯盟) 的基本看法相同,正如《概念計劃》所提倡的可持續發展一樣,本計劃書所概述的計劃亦以達至可持續發展為目標。《概念計劃》沒有界定何謂「可持續發展」,一些批評者指責《概念計劃》把其意視作繼續發展。在本計劃中,可持續發展的定義是:

    「在香港,可持續發展是透過社會及政府的努力,為這一代及後世取得社會、經濟及環境上的平衡,同時達致經濟蓬勃、社會進步和環境質素改善的目標。」
    《香港特別行政區21世紀可持續發展研究》

    在本計劃書中,我採用了「美麗大嶼山」聯盟的意見,十分強調環保的需要(意見包括:「環境保護必須是基本前提」)。如能滿足這方面的需要,則在與社會及經濟需要結合一起的情況下,有關發展將會造福這一代及後世。

    在此,我建議以可持續的旅遊業作為達致可持續發展目標的重要手段。世界旅遊組織對可持續的旅遊業提出以下定義:

    「可持續的旅遊發展符合現有旅客及旅客接待地區的需求,同時確保及增加未來繼續發展的可能。預計這會令所有資源的管理可以滿足經濟、社會及美學的需要,同時保持文化完整、基本的生態過程,生物的多樣化和生命的支援系統。」
    聯合國環境規劃署旅遊計劃:

    本文件並沒巨細無遺地討論所有可行的計劃,對鄰近的索罟群島只簡略提及一項可行計劃,但若考慮任何大嶼山的發展計劃,亦應一併考慮鄰近其他島嶼。這_提出的亦非一成不變的計劃,提出這些計劃只是拋磚引玉,目的在探討巿民和政府可以如何合力為這一代和後世保護和持續發展大嶼山及鄰近島嶼。

    大嶼山堪稱中國最可愛島嶼之一,並且是「香港最大及最美麗的島嶼」(財政司司長唐英年語)。它曾被稱為『膜拜者之島』,在1970年代時共有135所寺廟。今天仍有很多尚有香火供奉的寺廟,大部分依然環境靜穆。

    大嶼山保存了很多小型鄉郊社群,包括漁農業社群,可讓人們深入了解南中國的鄉村生活。

    大嶼山的海岸線迂迴曲折,山巒高聳,山上急流飛瀑,景色異常秀美。它的濕地、林地及山間灌木叢孕育了豐富的動植物,其中數種更屬全球稀有品種。

    規劃時須考慮的因素
    《概念計劃》提出多項計劃的建議,有些明顯異常矛盾,例如深入城巿化,包括在旅遊發展計劃的地點 (在原先預留予發展「遊客天堂」的一片沿海土地,見「大嶼山北岸發展計劃的可行性研究」) 附近擴建新巿鎮和發展物流。

    《大嶼山保育策略書》提出在大嶼山發展[巿區式]可能會帶來損害的疑慮,那些疑慮今天仍有根據;巿區式發展對香港的其他地區較適合,尤其是九龍半島。至現時為止,仍沒有人提出論據表明這種在大嶼山作出的發展確實是可持續的。

    因此,本「另擬概念計劃書」包含互相補足和前後連貫的計劃,而以確保大嶼山除了可保存其美麗面貌之外,亦可達致持續發展為目標。本計劃書極為強調旅遊業:

    1. 旅遊業 – 涉及海外旅客及港人 – 對大嶼山已是舉足輕重,而且隨著昂平360[纜車]及香港迪士尼樂園開幕,必定變得更加重要。

    2. 由於旅遊業不須作出大規模的城巿化發展 ─ 事實上這些發展更可能令遊客卻步 ─ 故此會是該島達致可持續發展的關鍵。但必要條件是島上環境不受損害,而且為當地社群帶來實際利益,即有了廣義的可持續發展的旅遊業,為當地社群帶來實際利益。

    3. 大嶼山有不少潛能足以作可持續的旅遊發展,包括文化、遠足及戶外運動、自然旅遊,甚至沙灘康體活動。所有這些潛能,或多或少都存在;只要有妥善周詳的策劃及管理以保護環境免受損害,這一切都可以大加發展。

    4. 在香港其他地方的旅遊業都會從大嶼山的可持續發展受惠,部分原因是大嶼山是通往香港的門戶,美麗的綠色大嶼山會提升旅客對香港的印象;再者,推廣大嶼山的其他旅遊點,將令香港成為一個更吸引旅客的地方。

    5. 有效的可持續旅遊業,會為大嶼山的本地社群帶來裨益,有助扭轉諸如梅窩等地方的經濟下滑局面。

    6. 如大嶼山獲得良好保護,加上強勁的可持續旅遊業,亦可為香港巿民帶來裨益,提供一個現成的遠離鬧巿繁囂的避靜之所。尤其是在非典型肺炎疫症過後,香港巿民多了從事戶外康樂活動,當中數個主要活動地點都位於大嶼山。

    7. 因珠江三角洲多處正受到急劇、考慮不周及極不可持續的發展所害,故大嶼山亦可為珠三角其他地方的人提供度避靜之所。

    8. 為與旅遊業配合,可作其他可持續發展,例如發展有機種植、生產及展覽藝術及工藝品、文化表演及體育運動。

    9. 其他好處還包括大大改善有關設施,教育香港人(尤其是學童)認識自己的文化遺產及本土自然歷史。

    可以推行的計劃

    以下是一些有助確保在大嶼山可持續發展的計劃例子,當中包括取自「大嶼山發展概念計劃」、「船園 」、立法會議員陳偉業的意見書及其他團體和個人的意見。

    提出這些例子的整體目的是為了顯示大嶼山是可以保護的,而且可以改善環境,它亦同時可變成為香港及海外遊客提供多樣化旅遊的目的地。不管遊客是想尋求戶外運動的刺激,還是山間寺廟的寧靜,抑或想探索自然及文化歷史,又或想享受悠閒散步之樂、海灘逍遙一日、鄉郊食肆的一頓美食,大嶼山都可以讓他們享受得到。另一個目的是確保大嶼山仍然是一個美好的住處,是一個香港人引以為榮的地方。

    大_灣保育區

    大_河以其淡水魚種類繁多見稱,在它與其毗鄰地方生長了多種野生生物。在環保方面來說,它在香港私有土地中位列第二,屬於12塊上佳土地之一。只要作出有效管理,以達致保育和教育的目的,它便可以成為一個無可比擬的自然保護區。

    為了保存大_河及近河水域保持生物多樣化的特色,有關在大_河口填海的計劃應予縮減或放棄。

    欣澳旅遊樞紐

    欣澳可作遊客往來香港迪士尼樂園的重要樞紐。這_可以作為運輸中心(不是室內綜合大樓),讓旅客可以就近搭乘交通工具往諸如鄰近的九龍等巿區,享受室內娛樂、飲食、時尚物品店、主題遊覽點和室內康樂運動設施所帶來的樂趣。

    此外,亦可以在這個旅遊樞紐提供資料,重點介紹香港多處(尤其是大嶼山)可供戶外活動消閒的地點。

    鄰近的陰澳和海岬景色非常迷人,是遊客漫步的好去處,尤其是當他們沒空遊覽大嶼山其他地方時(迪士尼樂園除外)。這_可以興建一兩間俯瞰海灣的小型鄉村式食肆。

    東涌
    東涌的價值可予以提升,加設供遊客(包括乘搭空中纜車的遊客)及當地居民遊覽的旅遊景點及設施,同時可增加當地居民的就業機會。大體上,巿區可以包括食肆、酒吧及商舖,但應盡量減少興建新屋苑,以保留大量綠化土地,避免空氣污染物聚集。

    東涌地區的歷史名勝包括東涌堡及東涌炮臺,兩者均可改為博物館 – 甚至加上把歷史(例如皇家軍隊與海盜船之間的歷史)重新展示。

    由於臭名遠播的海盜張保仔的艦隊在赤_角對開海面被打敗,東涌極有潛質改作博物館 – 是設置「活博物館」的理想地點,可用真人打扮成過去的邪惡人物。(周潤發將在下一集的加勒比海盜中扮演張保仔,儘管電影情節偏離歷史事實[宣傳資料稱他是15世紀而不是19世紀的人],但將令更多人認識張保仔。)

    候王廟亦是一個歷史景點,它是宋室為避開蒙古軍隊追捕而逃至香港(包括大嶼山)那段歷史的標記。這處亦可把歷史重新展示,讓香港與大嶼山過去的一些歷史軼事重現人們眼前。

    鄰近候王廟是_頭,這是一處具特殊科學價值之地,亦是當地養殖大閘蟹的地點之一。它與候王廟、東涌河及舊稻米田,可一起使東涌西面包括東涌灣一帶 (這處不應填平)變成一處吸引遊人及當地居民的地點。這亦可成為由東涌乘搭登山纜車的人起始所見景觀。不過,為了保護_頭的生物多樣化價值,必須有完善的管理。

    嶼南的旅遊住宿地方
    目前已有多間提供住宿的村屋分佈於大嶼山一帶,包括沿岸地方如長沙。這些住宿地方可加以改善,又或增加其數目,但卻不需作損害環境的發展。

    不過,雖然它們的整體發展潛力很大,只是每所村屋都是小型房屋,它們可能沒有能力進行推廣,但當局可以協助它們向香港及海外遊客宣傳其住宿服務(見後面有關大嶼山旅遊推廣協會的建議)。

    (見後面有關基礎建設部分)

    大嶼山博物館及花園
    如設立大嶼山博物館及花園,可以成為大嶼山遊客的一個熱門旅遊點。館內展品可以涵蓋大嶼山的文化及自然歷史,從島的形成,至人類登陸島上留下考古學家發現的工藝品,再至今天為止,加上島上動植物演變的綜覽。[雖然這個簡介大致與尖沙咀的歷史博物館相似,但大嶼山博物館可以有所不同,可以把焦點側重在自然文化歷史及提供予遊客的活動上。]

    這_亦可以強調大嶼山能夠提供的活動種類,令這個中心變成在島上探索的跳板。

    選址可以包括東涌(遠離東涌古堡這個本身已是名勝的地點);或梅窩、昂平(假設空中纜車成功架設)。

    這個中心可以包括景觀花園,種植島上本土的花草樹木,這些植物將會吸引雀鳥、蝴蝶及其他野生動物到來。

    這_亦可擴大至用以展示在這個地區以外地方(諸如南中國及東南亞)的生物多樣化特色。

    大嶼山的旅遊中心
    可以在大嶼山的主要進入點(例如梅窩及東涌)設立遊客諮詢中心。這些中心不須美輪美奐,例如在梅窩 – 至少初時 – 便可只增加漁農自然護理署的資訊站所提供的資料。

    梅窩
    翻新 梅窩逐漸沒落;但如它再次對遊客有吸引力便可扭轉情況。梅窩有很多吸引人的地方 ─ 它有一個理想環境、鄉郊特色及美麗的海灘。

    不過,梅窩有些地方看來破敗,混凝土已變得灰白:在小輪碼頭附近尤其如此,給予小輪乘客一個不良印象。這_有很大的改善餘地,例如可以植樹或加設花床,取代大片混凝土。另外,亦可以豎立指示牌,提示遊客值得參觀或遊樂的好去處。

    名勝古跡 梅窩有一些差不多已坍塌的舊瞭望塔可以重修。本來已有一些小徑穿過這個地區,但豎立一些較清晰的指示牌,可指引遊客如何穿過這些建築、果園、田野及小村莊,然後到銀礦灣瀑布,這個瀑布景色優美,而且容易前往,只是未有加以推廣。大可以增加一些適合人們步行及乘腳踏車前往的史蹟徑。

    可以開放銀礦灣作(導賞式)遊覽用途;如真的開放,可以設置展覽品,介紹這_及香港其他地方的採礦歷史。

    其他可以考慮設置的設施包括水上運動中心,或者住宿地方,而有關運動可以包括龍舟競渡,讓遊客有機會一試划龍舟和在舟上擂鼓的滋味。

    梅窩濕地保護區 梅窩的沼澤和魚塘受到冷待,渠務工程及逐漸填平濕地都對它帶來不良影響。不過,它們仍然吸引野生生物,這_有白鷺等雀鳥。這一帶可以隨時改成小型濕地保育區,並加上遊客設施,例如隱藏觀賞處(隱蔽處)及小徑制度。人們可以在這_輕易觀賞到大型水鳥,例如白鷺及鷺鳥。這_亦會有罕見品種,這點亦會令大嶼山更吸引遊客。

    昂平:土生林地及茶園
    隨著昂平360遊客景點的出現,昂平勢將成為遊客不可不遊的地點。

    昂平環境優美,本身有茶園、林地和樹木研習徑。這_可以種植更多土生樹木,開闢類似昔日覆蓋大嶼山及香港大部分地區的亞熱帶林地。在改善了林地及增添野生生物品種之後,將有助突出佛教教義中對自然的崇敬,以及道教與自然並行不悖的思想。

    茶園近年已有些受到忽略,大可稍為協助茶園重修部分地方,以及售賣當地生產的茶葉。紫背天葵曾是這區的名_,可予以種植。

    大澳
    漁村 大澳已是旅遊景點,只要再加推廣,以及受惠於遊客被吸引前往昂平,可以大幅提高整體的遊客數字 - 但為了取得平衡,以免在任何時候這條村被遊客擠得水泄不通(周六及周日及公眾假期的高峰期人數可能已達或接近最高可容客量;星期一至五或許尚能容納多些遊客)。減少擠塞或許有方法,例如延長遊客的旅遊路線、設置指示牌等方法,使大部分遊客朝一個方向行走,諸如作順時針方向環行。

    在基建可能需要改善之餘,亦須向有意經營酒樓、咖啡館、商舖及小型文物博物館或提升其質素的本地人提供協助,令社區從旅遊業受惠,但同時保留吸引遊客的環境及氣氛。

    濕地 除了大澳,還有紅樹林及小沼澤和昔日的鹽田。這些地方都獲得一些保護,另外更在進行種植紅樹林的工作。持續的積極管理可以使這些濕地獲得更大改善。

    特別是,假如在梅窩設立濕地保育區而又證明有成效,那麼便可以改善大澳的濕地,亦增設一些如隱藏觀賞處的遊客設施。

    民族文物館 可以建立民族文物館介紹大澳的傳統生活方式,包括捕魚及抽鹽的方法。這至少部分可以作為活的博物館 ─ 例如有人賣魚乾,像當地人一代一代的做法。[這個館可以由現有的小型文物館發展而成,或者乾脆向目前的文物館持有人提供經濟援助。]

    悟園 悟園是香港一處獨一無二的地方 ─ 也可能在全球獨一無二。它或許可算是香港的愚昧之處:它是一個中國式的景觀園林,築有鯉魚池,位置遠離道路(但旁有一條主要遠足徑),環境怡人,最適合遊覽。

    其建築雖然有些破敗,但若加協助,當可加以修葺。這處有很大可能變得更加吸引遊客,比如設置茶室 ─ 如中式茶室,或者住宿地方,並且改善園林,在園內集中種植大嶼山及華南的植物群。這些發展應是小規模進行的,並作出一些保護措施,確保環境不受損害(包括確保河水不受污染)。

    分流 – 鄰近大浪灣
    分流村已經差不多荒廢,然而卻是香港的一個美妙地方,附近有一個舊堡壘和神秘的石圓環,可以步行或乘船前往。這_亦可以加以改善,以增加對遊客的吸引力,比如加設可容納少數人的住宿設施,供欲在一個恍若遠離城巿繁囂的幽靜地度宿一宵的人入住。

    單車徑
    大嶼山實在可以建設一個出色的單車網絡;事實上,山上已有單車徑。新的單車徑可以開闢,但只能容許對環境造成微小傷害。現有的路線可以推廣,尤其是嶼南集水區,這_既能令人享受到輕鬆踏單車之樂,亦是一條可讓一家享受踏單車之樂的理想單車徑。不過,新建的山上單車徑很可能會與遠足人士有衝突(遠足應較踏單車優先)。

    極限運動
    大嶼山除了可成為本港極限運動的主要中心外,亦有極佳潛力發展單車徑。它可以發展成山上單車徑、歷險賽道、攀山徑及諸如皮艇等水上活動的目的地。這些設施對初學者至專家都適合,並可為在國際上代表香港的運動員提供訓練設施。

    設立一個「大嶼山極限運動中心」,可以作為這些活動的中心。這個中心可以為本地及海外參賽者提供住宿設施、固定訓練場地、體育館、岩石場、訓練場、修理裝備工場、帆傘商店、食堂、體育用品店等等。選址可以是長沙的嶼南醫院和十塱。

    長沙
    長沙是香港最美麗的海灘之一 ─ 由於它正位處一條大路旁,故更為突出。不過,它的使用率相對不足,原因或許是差不多很少人認識。

    可以做些推廣長沙的工作,在路邊設置指示牌,為坐巴士前來的遊客指示路徑。

    長沙西面一帶應保持現有狀況,潮汐線上繼續長有自然植物,並容許人們在沙上沿途漫步。

    長沙東面一帶已有遊客設施,包括村屋的食肆和設有遊客住宿地方的水上運動中心。經過為該區進行較大的推廣後,這些設施可在星期一至五(目前在這些日子較為淡靜)吸引多些遊人;或許可把更多度假屋改裝成非干擾式遊客設施,主要讓遊客享受海灘及南中國海景色和水上運動。

    貝澳水牛田

    貝澳濕軟的荒廢田野是野生水牛的生活地,這加上當地景色、海灘及鄉郊特色,將可令貝澳成為一處重要的遊客景點。

    水牛和「牠們」的田野應受到保護,如有需要,可改善控制水牛數目的方法。這區可在社區的協助下加以改善,在一些受到相當破壞的地方種植花草樹木。

    正如大嶼山大部分地方,推廣工作不可或缺:現下遊客很容易乘巴士穿過貝澳村而毫不察覺是否有些值得遊覽的地方。這_可以拓展一條水牛徑,包括從大路開闢一條環迴道路穿過田野去到海灘,然後返回道路。如果遊客增多,便可以多開設些小型商店和咖啡店、住宿地方(避免在海岸保護區興建樓宇)。

    建議興建北大嶼郊野公園(擴建部分)

    這個郊野公園擴建部分實在不應在本計劃中出現;該擴建部分規劃已久,在2001年已刊憲,現在應已成事實。

    該郊野公園擴建部分似乎沒有藉口繼續延誤興建,這個擴建部分一旦建成,可成為開闢新遠足徑(及山上單車徑)和保育活動的中心。

    其他重要天然地區的保護

    其他珍貴的地區,例如海岸線、山溪、濕地及風水林都應給予正式區劃以保護。

    索罟群島

    有建議把索罟群島闢為海岸公園;這可對大嶼山四周的海岸保護有重要貢獻。

    索罟群島有潛力發展成生態旅遊目的地,它有珊瑚群落、再生林地及舊農地和小沙灘。遊客可以來此作日間旅行,因此可以在這_興建住宿地方,讓少數人可在此度宿。

    基礎建設

    要確保大嶼山的發展真的可以持續將是一項挑戰。這方面可以引發一連串問題;不過,有些問題是可以預計得到,以及可以預先減輕或解決的:
    1. 個別地方的承受能力。評估承受能力是困難的事,也有些主觀。不過,必須小心確保遊客不會蜂擁至有關地方,破壞原本吸引遊客的自然美景。這對那些易受影響的地方,例如建議興建的自然保育區及悟園,尤其重要;這些地方或許需要購票入場。
    2. 污水處理及排污設施必須足夠。
    3. 交通需要考慮。必須強調使用最少量交通工具來滿足遊客及當地人的需求,小輪可以擔當有用的角色。除了車輛外,小輪可以提供方便又景色優美的交通工具;沿岸鄉村的小型碼頭可以帶遊客進來使這些社區增加生氣。增添較佳的巴士 (或者小型旅遊巴士之類)較增添的士為宜。
    4. 在鄉郊地區的住宿地方應屬小型地方,以與環境配合,並且可以確保留宿者真正享受到鄉郊環境之樂 ─ 可以與小島渡假勝地(例如在泰國的)相比,不同之處是大嶼山的建築物可以有一種地方特色。另外,亦可以用一些地方物料(例如竹子)來興建住宿地方。

    推廣是成功的關鍵

    這份並非一份討論詳盡的文件,但清楚說明大嶼山現有很多吸引遊客的景點,而島上可作旅遊景點的地方亦很多,大可改善這些景點和創造新景點。

    不過,這些景點只有很少宣傳或完全沒有宣傳 ─ 很多甚至鮮為香港人認識。因此,可以為大嶼山紛繁多樣的景觀加強宣傳。我建議成立一個大嶼山旅遊推廣協會 ─ 或離島旅遊推廣協會;這可有助商業機構改善遊客服務(例如令小型食肆提供的餐牌中英文兼備;確保宿舍至少達至最起碼的住宿標準),以及可宣傳景點,包括透過互聯網的途徑。

    鳴謝
    在撰寫本計劃書時,我使用了以下資料:

    大嶼山發展概念計劃:諮詢摘要   大嶼山發展專責小組
    船園 ─ 大嶼山可持續發展構想
    大嶼山保育策略  綠色大嶼山協會、長春社、地球之友、綠色力量、香港海洋環境保護協會、世界自然(香港)基金會
    美麗大嶼山  包括「綠色大嶼山協會」、「爭氣行動」、「保護海港協會」等團體

    另外有個別人士(包括來自非政府組織的人士)對本計劃書的初稿提供了寶貴意見。不過,這_不會公開其姓名,因為至少其中兩人擔心有人會把「提供意見」視作「全面支持/贊同意見」。儘管如此,他們的意見卻令本計劃書更充實;我在此謹衷心向他們致謝。

    作者

    Martin Williams博士
    「香港戶外遊_」的創辦人,www.hkoutdoors.com
    [email protected],電話:2981 3523

    保育局總監James Lazell致南華早報的信件內容:

    我最近得以細讀Martin Williams為大嶼山構寫的保育及環保旅遊發展的計劃。相對於政府目前的計劃來看,他構想的是個可供選用的出色計劃,而政府的計劃我相信反會導致不能持續,並且破壞生態的發展。

    我本身是一個保育生物學家,自從1979年開始便每年探訪大嶼山及周遭島嶼。我通常帶同一團一團的專業生物學家、研究生、大學本科生和一些業餘自然學家踏足這些島上。我們發現了一些新品種爬行動物和昆蟲,而且記錄了大批罕有野生生物品種的新發現地點及棲息地。我們與本地大學的同事、漁農自然護理署、野生動物基金、嘉道理農場及植物公園,以及其他香港機構合作,我們認識大嶼山及周遭島嶼,像坪洲、喜靈洲、周公島、石鼓洲和索罟群島,它們都是自然生物多樣化的寶庫。但是,歷經歲月之後,我們失掉了很多瑰寶。

    赤_角大部分土地受到消耗性破壞、東涌地區城巿化、竹篙灣興建迪士尼樂園,以及嶼南沿岸持續興建屋苑,都破壞了一些重要的自然地區和自然棲息地。農業的消失亦令稻田變回灌木林,令沼澤及稻田獨有的多個生物品種失去了一些棲息地。雖然水牛和普通牛群可以幫助我們維持這些開放式生態系統,但活性農業亦有需要。

    上述所有這些因素在該份另擬計劃書中都曾加考慮。我謹此促請大嶼山的居民和所有關心這個問題的巿民仔細閱讀這個計劃,並希望他們協助我們實現這個計劃的構想。

    大嶼山水口
    James Lazell博士

    http://www.theconservationagency.org

    Post edited by: martin, at: 2006/03/14 02:13

    in reply to: Cheung Chau holiday flats, Hong Kong #7646

    well, ambulance hadn’t seemed like a car to me
    also some small fire engine thingies – and a full size fire engine (at least, I think the full size one is still around; hasn’t done much that I’ve ever seen, and I haven’t noticed it lately)

    Martin

    in reply to: Tamar – HK Govt aesthetics rooted in concrete #7834

    from another circular from Christine Loh:

    1. DT (=Donald Tsang) wants Tamar: Comments of self-glorification are surfacing since the government cannot justify taking the largest and best piece of land for offices when there are other ways to add space. Government refused to release a 1990s report on in situ expansion. Legislators want it because they can then assess whether spending HK$4.5 billion is truly necessary.

    2. Other criticisms emerging: No responsible organisation moves offices without an intensive review of existing space and needs, which has not been done.

    3. Is it worth it?: Having lost West Kowloon, is it worth having another punch-up on another poorly thought out project? Some commentators say DT cannot afford to lose Tamar because he already lost West Kowloon, which is strange logic.

    4. Express strong government: Does DT think “strong government” needs to be expressed through a large expensive complex?

    5. History lessons: Ancient rulers (pharaohs/emperors) built amazing structures to glorify their reigns. Outstanding modern political leaders give their people freedom, equality, democracy, far-sighted policies etc. DT has a choice.

    in reply to: Buying maps in Hong Kong #7875

    Hi Ferry: Many thanks for the comment; great you like the site, and that you’re returning to HK to include plenty of hiking. A plug first: my Hong Kong Pathfinder book is available in several bookshops here. Then: there’s an excellent series of maps, in the Countryside Series, published by the HK Government (made by Lands Department). They’re in several shops; but can also find in government’s Murray Building, just below lower Peak Tram Station. Current map titles: Hong Kong Island & Neighbouring Islands Lantau Island & Neighbouring Islands North West New Territories North East & Central New Territories Sai Kung & Clear Water Bay Outlying Islands [though islands now covered in other, newer maps] page with info on the maps here: http://www.landsd.gov.hk/mapping/en/paper_map/cm.htm Hope you have a great time here! Martin

    in reply to: Lantau Trail – Ngong Ping to Sham Wat Road #7874

    Hi Frank: Glad this route appeals to you. The section of Lantau Trail around 4km, 1.25hrs says AFCD

    Can reach the trail in well under half an hour from Po Lin Monastery. Martin

    in reply to: Tunnel may thwart mega bridge plans – hooray! #7872

    Just heard Ming Pao article yesterday said bridge to definitely start next year. Mind you, was to start end of last year, early this year. Well advanced Zhuhai side, though.

    – also relevant to bridge: South China Morning Post today reported on Macau currently having problems obtaining enough freshwater. The Bloody Big Bridge is largely aimed at helping Zhuhai develop; so water woes will only increase. How sustainable is this?!

    in reply to: Tunnel may thwart mega bridge plans – hooray! #7871

    S China Morning Post had item today saying the govt reckons the tunnel won’t stop the Bloody Big Bridge.
    Also Jake vd K suggesting Shenzhen may have suggested the tunnel as attempt to scupper bridge plans, as maybe will reduce some revenues for Shenzhen.

    Seems a situation of One Country, Many Governments!

    Post edited by: martin, at: 2006/02/14 09:59

    in reply to: Hong Kong suffers Chronic Air Pollution #7654

    Hong Kong Marathon just held – and led to some bad publicity for Hong Kong, highlighting local air pollution.
    By no means first time air pollution here has been focus of media attention; still, can but hope it will help nudge authorities towards more action, less talk.

    Excerpts from Reuters item, here on Boston Globe site:

    Quote:
    HONG KONG (Reuters) – Twenty-two people were taken to hospital, two in critical condition, after taking part in Hong Kong’s biggest marathon as the territory was hit by the worst air pollution in months, the government said on Monday.

    A record 40,000 people took part in Sunday’s Standard Chartered Hong Kong Marathon and many complained of the thick smog which obscured the Tsing Ma Bridge, a key landmark along the route.

    Of the two runners who were critically ill, one collapsed near the finish in Wanchai, an area where the air pollution index (API) soared to nearly 150, the highest level since September 2005. The other collapsed not far from the Tsing Ma Bridge.
    … an expert in Hong Kong urged people not to underestimate the effects of bad air during strenuous exercise.
    “Pollution may have been the cause because of the high level of suspended particulates. For people with a history of asthma, polluted air can cause tightness in the chest,” said medical doctor Lo Winglok.
    “It is not surprising at all that these people could suffer from cardiac or respiratory related problems,” he said.
    However, Choi Kin, president of the Hong Kong Medical Association, said the condition of the two men was more likely to be linked to their level of fitness rather than air quality.

    Hong Kong’s air quality has deteriorated badly in recent years. On many days of the year, the former British colony handed back to China in 1997 is shrouded in smog and people can hardly see across the famous Victoria Harbour.
    Environmentalists blame the air pollution on emissions from vehicles in the territory and factories in southern China.

    Two runners critically ill after HK marathon

    Just checking air pollution indices – which are being published, and High; even at Tap Mun, out in Tolo Harbour in eastern New Territories: so, seems we’re in regional, Pearl River Delta pollution.
    [and govt wants to build major highway from Zhuhai and lots of associated infrastructure…]

    Post edited by: martin, at: 2006/02/14 01:18

    in reply to: Arctic wildlife headed for Ocean Park #7869

    American Zoos Assocition has a report re visitor learning at zoos

    I haven’t read, but just seen in email:

    Quote:
    The Aza conclusion: "Little to no systematic research has been conducted on the impact of visits to zoos and aquariums on visitor conservation knowledge, awareness, affect, or behavior." So much for their claims that zoos are important for purposes of conservation …

    – So might ask: of the tens of thousands of visitors to Ocean Park on a busy day, how many of them depart as supporters of conservation?

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 375 total)