The Future of Rural Communities

Winnie Law

Fig. 1 Villagers teaching visiting how to make Hakka tea cake, 2017 Photo Credit: Policy for Sustainability Lab

“Neighbourhood”, “community” and “society” are the terms used to describe a collective body of individuals sharing something in common. The “commons” that a community is made up of may include a wide range of building blocks, both tangible and intangible. Individuals are united because of shared history and culture: the same language and customs adopted, a common list of social, economic, and political issues, or simply having to live in the same geographical area and being governed by the same set of laws and policies.

Going beyond the “commons”, what make a place truly a community are the interactions between the individuals. The interactions can take place at different activity levels in a community: chit chat between a butcher and a customer, between the craftsman from a street corner shoe repair shop and a local passer-by in a neighbourhood, discussion between citizens and government officials in a public forum concerning greening in the district, an election campaign speech attended by constituency voters, or simply the expression of “Likes” on social media. While the interactions may or may not serve a specific functional purpose, social capital is generated from the contacts.

“Social capital is defined as an accumulation of the knowledge and identity resources drawn on by communities-of-common-purpose.” (Falk and Kilpatrick 2000)

Social capital is often explained as networks, norms, and trust embedded in communities. It is the product of social interactions (Falk and Kilpatrick 2000). Its existence reinforces social relationships (Bourdieu 1986) and facilitates certain actions of actors in the social structure (Coleman 1988).

Social capital and its virtues are considered the essential “glue” that links individuals and allows citizens (“I”) to expand their roles into a connected platform of institutions (“We”) – where a community is genuinely formed.

As we envision a livable and sustainable community, most of the items on this ideal

community’s checklist, such as poverty alleviation, climate change mitigation, sustainable production and consumption of natural resources, etc., can only be realised in a community with a rich stock of social capital. Besides barriers in technological advancement, many challenges in today’s societies are compounded by the weak sense of belonging, lack of will, and lack of participation and cooperation of inhabitants at all societal levels.

“Unless humanity learns a great deal more about global biodiversity, and moves quickly to protect it, we will soon lose most of the species composing life on Earth.” (E.O. Wilson 2016)

Most, if not all, human activities and interactions rely upon the goods and services provided by Nature. Materials for clothing and shelter, fuels for vehicles and machinery, and needless to say, food, come from the ecosystem. Without the bee population pollinating plants we would not have fruits, chocolate and coffee, or any vanilla-flavoured ice cream. Most cities around the world, including Hong Kong, use anaerobic digestion to treat municipal solid waste and sewage sludge where bacteria breaks down organic matter. Forests and its litter layers store and filter water before they run into rivers and reservoirs. Beyond the physical needs of mankind, we also turn to nature for leisure, enjoyment, and spiritual fulfillment.

No human community can function or be sustained in the absence of other living organisms. Human activities, however, pose various impacts, mostly negative ones, to the ecosystem. The mainstream approach of economic development, where externalities do not form part of the “costs”, has led to pollution and biodiversity exploitation. The ecosystem processes such as water and nutrient cycling are disturbed, and most of us in the 21st century have witnessed and borne the consequences.

Is it too late now to redefine the concept of community to embrace all the living creatures on Earth?

The depletion of social and natural capital in rural communities

Villages, or rural communities, display the best scene for the scrutiny of how social capital and natural capital interplay. Traditions and heritage are often best kept in villages. Rural areas also house a diversity of natural habitats that support human beings with clean water, fresh air and food. Compared to urban areas, the interactions between mankind and nature are made more visible in rural areas as the way of life of villagers is often in harmony with their natural surroundings. In most indigenous cultures, villagers are assumed to have the duty of environmental stewardship (Fig. 1).

Unfortunately, rural communities globally have been faced with tremendous challenges in recent decades. On one hand, rapid urbanisation and pressure for development have led to changes in demography and on land uses in villages. Farmland has been redeveloped into industrial parks and fishponds turned into landfills. On the other hand, rural communities also suffer from inaccessibility to public services and utilities, as well as information and communications technology (e.g. internet service). Spatial mobility is also an issue as these communities are often located far from the activity nodes in urban areas.

Consequently, many rural communities vanished as they were redeveloped as if they were brownfield sites – abandoned land with little value. The ones that remain are being depopulated as the young leave for better employment opportunities or a better quality of life, leaving the social and natural capital behind, to rot with little human interaction.

The rural revival

The impact of globalisation, and the consequences of climate change have given rise to a global concern over the future sustainability of rural communities. International organisations and local concern groups are proactively seeking ways to rebuild and revitalize rural communities. Eco-Villages, Transition Communities, Cultural Landscape Management are some of the concepts and approaches that aim to achieve the social, economic, and ecological wellbeing of rural communities holistically.

“Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and national heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration.” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation)

Japan is one of the early leaders in Asia in revitalizing its rural communities. The Satoyama Initiative was jointly launched by the Japanese government together with concerned non-governmental organisations in 2010, with the aim to “promote collaboration in the conservation and restoration of sustainable humaninfluenced natural environments” (IPSI, 2010). “Sato” in Japanese means village, and “yama” means hill or mountain. The concept of Satoyama generally refers to the management of landscape that consists of forests, communities and the farming areas that support the communities. The essence of the management approach is the flourishing of traditional

cultures and the enhancing of the productivity of the rural communities while conserving their rich biodiversity (Fig. 2).

Hong Kong has picked up the trend in recent years. A commonly cited example is the sustainable revitalization of Lai Chi Wo, initiated by the Policy for Sustainability Lab at the University of Hong Kong in collaboration with the village itself, and three other non-governmental, not-for-profit, organisations. Lai Chi Wo is a traditional local Hakka village situated in the northeastern part of Hong Kong. The Lai Chi Wo catchment houses diversified habitats including: rocky shore, mangrove and mudflat, secondary forest, freshwater streams and mature woodland. An internationally renowned ecologist openly proposed to designate Lai Chi Wo as a World Heritage Site as its “…intervening stand of near-intact mangroves represents the only natural transition from protected landward woodland to protected seaward shore in Hong Kong” (Morton 2016). Some have claimed that such an undisturbed natural transition zone could be the best remaining one in the greater southern China region.

The Hakka village itself has a documented history of more than 300 years. Like many other rural communities, the local Hakka sustained their living with farming and fishing in the nearby areas. Terrace farming was the farming method the local Hakka employed to cultivate hilly terrain. The villagers also kept the forest, or the Feng Shui Wood, behind the village houses intact as the natural barrier to protect the village from landslides and hill fires. Today’s research also reveals that the Feng Shui Wood provides other ecosystem services, such as the moderation of microclimate to human settlements. The natural setting with the physical traces of human interventions is a typical one as described by the Satoyama concept.

The Lai Chi Wo village once had a population of roughly 1,000 individuals or 200 households. When the revitalization project began in 2013, the village only had a couple of villagers staying occasionally overnight in the village, although many villagers returned for various festivals on an annual basis. The villagers also maintained and kept up the original houses as much as possible (Fig. 3).

With the blessing of the Hong Kong SAR Government and support from the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, the project team re-established five hectares of farmland, now housing both production and community farms with produce including rice, ginger, turmeric, papaya, white radish, etc. Food processing teams were set up to carry out value-added processing of some of the produce. Training programmes on the themes of sustainability, environment and culture were developed – gradually making the village an experiential learning hub for students at all levels. Scholars and researchers were invited to conduct hydrological research and ecological monitoring programmes at Lai Chi Wo with the objective of enhancing and restoring its natural habitats. The range of social, economic and environmental management activities attracted the early return of some emigrated villagers and also new settlers who aspire to live a rural lifestyle (Figs. 4-5).

The initial success of Lai Chi Wo resulted in its being named by the travel guide, Lonely Planet, as one of the most recommended destinations in Asia in 2016. The partnership and engagement model and some of the eco-farming

Fig. 3 Village houses in Lai Chi Wo / 2016 Photo Credit: Policy for Sustainability Lab

methods employed were listed in the United Nations Development Programme’s NatureBased Solutions Database as recommended sustainability solutions. These have proven that the community regeneration attempts at Lai Chi Wo are on the right track.

The next phase of the revitalization programme focuses on the incubation of socio-economic models and rural startups. Insights and lessons learnt will be consolidated and organised, and an academy will be established to offer interested individuals relevant training and hands-on learning experience. The long-term vision is to be able to apply the Lai Chi Wo revitalization model to other locations in Hong Kong and in the region. While different rural communities each have their unique strengths and conditions, the social and institutional set up and the collaborative village governance structure could be replicated. What truly matters is still the social interactions.

Art and artists in villages

“A dearth of information, however, about how the arts integrate with, and support, other community development processes and strategies exists. Remote/rural communities, as well as the organisations that purport to support them in development programmes, must be challenged to be innovative and visit new vistas to develop comprehensive and integrated visions for the future, pursuing less insular and narrowly focused art forms and projects.” (Skippington & Davis 2016)

In the case of Lai Chi Wo, the revitalization project is blessed to have the involvement of some keen and innovative artists and craftsmen, such as Vincci Mak, Monti Lai, Ivy Wong and Lam Chi. Some inspiring art projects include: land art exhibitions and appreciation tours, urban-rural re-connect projects through activities, such as the art of making roasted rice tea, and soil art workshops using the natural gradient of the local soil as paint, etc. (Fig. 6).

Reflecting on the impact and contribution artists could bring to a rural community, their possible roles are unlimited. They have nature as their teacher, wild animals and plants as muses, and the changing of the seasons and climate as their canvas. Artists in the Lai Chi Wo project have served as discussion moderators, explaining where and how their art pieces display nature-human harmony. They have been activists advocating sustainability ideology in front of audiences from different walks of life. They have been farmers, as they grew their own ingredients for their projects. They have been teachers to those who wish to experience life in the village. Most importantly, they have been great partners – bringing vision, energy, creativity and imagination to a 300 year-old village.

A community is always made up of individuals with differences and commons; a sustainable community must be one that facilitates collaborations among different players for the greater social and environmental good.

Fig. 4 Village houses revitalization, 2015 Photo Credit: Policy for Sustainability Lab

Fig. 5 Biodiversity in Lai Chi Wo, 2014 Photo Credit: Policy for Sustainability Lab

Fig. 6 Soil Art Workshop with kids / 2017 / Photo Credit: Policy for Sustainability Lab

References

Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The Forms of Capital,” pp. 241-58 in Richardson, J. F. (eds) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New work: Greenwood Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”, American Journal of Society, Vol. 94 (Supplement), pp. 95-120.

Falk, I. & Kilpatrick, S. (2000). “What is Social Capital? A Study of Interaction in a Rural Community”, Journal of the European Society for Rural Sociology, Vol. 40(1), pp. 87-110.

International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (2010). IPSI Official Website. Retrieved from http://satoyama-initiative.org/partnership/.

Morton, B. (2016). “Hong Kong’s mangrove biodiversity and its conservation within the context of a southern Chinese megalopolis: A review and a proposal for Lai Chi Wo to be designated as a World Heritage Site”, Regional Studies in Marine Science, Vol. 8, pp. 382-399.

Skippington, P. A. & Davis, D. F. (2016). “Artsbased community development: rural remote realities and challenges”, Rural Society, Vol. 25(3), pp. 222-239.

Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Eight for Life, New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.

Winnie Law

Associate Director, Policy for Sustainability Lab, Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Winnie Law specialises in community engagement, sustainable development and environmental management. Law is Associate Director (Policy for Sustainability Lab) and Principal Lecturer of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Hong Kong.

Besides teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, Law leads a team of researchers conducting policy research, consultancy studies and knowledge exchange projects on community revitalization, sustainability assessment, social impact assessment and public engagement for policies and infrastructure projects, as well as capacity building and training for environmental conservation.

She has been director of the Conservancy Association since 2005. Law sits on a number of HKSAR Government’s advisory committees including Environmental Campaign Committee. At the regional level, Law was commissioned by the EU, UNDP and UEPP as a planning and social monitoring expert for their environmental enhancement and education programmes in Vietnam.

羅惠儀

Fig. 1 村民教導遊客製造客家茶粿 / 2017 攝影：策動永續發展坊

社區營造

當一群有共通點的人聚在一起時，我們一般會用「鄰里」、「社群/社區」、「社會」等詞彙來形容他們。 社區的「共通點」可包括多種多樣有形和無形的構件。這些人團結起來是由於他們有著共同的歷史和文 化、相同的語言和習俗，關注著相同的社會、經濟和政治議題，或只是因為他們生活在相同的地理區域， 並受同一套法律和政策約束。

然而，除了這些「共通點」以外，使一個地方真正構成社區的，是人與人之間的互動。互動可以發生在 社區上不同層面的活動中：肉店東主與顧客之間的閒聊，街角店舖的鞋匠與街坊之間的談話家常，市民 和政府官員在探討地區綠化的論壇上進行的討論，候選人向選民發表的競選演說，或者只是在社交媒體 上「讚好」。儘管互動未必能達到其設定目的，但社會資本已能夠在聯繫中建立。

「社會資本的定義是由共同目標社區所吸取的知識、身份資源所積累。」 (Falk and Kilpatrick 2000)

社會資本通常被解釋為社區的網絡、規範和信任。它是社會交往的產物（Falk and Kilpatrick 2000）， 其存在能加強社會關係（Bourdieu 1986），並促進社會結構中持分者的行為（Coleman 1988）。

社會資本及其優點被認為是人與人互相關聯的「粘合劑」，並促使個別市民（「我」）在一個相互聯繫 的平台上擴大自己的角色（「我們」）— 這就是一個社區的構成。

當我們想像一個宜居的社區時，可持續社區清單 中的大部份項目，例如減輕貧困、減緩氣候變 化、可持續生產和消費天然資源等，都只能在社 會資本豐富的社區中實現。當今社會正面對複合 的挑戰，除了技術障礙之外，市民歸屬感薄弱， 一般都缺乏意識和意願在不同社會層面參與和合 作。

「除非人類對全球生物多樣性的了解大幅增進， 並且迅速採取行動保護它，否則我們很快就會失 去構成地球生命的大部份物種。」 (E.O. Wilson 2016)

大多數人類活動和互動都依賴自然界提供的物品 和服務。衣服和住所的材料、車輛和機器的燃料 均來自生態系統，食物則更不用說。沒有蜜蜂給 植物授粉，我們就不會有水果、巧克力、咖啡， 或香草味的冰淇淋。世界大多數城市包括香港， 都使用厭氧消化技術來處理城市固體廢物和污 泥，利用細菌分解廢物和污泥中的有機物質。森 林及枯枝落葉層能夠儲水，並讓水分在進入河流 和水塘之前得到過濾。人類除了從大自然獲得生 理需求的供應之外，也在大自然當中進行消閒活 動和尋求精神享受。

沒有其他物種的存在，人類社群就不能運作和存 續，但人類活動卻對生態系統構成許多影響，而 且主要是負面的。主流經濟發展模式沒有考慮環 境成本，因而導致污染和生物多樣性過度開發， 生態系統的水和養分循環等受到干擾。在二十一 世紀，我們都見證著這一切，並正承受其後果。

如今重新定義社區這個概念，使其包括地球上所 有的生物，是否太晚了？

農村社區消失中的瑰寶

村莊或農村社區是展示社會資本、自然資本如何 互相影響的最佳場景。我們往往能在鄉村中看見 傳統習俗和古蹟遺產。鄉村還擁有多種自然生 境，為人類提供清潔水源、清新空氣、多種食物。 與城市相比，人類與自然的互動在農村地區更為 明顯，因為村民的生活方式往往與自然環境相協 調。在大多數土著文化中，村民都承擔著環境管 理的責任（Fig. 1）。

近幾十年來，全球農村社區不幸地面臨著巨大的 挑戰。一方面，急速的城市化和發展壓力改變了 農村人口狀況和土地用途，很多農田已經重新發 展成為工業園區，魚塘變成了垃圾堆填區；另一 方面，農村社區的公共設施及服務，以至資訊及 信訊科技（如互聯網服務）等發展也無法與當代 需要接軌。這些社區亦大多位處偏遠，交通不 便，遠離城市的活動樞紐。

因此，許多農村社區就在發展過程中消失，被當 成沒有在地價值的棕地般被推土重建。逃過都市 化衝擊的農村社區亦面對人口嚴重流失的問題。 年輕村民紛紛離開農村，出外尋求更好的就業機 會和生活質量，導致人與人之間、人與自然之間 幾乎沒有互動，社會和自然資本凋零。

農村復興

全球化和氣候變化的影響已引起全球對農村社區 未來可持續性的關注。國際組織和在地關注團體 正在積極尋求重建和振興農村社區的方法。「生 態村」、「轉型社區」、「文化景觀管理」等都 是一些旨在全面重塑農村社區之社會、經濟和生 態優勢的概念和方法。

「遺產是我們過去的軌跡，是我們今天的生活， 也是我們傳給後代的東西。我們的文化和民族遺 產是生命和靈感之不可替代的來源。」 （聯合國教育、科學與文化組織）

日本在振興農村社區方面起步較早，已經成為亞 洲的表表者之一。「里山倡議」是日本政府和一 些相關非政府組織於2010年聯合發起的，目的 是「促進合作以保護和修復可持續的人類影響自

然環境」（IPSI 2010）。日文的「sato」是指村莊， 「yama」是指山。里山的概念是指由森林、社區、支 持社區的農業地區所組成的景觀管理。管理方法的重 點在於傳統文化延續、農村社區生產力的持續發展， 以及同時保護當地的生物多樣性（Fig. 2）。

近年來這個國際趨勢也在香港出現，當中一個具代表 性的例子，是由香港大學策動永續發展坊夥拍另外三 個非政府組織及村民，在荔枝窩發起的永續鄉村活化 計劃。荔枝窩村是位於香港東北部的傳統客家村落。 荔枝窩流域擁有多樣化的生境，包括岩岸、紅樹林和 泥灘、次生林、淡水溪流和成熟的風水林地。一位國 際知名的生態學家公開建議將荔枝窩列為世界遺產， 因為它具有「……一個縱橫交錯而且近乎完整的紅樹 林，由陸上受保護的林地自然過渡到受保護的海岸， 是香港的唯一例子」（Morton 2016）。亦有學者認 為這種不受人為干擾的自然生境過渡，可能是華南地 區最好的範例（Fig. 3）。

荔枝窩客家村已有300多年歷史。像其他許多農村社 區一樣，當地的客家人昔日在附近地區以農業和漁業 為生。梯田是當地客家人在山坡上種植的農耕方式。 村民將村後的樹林及風水林保留下來，作為保護村莊 防禦山泥傾瀉和山火的天然屏障。當代的研究亦發現 風水林提供其他生態系統服務，例如緩和人類住區的 微氣候。具有人類干預物理痕跡的自然環境，是里山 倡議概念所描述的典型環境。

荔枝窩村曾有多達200戶共約一千名村民居住。當永 續鄉村活化計劃在2013年開始時，儘管許多村民每 年都會回來參加各種節慶活動，村中只有幾個村民偶 爾在村裡過夜。可幸的是村民仍盡可能保養及復修村 屋（Fig. 4）。

在香港上海滙豐銀行有限公司的支持、香港特別行政 區政府的協助下，計劃團隊重新開墾了五公頃的農田， 其中包括生產農場和社區農場，種植大米、薑、薑黃、 木瓜、白蘿蔔等；並且建立了食品加工隊，對部份產 品進行增值加工。團隊亦開拓可持續發展、環境和村 落文化主題的培訓和訓練計劃，使荔枝窩村成為各

Fig. 2 日本白川鄉 / 2014 攝影：Anna Yau

Fig. 3 荔枝窩和周圍的自然環境 / 2017 攝影：策動永續發展坊

Fig. 4 荔枝窩村屋/ 2016 / 攝影：策動永續發展坊

Fig. 5 村屋活化 / 2015 / 攝影：策動永續發展坊

Fig. 6 荔枝窩稻田 / 2014 / 攝影：策動永續發展坊

級學生的體驗學習基地。為加強和恢復當地生境，學 者和研究人員亦在荔枝窩進行水文研究和生態監測計 劃。這些林林總總的社會、經濟和環境管理活動，為 荔枝窩重新注入活力，吸引了一些移居外地的村民提 早回歸，並為渴望退隱歸田的新村民提供了安身之處 （Figs. 5-6）。

荔枝窩永續鄉村活化計劃的初步成效，獲著名國際旅 遊指南「Lonely Planet」選為2016年亞洲十大最佳 旅遊景點之一。計劃的多元協作模式、所採用的一些 生態農法，更獲聯合國開發計劃署選收入其數據庫， 作為以大自然為本的永續發展解決推薦方案。這些都 印證了重塑荔枝窩鄉郊社區的方向是正確的。

永續鄉村活化計劃的下一階段，側重於社會經濟模式 和農村初創企業的孵化。計劃亦會建立專題學院為有 興趣的人士提供相關的培訓和學習經驗。長遠目標是 希望能夠將荔枝窩活化模式應用於香港的其他鄉村甚 至境外地區。雖然不同的農村社區有其獨特的優勢和 條件，但社區和體制建立、鄉村治理協作的模式是可 以借鏡的。真正重要的還是社區人士之間的互動。

藝術和農村藝術家

「然而，對偏遠及鄉郊社區、聲稱於發展項目中支持 他們的機構，均普遍缺乏資訊，以融合藝術與其他社 區發展過程和戰略。因此應以創新及探索新領域的精 神，為未來發展全面和綜合的願景，減少追求過於狹 隘的藝術形式和項目。」 (Skippington & Davis 2016)

荔枝窩永續鄉村活化計劃有幸吸引了一些充滿熱誠且 富有創意的藝術家和工匠參與，當中包括麥詠詩、黎 慧儀、王曉欣、林池等，推出了一些鼓舞人心的藝術 項目，例如大地藝術展覽和導賞，通過製作炒米茶促 進城鄉重新連結的藝術項目，及以土壤作為天然顏料 的土壤藝術工作坊等（Fig. 7）。 反思藝術家可以給農村帶來的影響和貢獻，他們的角 色是無界限的。他們以大自然為老師，揣摩野生動植 物，並以變換的季節和氣候為畫布。荔枝窩永續鄉村 活化計劃的藝術家是協調員，讓藝術作品展示人與自 然的和諧；他們是倡議者，向各行各業的觀眾倡導可 持續發展的意識形態；他們是農夫，以自己種出的農 作物作為藝術作品的原材料；他們也是那些希望體驗 鄉村生活的城市人的老師；最重要的是，他們是優秀 的合作夥伴，為一個有300 年歷史的鄉村帶來了視野、 活力、創造力與想像力。

社區總是由不相同但有著共通點的個人組成；一個永 續社區必須能促進不同持分者為實現社區和環境效益 而互相合作。

Fig. 7 兒童泥土藝術工作坊 / 2017 攝影：策動永續發展坊

參考資料

Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The Forms of Capital”, in Richardson, J. F. (eds). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New work: Greenwood Press, pp. 241-58.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”, American Journal of Society, Vol. 94 (Supplement), pp. 95-120.

Falk, I. & Kilpatrick, S. (2000). “What is Social Capital? A Study of Interaction in a Rural Community ”, Journal of the European Society for Rural Sociology, Vol. 40 (1), pp. 87-110.

International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (2010). IPSI Official Website. Retrieved from http://satoyama-initiative. org/partnership/.

Morton, B. (2016). “Hong Kong’s mangrove biodiversity and its conservation within the context of a southern Chinese megalopolis: A review and a proposal for Lai Chi Wo to be designated as a World Heritage Site” , Regional Studies in Marine Science, Vol. 8, pp. 382-399.

Skippington, P. A. & Davis, D. F. (2016). “Artsbased community development: rural remote realities and challenges”, Rural Society, Vol. 25(3), pp. 222-239.

Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Eight for Life, New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.

羅惠儀 香港大學社會科學學院策動永續發展坊副總監

羅惠儀專門研究社區參與、可持續發展和環境管理。 她是香港大學社會科學學院首席講師、策動永續發 展坊副總監。

她教授可持續發展、城市規劃及環境管理課程，並 帶領一群研究員進行政策研究、顧問報告、社區活 化的知識交流項目、政策的可持續性評估、社會影 響評估及公眾參與的政策和基建項目，以及對環境 保育的培訓項目。

自2005年起她擔任長春社理事，並獲EU、 UNDP、UEPP 委任為越南環境改善、教育項目的 規劃及監測專員。

50