Dynamics and discrepancies in rural–urban village regeneration: A case study of a coastal community in Hong Kong SAR, China

Abstract

Village revitalization has garnered significant attention in urbanized regions such as Hong Kong, where researchers and practitioners are actively responding to the rural revitalization movement inspired by China’s policies to enhance agricultural activities, preserve cultural heritage, and stimulate economic development. This article examines the historical, cultural, and ecological significance of Shui Hau village, a coastal farming, and rural–urban community, alongside the implementation of novel village regeneration initiatives proposed by the authors. The primary aim is to illustrate the mechanisms behind these initiatives, explore the dynamics between stakeholders and researchers, and analyze the dual role of researchers as both trusted outsiders and effective collaborators. These insights are intended to inform future practices and recommend context-specific policy changes. Adopting a case study approach, this article contributes to the growing body of qualitative rural studies in the wider Asian context. Challenges relevant to village regeneration, including land boundaries, the Small House Policy, and planning and conservation regulations under the existing legal framework, are documented. As part of a broader action research initiative, three government-funded projects were proposed and implemented to revitalize cultural values: (i) Rediscovering traditions and rituals through tactical interventions, (ii) restoring the grain store as a farming cooperative, and (iii) transforming the stone house into a living culture cooperative. This retrospective review reveals key dynamics and discrepancies, including intricate land ownership issues, unspecific regulations, loose governance, and mismatches between expectations and actual outcomes. From a practitioner’s perspective, systemic changes at multiple levels are recommended to better engage stakeholders and facilitate more effective countryside regeneration.

Keywords

Countryside regeneration / Architectural restoration / Rural–urban village / Community engagement / Bottom-up initiatives / Village dynamics

Acknowledgments

None.

Funding

This research was made possible under the Lantau Conservation Fund (MA-2020-02) administered by the Sustainable Lantau Office of the Hong Kong SAR Government.

Conflict of interest

Thomas W.L. Chung is the Guest Editor of this special issue but was not in any way involved in the editorial and peer-review process conducted for this paper, directly or indirectly. Separately, other authors declared that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Jimmy T.W. Ho Formal analysis: Jimmy T.W. Ho Funding acquisition: All authors Investigation: Jimmy T.W. Ho Methodology: Jimmy T.W. Ho Project administration: All authors Supervision: Thomas W.L. Chung Visualization: Jimmy T.W. Ho Writing – original draft: Jimmy T.W. Ho Writing – review & editing: Jimmy T.W. Ho

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

[1] Bell, M. M. (1992). The fruit of difference: The rural—urban continuum as a system of identity. Rural Sociology, 57(1): 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549—0831.1992.tb00457.x

[2] Bullock, R., & Lamoureux, B. (2025). Understanding “public” framings of private places and psychological ownership in a rural land use conflict. Journal of Rural Studies, 114: 103477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103477

[3] Chang, K. K. (2022). Community Practices in Lai Chi Wo: Limitations and Futures of Rural—urban Symbiosis . Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist University.

[4] Chang, W. P. H. (2023). Rediscovery of Cultural Landscapes in Southern China: Sustainable Heritage and Planning in Rural Settlements . London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003030225

[5] Chau, L. Y., & Lau, S. K. (1982). Development, colonial rule, and intergroup conflict in a Chinese Village in Hong Kong. Human Organization, 41(2): 139-146.

[6] Dong, J. (2018). Language and identity construction of China’s rural—urban migrant children: An ethnographic study in an Urban public school. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 17(5): 336-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2018.1470517

[7] Dragan, A., Creţan, R., Jucu, I. S., & Oancea, O. A. (2024). Rural landscapes as cultural heritage and identity along a Romanian river. Heritage, 7(8): 4354-4373. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7080205

[8] Du, X., & Shi, D. (2019). Rural heritage: Value, conservation and revitalisation—from the perspective of the human—land relationship. Built Heritage, 3(2): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03545723

[9] Hase, P. H. (2008). The Six—Day War of 1899: Hong Kong in the Age of Imperialism . Hong Kong University Press. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1xwbjg [Last accessed on 2025 Feb 11].

[10] Ho, J. T. (2024). Emergent place—identity: Place activation through the architectural restoration of a small Hakka household in the Hong Kong countryside. Built Heritage, 8(1): 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238—024—00117—4

[11] Hoffmann, E. M., Schareika, N., Dittrich, C., Schlecht, E., Sauer, D., & Buerkert, A. (2023). Rurbanity: A concept for the interdisciplinary study of rural—urban transformation. Sustainability Science, 18: 1739-1753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625—023—01331—2

[12] Hopkinson, L., & Lei, M. L. M. (2003). Rethinking the Small House Policy . Civic Exchange. Available from: https://civic—exchange.org/dev/wp—content/uploads/2003/09/47—200309land_rethinksmallhouse_en.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 Feb 11].

[13] Knapp, R. G. (1986). China’s Traditional Rural Architecture: A Cultural Geography of the Common House . United States: University of Hawaii Press.

[14] Knapp, R. G. (2024). China’s vernacular architectural heritage and historic preservation. Built Heritage, 8(1): 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238—024—00153—0

[15] Koolhaas, R. (2020). Countryside: A Report . Cologne, Germany: Taschen America LLC.

[16] Lang, W., Gkartzios, M., Yan, J., Chen, T., & Tan, S. (2024). Community Co—creation through knowledge (Co)Production: The engagement of universities in promoting rural revitalization in China. Journal of Rural Studies, 112: 103455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103455

[17] Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2016). Small House Policy . The Legislative Council. Available from: https://www.legco.gov.hk/research—publications/english/essentials—1516ise10—small—house—policy.htm [Last accessed on 2025 Feb 11].

[18] Liu, C., Valentine, G., Vanderbeck, R. M., Diprose, K., & McQuaid, K. (2019). Rural—urban inequality and the practice of promoting sustainability in contemporary China. GeoJournal, 84(5): 1187-1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708—018—9915—y

[19] Ma, K. W. (2016). Sustainable development and social policy: A case of indigenous villages in Hong Kong. Asian Education and Development Studies, 5(3): 305-317. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS—09—2015—0051

[20] Magnus, A. M., & Rai, K. (2024). Doing rural community—based action research (CBAR): Community perceptions and methodological impacts. Qualitative Research, 24(4): 851-871. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941231188884

[21] McManus, P. (2022). Counterurbanisation, demographic change and discourses of rural revival in Australia during COVID—19. Australian Geographer, 53(4): 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2022.2042037

[22] Nissim, R. (2021). Land Administration and Practice in Hong Kong. 5^th ed. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

[23] Osborne, S., Williamson, A., & Beattie, R. (2004). Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships: Exploring the rural dimension. Local Government Studies, 30(2): 156-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300393042000267218

[24] Rust, C., Mottram, J., & Till, J. (2007). AHRC Research Review Practice—Led Research in Art, Design and Architecture . United Kingdom: Arts and Humanities Research Council.

[25] Strijker, D., Bosworth, G., & Bouter, G. (2020). Research methods in rural studies: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Journal of Rural Studies, 78: 262-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.007

[26] Tang, B., Wong, S., & Lee, A. K. W. (2005). Green belt, countryside conservation and local politics: A Hong Kong case study. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 17(3): 230-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467—940X.2005.00103.x

[27] Tang, B., Wong, S., & Lee, A. K. W. (2007). Green belt in a compact city: A zone for conservation or transition? Landscape and Urban Planning , 79(3): 358-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.04.006

[28] Wu, M., Zhang, Q. F., & Donaldson, J. (2024). Post—productivism and rural revitalization in China: Drivers and outcomes. Journal of Rural Studies, 110: 103382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103382

[29] WWF Hong Kong. (2021). Preserving the Natural Wealth of Southern Lantau Island of Hong Kong: A Coastal Watershed Analysis to Identify Priority Lowland Habitats for Protection and Restoration . WWF Hong Kong . Available from: https://wwfhk.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_south_lantau_watershed_analysis_27sept2021.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 Feb 11].

[30] Yan, J., Chen, H., & Xia, F. (2018). Toward improved land elements for urban—rural integration: A cell concept of an urban—rural mixed community. Habitat International, 77: 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.01.007

[31] Yu, L., Wang, Y., & Li, M. (2024). The emergence of counter—urbanisation in China: Can it be a pathway for rural revitalisation? Habitat International, 144: 102998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102998