At the Discovery Bay pier on a weekend, a lady and her Labrador board the ferry to Central—this is not an exception but a snapshot of daily life in the community. However, upon arriving in Central, she discovers that her beloved dog is denied access to most public transport, restaurants, and shopping malls.

In 2022, a local animal welfare organization’s survey found that over 65% of pet owners found it “very difficult” or “almost impossible” to dine out, use public transport, or visit recreational public spaces with their pets. Meanwhile, the proportion of families in Hong Kong owning pets continues to increase, with companion animals increasingly seen as family members.

Yet outdated regulations, such as the Food Business Regulation, the Mass Transit Railway By-Laws, and other public space management rules, have erected invisible walls that exclude companion animals from public life. This not only affects the quality of life for pet owners but also hinders the development of an inclusive and friendly modern city.

• Legal Barriers: Outdated Public Space Bans
  
  The main legal framework restricting access for companion animals in public spaces in Hong Kong was established decades ago, with its public health and management rationale severely lagging behind societal developments.
  
  The core restriction arises from Section 10B of the Food Business Regulation, which categorically prohibits bringing dogs into food businesses. This provision does not distinguish between animal types (e.g., do cats and rabbits apply?), sizes, or whether they are in pet bags or strollers, and fails to consider advancements in modern animal management technology—it represents a typical “one-size-fits-all” regulation.
  
  In public transport, the Mass Transit Railway By-Laws prohibit animals from entering, with exemptions only for guide dogs and animals placed in “approved containers” (usually enforced as completely sealed pet carriers). This means that even if a pet is calmly lying in a closed pet stroller, it may still be refused entry. The rules for franchised buses and minibuses are even more ambiguous, entirely depending on the driver’s personal judgment, resulting in uncertainty for pet owners.
  
  The original intent behind these bans may have been to maintain public health and order, but their implementation lacks flexibility and scientific basis, failing to balance the needs of different groups of citizens in a modern city.
  
• Overlooked Needs and Social Costs
  
  Strict restrictive policies incur multiple social costs, often underestimated by policymakers
  
  First, there is the impact on owners, particularly those from specific groups. For seniors, single individuals, or those with special needs who view companion animals as sources of emotional support, being unable to bring their pets while socializing, shopping, or using public transport effectively limits their social participation, exacerbating social isolation. Companion animals positively contribute to mental health, but these policy restrictions inadvertently diminish this support.
  
  Moreover, the policy stifles the development potential of the “pet economy.” In pet-friendly cities like Taipei, Tokyo, and Berlin, allowing pets into restaurants, shopping malls, tourist attractions, and certain public transport is the norm, creating a vast related industry. Hong Kong’s strict restrictions effectively abandon a potential growth point that could create jobs and stimulate local consumption. A local economist estimated in 2022 that orderly relaxation of some restrictions could yield significant annual growth potential within the relevant markets.
  
  Additionally, rigid bans do not help cultivate a culture of “responsible pet ownership.” Instead, they might drive some owners to take higher risks when needing to travel or resort to concealing their pets, which ultimately works against the effective management of public health.
  
• Global Practices: Tiered Management and Responsibility First
  
  Many cities internationally hailed as “pet-friendly” succeed not through unconditional openness but rather through a refined management system with clear rights and responsibilities.
  
  Zoned and Timed Precise Opening: These cities rarely impose total bans but instead outline clear guidelines for space and time. For example:
  
  • Restaurants can voluntarily apply for a “pet-friendly” license, meeting specific hygiene conditions (such as establishing separate areas, enhanced cleaning requirements).
  • Parks clearly define “pet activity zones” and “pet-free zones” (such as those adjacent to children’s playgrounds).
  • Public transport allows pets to travel during off-peak times if contained appropriately, sometimes requiring a pet ticket.
    
• The core of these strategies is the clear definition of owner responsibilities: the foundation of all opening policies is strict legal regulation of owner behavior. Common rules include:
  
  • Pets must be kept in bags, strollers, or on leashes in public indoor spaces.
  • Owners must immediately clean up after their pets.
  • If pets cause disturbances (such as barking or aggression), owners are responsible for removing them from the site.
  • Pets must meet vaccination and health requirements.
    
• Violations of these responsibilities face clear penalties. This model shifts the management focus from “controlling animals” to “controlling owners,” proving to be effective.

Pragmatic Public Transport Solutions: Cities like Berlin and Paris allow small pets to travel either free or with a ticket on subways; many private railways in Japan permit pets to be transported in containers of specified dimensions. Their commonality lies in the clarity of rules (container specifications, travel times) paired with strict responsibility requirements, facilitating the coexistence of public transport and pets.

• The Hong Kong Path: A Gradual Blueprint for Building a Pet-Friendly City
  
  Hong Kong can move from “restrictions” to “managed coexistence” without needing to implement everything at once but must have a clear roadmap and determination. We suggest the following pragmatic, step-by-step strategies:
  
  • Step One: Initiate Comprehensive Research and Social Consultation
    The government should promptly commission a multidisciplinary team (including experts in public health, urban planning, and animal behavior) to assess relaxing public space animal entry regulations through:
    
    • Scientific Risk Assessment: Evidence-based evaluations of the actual public health impacts, not assumptions.
    • Economic and Social Benefit Research.
    • Broad public opinion collection to understand concerns and expectations from both pet owners and non-owners.
    • This research will serve as the basis for rational policy discussions.
      
  • Step Two: Amend Legislation and Establish a Voluntary “Pet-Friendly Location” Certification
    This is the legal core of the reform. We propose amending Section 10B of the Food Business Regulation to change the absolute ban into a voluntary licensing system for “pet-friendly food establishments.” Restaurants willing to meet additional conditions (such as defined areas, enhanced ventilation and cleaning, and staff training) can apply for this license. This grants the industry flexibility and provides clear choices for citizens.
    
  • Step Three: Collaboratively Develop Public Transport Pet Travel Guidelines
    The government should actively coordinate with the MTR and franchised bus companies, referencing international experiences to develop unified and clear pet travel guidelines, considering starting trials from individual routes or modes (such as specific ferries or non-surface routes):
    
    • Clearly specify container specifications (size, enclosure).
    • Define permitted travel times (such as off-peak hours).
    • Require animals to be contained, prohibiting seat occupancy.
    • Establish a pet ticket or surcharge system.
      
  • Step Four: Launch a Citywide Citizen Education Campaign on “Being a Responsible Pet Friend”
    Policy relaxation must coincide with civic education. The government should collaborate with animal welfare organizations to initiate a large public education campaign, widely promoting the core tenets of “responsible pet ownership”: leash/container management, immediate clean-up, respect for others, and complete vaccinations. Clearly communicate the philosophy of “rights and responsibilities are equivalent” to lay the foundation for social consensus in building a friendly city.

Building a pet-friendly city signifies far more than simply “allowing pets inside.” It reflects whether a city respects diverse lifestyle choices of citizens, whether it is willing to use modern management wisdom to solve problems rather than resorting to simple prohibitions, and whether it acknowledges the emotional value and family status of companion animals in contemporary society.
Hong Kong in 2022 is ripe for re-examining these outdated regulations, supported by public sentiment. This reform requires courage from the government, foresight from the Legislative Council, innovative collaboration from the transportation and dining industries, and rational discussions among all citizens.

By dismantling these outdated “invisible walls,” we move towards not just a more animal-friendly Hong Kong but also a more inclusive, considerate, and warm urban metropolis. It is time to initiate this necessary dialogue and transformation.