A mother wild boar and her piglet rummage through a trash bin along Pok Fu Lam Road, their natural habitat disappearing, forcing them to adapt to a life on the fringes of human urban existence.

In 2023, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) received over 1,200 reports of wild boar disturbances, nearly tripling from five years ago. The government announced the regularization of wild boar culling policies, sparking widespread debate. This situation reflects not only issues of wildlife management but also the deep-seated conflict between urban expansion and ecological conservation in Hong Kong.

Urban wildlife in Hong Kong—especially wild boars and monkeys—stands at a crossroads of survival. Their plight exposes the serious flaws in current policies, which emphasize “crisis response” rather than “scientific management.”

• Escalating Conflict: Blurring Boundaries Between Humans and Wildlife

Hong Kong’s unique geography, characterized by many hills and limited flat land, creates a tight living arrangement between urban and natural environments. As urban development encroaches on traditional habitats, wildlife is forced to expand their foraging ranges into human communities.

The wild boar issue is particularly pronounced. These highly adaptable omnivores discover that the food sources available in human communities (trash, feeding) are more abundant and easier to access than those in their natural habitats. In 2023, numerous cases of wild boars wandering into urban streets and even malls were widely reported in the media, heightening public safety concerns.

Similarly, the situation with monkey troops is alarming. Residents near traditional habitats like the Kam Shan Country Park have long been troubled by monkeys, which have learned to obtain food from tourists and even entered homes to forage. AFCD data shows that over 600 reports of monkey disturbances were received in 2023, primarily focused around the North District and Kam Shan area.

This escalation of conflict not only threatens public safety but also has severe implications for animal welfare. When wildlife depend on human food sources, they suffer from nutritional imbalances, deteriorating health, and altered behavioral patterns, disrupting natural population regulation mechanisms.

• Policy Dilemma: Ineffective Culling-Dominated Response Model

Faced with increasing human-wildlife conflict, the Hong Kong government has long relied on “humane treatment” (i.e., culling) as a central response measure. At the end of 2021, the AFCD announced regular capture and humane handling of wild boars found in urban areas, marking a normalization of this policy.

However, this “kill one to scare others” reactive model has proven to be limited in effectiveness and highly controversial in practice. Scientific studies consistently show that targeted culling fails to solve the underlying issues. When certain individuals are removed, the population density temporarily decreases, creating ecological space that encourages more animals to migrate in or breed more rapidly, resulting in a “vacuum effect.”

Animal welfare organizations have pointed out issues with the culling process itself. Reports in 2023 revealed that certain methods used in the culling operations could cause unnecessary suffering to the animals, contradicting the “humane” principle. Moreover, this approach does not address the root causes of conflict: habitat loss and the accessibility of human food sources.
Public acceptance of this policy has also been declining. A 2023 opinion poll indicated that over 60% of citizens disapprove of using culling as the primary means to handle wild boar issues, while 70% support prioritizing non-lethal management methods.

• International Lessons: Shifting from Adversarial to Coexistence Management Models

Many cities around the world facing similar challenges have successfully transitioned from “adversarial management” to “coexistence management.”

Singapore’s experience is particularly instructive for Hong Kong. This highly urbanized nation also faces disturbances from wild boars and monkeys but focuses on source management and behavioral modification in its strategies. The National Parks Board of Singapore implements strict waste management policies, employing animal-proof garbage bins and imposing hefty fines (up to SGD 10,000) for feeding wildlife.

Some cities in Japan adopt more innovative approaches to monkey management. They train “monkey patrol teams” to use drones to monitor monkey troop movements and issue alerts when the monkeys approach urban areas. Simultaneously, they establish “buffer zones” planted with fruits preferred by monkeys but not typically cultivated by humans to guide the monkeys away from communities.

The UK’s management of urban foxes showcases the value of public education. By educating citizens on how to coexist safely with foxes (such as ensuring garbage bags are sealed and not intentionally feeding them), the city has successfully reduced conflict reports. Estimates suggest that over 10,000 foxes now inhabit London, yet serious disturbance cases have declined year by year.

The common thread among these successful cases is the recognition that complete eradication of wildlife is unrealistic; instead, the focus should shift to managing human behaviors and environmental factors to create sustainable coexistence.

• A Scientific Path: Comprehensive Management Framework for Hong Kong

Based on international experiences and local realities, Hong Kong should thoroughly reform its wildlife management policies to establish a scientifically-based, prevention- oriented comprehensive framework.

First Pillar: Source Management and Habitat Management

The most effective long-term strategy is to reduce wildlife dependency on human communities. This requires a multifaceted approach: upgrading the design of garbage bins citywide to include animal-proof models, strictly enforcing laws against feeding wildlife (with fewer than 20 related convictions recorded in 2023, demonstrating insufficient deterrence), and creating “ecological buffer zones” at the edges of country parks by planting native species that provide natural food sources for wildlife.

Second Pillar: Non-Lethal Population Management

For populations that have adapted to urban environments, scientific non-lethal management is necessary. Ongoing wild boar sterilization programs should be expanded and evaluated; exploring the use of immunocontraceptive technologies to control monkey populations should be considered; and establishing mechanisms for relocating “problem animals” to remote wilderness areas.

Third Pillar: Community Alert and Response System

Drawing from Japanese experiences, create a wildlife activity monitoring network that alerts residents in advance when animals approach communities. Train community liaisons to assist residents in taking preventive measures. Establish a 24-hour wildlife hotline to provide professional advice on response strategies, rather than solely relying on capture.

Fourth Pillar: Public Education and Behavior Change

Long-term solutions depend on changing public behavior. Initiate a citywide educational campaign to spread knowledge about safe coexistence with wildlife. Special interventions should target those who feed wildlife, explaining the long-term harms of feeding. Relevant content should be integrated into the school curriculum to foster ecological literacy in the next generation.

• Policy Recommendations: Towards a City of Human-Wildlife Coexistence

To achieve this management transformation, the Hong Kong government must implement the following policy adjustments:

First, establish a “Wildlife Coexistence Management Strategy” that centers on “scientific management, prevention-oriented, and public education” as core principles. This strategy should set specific targets, such as reducing human-wildlife conflict reports by 50% within five years, and create an evaluation mechanism for effectiveness.

Second, reform the organization and resource allocation within the AFCD. Establish a dedicated “Wildlife Coexistence Division” that brings together professionals in ecology, animal behavior, and community collaboration. Increase resource allocation for non-

lethal management tools, ensuring that sterilization and contraception programs reach effective scales.

Third, strengthen inter-departmental collaboration. Waste management overseen by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, marginal lands managed by the Lands Department, and urban planning by the Development Bureau must all consider wildlife management. Establish a permanent coordination mechanism to ensure policy consistency.

Fourth, introduce independent scientific oversight. Establish an advisory committee comprising local and international experts to regularly review the effectiveness of management measures and their impact on animal welfare. All significant decisions should be based on publicly available scientific data and assessments.
Finally, promote community participatory management. Pilot community management plans in conflict hotspot areas, allowing residents to participate in the design and implementation of solutions. This not only increases acceptance of measures but also fosters community self-management capabilities.

A 2023 study by City University of Hong Kong highlights that the urban wildlife issue fundamentally reflects a “human problem.” Changes in animal behavior are responses to human alterations of the environment, meaning effective solutions should also come from adjusting human behaviors and environmental management.

Hong Kong boasts a rare richness in biodiversity among global cities, which should be seen as an asset rather than a burden. In facing human-wildlife conflicts, what we need are not more weapons and traps, but more science, creativity, and empathy.

Transitioning from confrontation to coexistence will not only improve animal welfare and reduce community disturbances but also shape Hong Kong into an international metropolis that truly respects all forms of life and pursues sustainable development. When wild boars enter urban areas again, we can choose not fear and exile but understanding and coexistence.