關於 environmental protection中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

去年的案子中我選了這幅參加美國ADC Award，雖然沒有得獎，但報名的時候滿心希望這幅台灣的作品和這個計畫能讓更多人看到。畫中其實有很多細節，有興趣的話下方是參賽時寫的作品描述（我還沒翻中文版）：

The illustration visualized an eco-political project that advocates for environmental protection, conservation and encourages people to search for their identity by walking into nature. The image not only depicts the project concepts, but also comprehensively shows 6 primary missions: The Green New Deal, Nature Protection, Carbon Valley, Rite of Passage, Soft Power, and Geopolitical Cornerstone. This enables the client to propose the project to the government, and promote ideas of environmental and political changes to the public.

Taiwan is an island divided by the Central Mountain Range. Located to the west of the range are the large cities inhabited by the majority of the population. In contrast, located to the east of the range are the natural sites and homes of the indigenous population for thousands of years. The 3 hikers depicted on the left are a metaphor for people searching for their identity. By walking through the Japanese Shrine, they cross over Taiwan’s complex history of colonization by many different countries. On the right side is an imaginary city called “Carbon Valley,” which is the idea of a sustainable energy research centre. The Formosan Sika deer is the endemic species in Taiwan but became extinct in 1969. In the illustration, it symbolizes and raises the awareness of nature conservation.

The commission was delivered in August 2020, however the project is still ongoing.

#illustration #illustrationartists #ecofriendly #ecology #greennewdeal #taiwan #nature #taiwanese #mountains #mountainrange #deer #indigenous #culture

今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓，題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿：

It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:

//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.

Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…

In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.

Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.

Thank you very much!//

Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!

Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity

中大公布第二批校園環境檢測結果





香港中文大學（中大） 早前委託獨立認可實驗室於不同時間在校園不同地點，抽取空氣、水質及泥土樣本，並送往化驗。大學已收到了第二批校園環境檢測結果。



因應有大學成員對校園可能殘留CS（鄰-氯代苯亞甲基丙二腈）的疑慮，校方已經進一步安排樣本檢測，預計將於二至三星期後收到結果，並盡快公布。



今日（12月12日）公布的第二批校園環境檢測結果包括13個泥土樣本（#1至#12 、S8）以及兩個水樣本（W9、W10）的化驗結果，摘要及參考水平如下﹕



(1) 泥土樣本



表一﹕泥土樣本（#1 至#12）

污染物

測試結果

參考水平

參考文件

二噁英

0.0037至0.0059 毫微克/克

1毫微克/克

香港環保署發出的「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準（公園）」

總多氯聯苯

< 0.2毫克/公斤

0.756毫克/公斤

多環芳香烴

< 0.500至2.05毫克/公斤

3.83至10,000毫克/公斤





表二﹕泥土樣本（S8）

污染物

測試結果

參考水平

參考文件

二噁英

0.12 毫微克/克

1毫微克/克

香港環保署發出的「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準（公園）」

總氰化物

< 1 毫克/公斤

4,900毫克/公斤

總多氯聯苯

< 0.200毫克/公斤

0.756毫克/公斤

多環芳香烴

< 0.500毫克/公斤

3.83至10,000毫克/公斤





(2) 水樣本



表三﹕水樣本（W9 及 W10）

污染物

測試結果

參考水平

參考文件

二噁英

4.6至4.7 皮克/公升

30皮克/公升

美國國家環境保護局（USEPA）建議的飲用水標準

總氰化物

< 0.05毫克/公升

0.2毫克/公升

總多氯聯苯

< 0.50 微克/公升

0.5 微克/公升

多環芳香烴

< 0.1 微克/公升

0.1 至 0.4 微克/公升





結論



(1) 泥土樣本



化驗結果顯示12個泥土樣本（#1至#12）的二噁英含量遠低於香港環保署在2007年發出的《按風險釐定的土地污染整治標準的使用指引》中「按風險釐定的土壤污染整治標準（公園）」之數值。這表示二噁英在這些泥土（#1至#12）的含量水平並不顯著，化驗結果與距離2號橋較遠位置的泥土樣本 （S1至S7、S9） 相若 （見表一）。





至於總多氯聯苯的化驗結果，所有泥土樣本 （#1 - #12）都遠低於前述由香港環保署發出的使用指引中（公園）標準之總多氯聯苯含量 (0.756毫克/公斤)。（見表一）



關於泥土樣本 (#1 - #12) 中多環芳香烴的含量，全部均低於參考文件中所規定的水平 （見表一）。 至於多環芳香烴中個別的化合物含量，可於此處瀏覽。



一個含有黑色煙熏物質的泥土樣本 （S8），在夏鼎基運動場裡被火燒焦的墊褥附近採集。測試結果顯示二噁英的含量相比其他泥土樣本為高，但仍相等於使用指引中的參考水平大約十分之一。這個略高的數值可能是由燃燒塑膠或墊褥的塑料部分引起。S8的其他測試參數例如總氰化物、總多氯聯苯和多環芳香烴，它們的含量遠低於在相關參考文件所規定的最低數值（見表二）。



(2) 水樣本



兩個水樣本從賽馬會研究生宿舍（一座）採集。化驗結果顯示兩個水樣本（W9 及 W10）中二噁英含量介乎4.6至4.7皮克/升。根據美國國家環境保護局建議的飲用水標準，其水樣本 （W9 & W10）中二噁英含量並不顯著。其他測試參數例如總氰化物、總多氯聯苯和多環芳香烴，它們的含量遠低於在相關參考文件所規定的最低數值 （見表三）。



從上述結論可見，這些污染物在泥土（#1 至 #12、S8）和水（W9 及W10）樣本的含量對健康的危害不顯著。



至於其他測試結果，大學收到後盡快公布。



相關數據可於此處瀏覽。







CUHK Releases the Second Batch of Test Results on Campus Environment



The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) earlier appointed an independent accredited laboratory to collect air, water and soil samples at various locations and at different times on campus and sent them for testing. The University has just received the second batch of test results.



In addition, in response to the concerns of some University members over the level of CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile) on CUHK campus, the University has arranged to conduct another round of tests. The results will be announced as soon as they are received in 2-3 weeks’ time.



Here is the summary of the second batch of test results including 13 soil samples (#1-#12 & S8) and 2 water samples (W9 & W10) compared with the guidance notes/international standards.



(1) Soil samples



Table 1: For soil samples (#1 - #12)

Contaminant

Test results

Reference Level

Reference Document

Dioxins

0.0037-0.0059 ng/g

1 ng/g

Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) for Soil – Public Parks, published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department

Total PCBs

< 0.2 mg/kg

0.756 mg/kg

PAHs

< 0.500-2.05 mg/kg

3.83-10,000 mg/kg



Table 2﹕For soil sample (S8)

Contaminant

Test results

Reference Level

Reference Document

Dioxins

0.12 ng/g

1 ng/g

Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) for Soil – Public Parks, published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department

Total Cyanide

< 1 mg/kg

4,900 mg/kg

Total PCBs

< 0.200 mg/kg

0.756 mg/kg

PAHs

< 0.500 mg/kg

3.83-10,000mg/kg



(2) Water samples



Table 3: For water samples (W9 & W10)

Contaminant

Test results

Reference Level

Reference Document

Dioxins

4.6-4.7 pg/L

30 pg/L

Drinking Water Standards from USEPA

Total Cyanide

< 0.05 mg/L

0.2 mg/L

Total PCBs

< 0.50 µg/L

0.5 µg/L

PAHs

< 0.1 µg/L

0.1-0.4 µg/L



Conclusion



(1) Soil samples



Among the 12 soil samples (#1-#12), the dioxins (I-TEQ) are well below the Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) of dioxins in soil (I-TEQ) for public parks as quoted in the Guidance Manual for Use of Risk-Based Remediation Goals for Contaminated Land Management published by Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (HKEPD) in 2007. This indicates that the dioxins (I-TEQ) levels in these soil samples (#1 - #12) are not significant, and the results are comparable to soil samples (S1-S7 & S9) collected in the more distant locations away from No. 2 Bridge (see table 1).



Based on the test results of Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), all soil samples (#1 - #12) are lower than the respective limits of PCBs level (0.756 mg/kg) for public parks cited in the aforementioned Guidance Manual from HKEPD (see table 1).



Regarding the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) levels for these soil samples (#1 - #12), all of them are below the level as required by the reference document (see table 1). For the figures of individual PAH compounds, please click here.



A soil sample with black-smoked materials (S8) was collected in the vicinity of the burned mattress in Sir Philip Haddon-Cave Sports Field. The test result of the dioxins (I-TEQ) level is relatively higher than that of other soil samples though it is only about one tenth of the reference level cited in the Guidance Manual. The possible reason for the elevated result may be due to the burning of rubber or plastic components of the mattress. For the other testing parameters such as Total Cyanide, Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) for the sample (S8), they are all well lower than their respective limits as required by the related reference documents (see table 2).



(2) Water samples



Two water samples (W9 & W10) had been collected from Jockey Club Postgraduate Hall 1. The test results reveal that the dioxins (I-TEQ) levels for both samples (W9 & W10) are from 4.6 to 4.7 pg/L. In accordance with drinking water standards from United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the dioxins levels for these water samples (W9 & W10) are not significant. For the other testing parameters such as Total Cyanide, Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), they are all much below their respective limits as required by the related reference documents (see table 3).



In view of the aforementioned interpretation, the health hazards of these contaminants from the soil (#1 - #12 & S8) and water (W9 & W10) samples are negligible.



Other test results will be announced as soon as they are available. Related information may be viewed here.

環境保護署（環保署）於2021年第一季推出為期一年的入樽機先導計劃，以測試入樽機在香港的實地應用。在先導計劃下，我們會於人流較為密集的公眾地方或政府設施等地點，分階段設置共60部入樽機，並透過電子支付平台提供即時回贈(每個塑膠飲料容器為$0.1，以鼓勵公眾交回使用完的塑膠飲料容器。每一張八達通或每一個支付寶（香港）帳戶每天最多可交回30個塑膠飲料容器，並領取有關回贈。公衆亦可選擇將回贈捐給指定的慈善機構（香港公益金、香港童軍總會或香港女童軍總會），每天數量不限，造福社群。政府委聘的承辦商會將收集到的塑膠飲料容器會交予合適的本地回收商，確保妥善循環再造。第一批入樽機已於2021年1月投入服務。

To pave way for the future Producer Responsibility Scheme on Plastic Beverage Containers (PPRS), the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has rolled out a one-year RVM Pilot Scheme in the first quarter of 2021 to test out the application of RVMs in Hong Kong. Under the pilot scheme, 60 RVMs would be installed in phases at locations such as public places or government facilities with relatively high foot traffic, with provision of instant rebate $0.1 per plastic beverage container) via e-payment platform to encourage the public to return their used plastic beverage containers. Each Octopus card or Alipay (Hong Kong) account allows the public to return a maximum of 30 plastic beverage containers and redeem the rebate in a day. Members of the public may also choose to donate the rebate (no daily limit imposed) to designated charities (the Community Chest, the Scout Association of Hong Kong or the Hong Kong Girl Guides Association) to benefit the community. All the plastic beverage containers collected would be delivered to suitable local recyclers, as arranged by the Government-appointed contractor, to ensure proper recycling. First batch of RVMs has put into operation in January, 2021.




海富中心
中環夏愨道18號海富中心商場1樓 (近詢問處)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

金鐘道政府合署
香港金鐘金鐘道66號高座地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

香港大會堂
中環愛丁堡廣場5號香港大會堂高座地下(入口)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

入境事務大樓
灣仔告士打道7號入境事務大樓地下
星期一至五: 早上7時30分至晚上6時30分
星期六早上7時30分至下午1時正
星期日及公眾假期關閉

中環街市
中環皇后大道中93號中環街市2樓(近24小時通道)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24 小時開放

維多利亞公園
銅鑼灣興發街1號維多利亞公園游泳池地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24 小時開放

香港仔運動場
黃竹坑道108號香港仔運動場地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

華蘭中心
鰂魚涌華蘭路華蘭中心地下1-3號鋪百佳超級市場
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時30分至晚上10時30分

淺水灣影灣園商場
淺水灣淺水灣道109號淺水灣影灣園商場B樓 (近停車場電梯大堂)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24 小時開放

興東商場
西灣河興東邨興東商場地下(近9號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

綠在東區
筲箕灣愛秩序灣愛信道30號地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上6時正

杏花新城
柴灣盛泰道100號杏花新城東翼1樓(近112號鋪)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

小西灣廣場
小西灣小西灣道10號小西灣廣場地下(近正門)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

綠在深水埗
深水埗通州街339號地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上8時正

南昌薈
深水埗西邨路19號南昌薈地下 (近西邨路入口)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

V Walk
深水埗深旺道28號 V Walk (近 3 樓停車場玻璃門側)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

麗安邨
深水埗荔枝角道420號麗安邨麗德樓地下(近3A號鋪)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

新世紀廣場
旺角太子道西193號新世紀廣場L5樓一田超市
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上10時至晚上10時正

官涌市政大廈
佐敦寶靈街17號官涌市政大廈地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

K11 購物藝術館
九龍尖沙咀河內道18號K11購物藝術館B3層車場升降機大堂
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上10時至晚上10時正

九龍城碼頭
九龍城新碼頭街九龍城碼頭地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24 小時開放

譽．港灣商場
新蒲崗太子道東638號(譽．港灣)商場B1層
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

紅磡碼頭
紅磡華信街紅磡碼頭地下 (往北角碼頭閘)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時7時30分至晚上7時30分

慈雲山中心
慈雲山毓華街23號慈雲山中心地下 (近1-3號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上6時至晚上12時正

綠在觀塘
九龍灣常怡道27號地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上8時正

MegaBOX
九龍灣宏照道38號企業廣場五期MegaBox15樓(近停車場電梯大堂)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上9時至晚上10時正

德福廣場第一期
九龍灣偉業街33號德福廣場第一期G/F (近地鐵站C出口)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上6時至晚上12時正

彩雲商場
牛池灣清水灣道45號彩雲商場2期2樓(近A205號鋪)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

樂華商場
觀塘牛頭角振華道70號樂華商場3樓 (近322號鋪)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

德田廣場
觀塘藍田碧雲道223號德田廣場2樓(近209B號鋪)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

禾輋廣場
沙田德厚街3號禾輋廣場 (舖R8對面)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上6時至晚上12時正

好運中心
新界沙田橫壆街1-15號好運中心地下(近4-6B號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

沙田大會堂
沙田源禾路1號沙田大會堂地下(近廣場)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24 小時開放

綠在沙田
沙田石門安平街10號地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上8時正

香港中文大學
香港中文大學(近大學站校園穿梭巴士站)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

顯徑商場
大圍車公廟路69號顯徑商場地下(近106號鋪)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

梨木樹商場
荃灣和宜合道389號梨木樹商場地下(近A出口)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

富善商場
大埔安埔路12號富善商場地下(近G15號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

葵涌商場
荃灣葵涌邨葵涌商場第三層平台(近芷葵樓)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

太和廣場
大埔太和路12號太和廣場西翼2樓(近233號鋪)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

綠在大埔
大埔大華街25號地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上8時正

悅來坊
荃灣荃華街3號悅來坊B3層AEON Living Plaza
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上10時至晚上10時30分

荃灣如心廣場商場1期
荃灣楊屋道8號如心廣場商場1期1樓 (近123號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

荃灣廣場
荃灣大壩街4-30號荃灣廣場B1樓
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

長發廣場
青衣擔桿山路6號長發廣場B/F (近升降機大堂)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

彩明商場
將軍澳調景嶺彩明街1號彩明商場一期3樓 (近 3-4號電梯)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上6時至晚上12時正

綠在葵青
青衣担杆山路12號地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上8時正

粉嶺名都商場
粉嶺車站路18號粉嶺名都商場地下(近15號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24 小時開放

The LOHAS 康城
將軍澳康城路1號The LOHAS 3樓 (近336號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上10時至晚上10時正

上水名都商場
上水智昌路9號上水名都商場二樓
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上8時正

彩園廣場
上水彩園路8號彩園廣場3樓(近31A號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24小時開放

綠在元朗
天水圍天華路65號地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上8時正

天盛商場
元朗天水圍天靖街3號天盛商場地下 (天盛街市外近順便智能櫃)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24 小時開放

天瑞商場
元朗天水圍天瑞路9號天瑞商場地下G1B號舖麥當勞對面 (近羅馬廣場)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

V CITY
屯門屯門鄉事會路83號V CITY (近G12號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上11時正

建生商場
新界屯門良運街3號建生商場地下 (近106號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰24 小時開放

綠在屯門
屯門屯義街9號地下
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上8時正

富東廣場
東涌富東街6號富東廣場地下 (近10號舖)
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上7時至晚上10時正

東薈城
東涌達東路20號東薈城B1-B10號鋪百佳超級市場內
星期一至日及公眾假期︰早上8時至晚上10時30分