A study on the impact of Hong Kong housing policy on youth homeownership

香港房屋政策對青年房屋擁有權的影響研究

BY

Chan Chun Sum Brian 陳駿森

STUDENT NO. 18672361

畢業研究

A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF SOCIAL POLICY (HONOURS)

社會政策(榮譽)學位課程

HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY

香港浸會大學

2020

i
 HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
香港浸會大學社會工作系

We hereby recommend that the project submitted by Mr. Chan Chun Sum Brian entitled
"A study on the impact of Hong Kong housing policy on youth homeownership" be accepted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Social Policy (Honours) Degree.

我們建議通過陳駿森同學呈交的畢業論文「香港房屋政策對青年房屋擁有權的影響
研究」作為社會政策(榮譽)學位課程結業之部份要求。

________________________________
Project Supervisor
指導老師
Date
日期: ____________________________

1
 Declaration

I declare that the work in this honours project is original except where indicated by special
reference in the text.

Any views expressed in the honours project are those of the author and in no way represent
those of the Department of Social Work, Hong Kong Baptist University.

SIGNED: _ _____________________ DATE: _____________________

聲明

本人聲明除註明引用的書籍及文章外,此畢業論文的內容乃本人之創作。

論文內的意見均屬本人的立場,與香港浸會大學社會工作系無關。

簽署:__ ___________________________ 日期:__ ___________________

2
 Abstract
Research Background

Income levels of young people mismatch to high housing prices as median monthly salary of

aged 15-24, 25-34 were $13,000 and $18,300 respectively in 2018 (Census and Statistics

Department,2019). It has a dramatic change in setting housing prices by taking the average

housing price of Hong Kong island as an example, it increased 17 percent between January to

May 2019, while it decreased 8 percent between May to September 2019, in which it increased 6

percent in total(Census and Statistics Department,2019). Difficulties of owning houses in Hong

Kong, including higher housing prices as mainlanders make investment in purchasing house

property, or mismatch with income level of young people. It was significant to explore impact of

housing policy to youths homeownership in Hong Kong.

Research goals/objectives and purpose

Research questions are (a)Why is it difficult for youths to owning house in Hong Kong?(b)Can

housing policy in HKSAR solve those difficulties? Therefore, research objectives are as

following:

1) To compare on income level of youths and housing price in Hong Kong.

2) To review on impact of housing policy in HKSAR.

Research method

3
It is a quantitative research. Surveys on reasons on difficulties of youths in owning a house,

which viewing on the current situation in owning houses and existing housing policy in Hong

Kong effectiveness in tackling housing difficulties on youths.

Sample size (percentage of gender distribution, Mean of age/Age range)

In this research, there were 33 boys and 39 girls participated. Percentage of gender distribution

was 45.8 percent boys and 54.2 percent girls. Age range of participants was between 18-30 years

old. Those participants are from associate degree to bachelor degree in university. Some

respondents are currently studying or working in either part-time or full-time jobs.

Main findings and the implications

It was presented through frequency and descriptive in table 1 to 8(see Appendix 3). It showed

43.1 percent of respondents weren’t willing to plan in purchasing houses. However, under

ranking results, plan for purchasing house was first ranked. 47.2 percent of respondents were

willing to plan for public housing applications. It was believed youth suffered housing

unaffordability either in Hong Kong or global society(Campos et al,2016). Although housing

policy was developed in Hong Kong to solve housing difficulties, it still analysed severe

homeownership to youths in Hong Kong(Campos et al,2016). Therefore, my survey research

with 72 youths explored different willingness on homeownership, reasons of youth housing

difficulties and different suggestions or opinions in housing policy. For willingness on

homeownership, it seemed 16.7 percent of respondents considered whether their employment

income could meet housing prices in table 2(see Appendix 3). 57.7 percent of respondents

considered address could be convenient to daily life or not when planning to apply for public
4
housing in table 5(see Appendix 3). When talked about reasons of housing difficulties of youths,

more than 60 percent of respondents believed volatility of property market and low income were

main reasons of housing difficulties of youths presented in table 3(see Appendix 3). For youths

views of housing policy in Hong Kong, it seemed many youths agreed different suggestions of

Hong Kong housing policy, such as government measures DSD should be continued in

controlling housing prices, develop pilot scheme for first home, urban planning, develop

transitional housing, “HK land for HK residents” policy, progressive rates and property tax,

shelve Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme and relaunch “Sandwich Class

Housing Scheme” and “First Time Home Loan Scheme” as homeownership that presented in

table 4(see Appendix 3). Survey results were significantly implicated in future studies as it

seemed relevant research from different scholars did not make any comparisons in participants'

information and questions. More youths believed different main reasons for youth housing

difficulties reflected severe issues in youth homeownership. It also reflected government should

make more considerations in housing strategies in solving housing difficulties of youths.

5
 撮要

研究背景

年輕人的收入水平與高房價不符，因為在 2018 年 15-24 歲，25-34 歲的月薪中位數分別為

13,000 元和 18,300 元（政府統計局，2019）。以香港島的平均房價為例，它在設定房價

方面發生了巨大變化，在 2019 年 1 月至 2019 年 5 月間增長了 17％，在 2019 年 5 月至

2019 年 9 月間下降了 8％，其中總計增長了 6％（政府統計處，2019）。 在香港擁有房屋

的困難，包括由於內地人投資購買房屋財產或與年輕人的收入水平不匹配而導致的房價上

漲。這對於探討房屋政策對香港青年房屋擁有權的影響非常重要。

研究目的

研究的問題是（a）為何青年人難以在香港擁有房屋？（b）香港特別行政區的住房政策能

否解決這些困難？因此，研究目標如下：

1）比較香港青少年的收入水平和房價。

2）檢討房屋政策對香港特別行政區的影響。

研究方法

這是一項量化研究。 就青少年擁有房屋的困難的原因進行問卷調查，以擁有房屋的現狀

和香港現行的房屋政策為依據，以有效地解決年輕人的住房困難。

樣本多少(訪談人數/問卷調查人數,性別比例,年齡)

6
是次研究有 33 名男孩和 39 名女孩參加。 性別分佈百分比為男孩 45.8％和女孩 54.2％。

參加者的年齡範圍在 18-30 歲之間。這些參與者從大學的副學士學位到學士學位。 一些

參與者目前正在讀書或從事兼職或全職工作。

主要的研究發現以及結果的應用

根據表 1 至表 8 中頻率和描述性調查結果(見附錄 3)，結果表明有 43.1％的受訪者不願意

購買房屋。但是，根據排名結果，購房計劃排名第一。 47.2％的受訪者願意為公共住房

申請做計劃。人們認為，無論是在香港還是在全球社會中，年輕人都遭受了住房負擔不起

的問題（Campos 等，2016）。儘管香港製定了住房政策來解決住房困難，但它仍然分析

了香港青年對嚴重住房所有權的問題（Campos 等，2016）。因此，我對 72 位青年的調查

研究探討了不同的購房意願、青年住房困難的原因以及住房政策方面的不同建議或意見。

就購房意願而言，表 2 顯示有 16.7％的受訪者考慮了他們的就業收入是否能夠滿足房價

(見附錄 3)。表 5 顯示 57.7％的受訪者認為在計劃公屋抽籤時住址是否方便日常生活(見附

錄 3)。在談到年輕人住房困難的原因時，表 3 所示超過 60％的受訪者認為房地產市場的

動盪和低收入是年輕人住房困難的主要原因(見附錄 3)。表 4 所示對於年輕人，香港住房

政策看法似乎很多商定了香港住房政策的不同建議，例如政府應繼續採取措施如印花稅等

來控制房價、制定「港人首次置業先導項目」、城市規劃、開發過渡性房屋、“港人港地”

政策、累進稅率和物業稅、擱置「綠表置居先導計劃」、重新啟動「夾心階層住屋計劃」

和「首次置業貸款計劃」，以「房屋貸款計劃」作為房屋所有權(見附錄 3)。調查結果在

未來的研究中具有重要意義，因為來自不同學者的相關研究似乎並未對參與者的信息的和

7
問題進行任何比較。越來越多年輕人認為，造成青年人住房困難的不同主要原因反映了青

年人擁有房屋的嚴重問題。這也反映出政府應在解決青年人住房困難的住房戰略中多加考

慮。

8
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr_Ava Lau_Siu Mei_ for suggesting the research topic and
guiding me throughout the entire study. Thanks are also due to each participant for assistance in
the study.

鳴謝

本畢業論文,承蒙指導老師劉肇薇博士悉心指導,謹此衷心感謝。對於每位參與者在本次研
究中所提供的協助,亦一併致謝。

9
 Content Page
Abstract 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9
Chapter 1:Introduction 12
1.1 Background 12
1.2 Theoretical rationale for the project 12
1.3 Objective and significance of project 12
1.4 Organization of the dissertation 13
Chapter 2: Literature review 14
2.1 Concept of “housing affordability” 14
2.2 Concept of “social mobility” 17
2.3 Concepts of “homeownership” 18
2.4 Background of housing policy in Hong Kong 22
Chapter 3: Research methodology 26
3.1 Theoretical framework in the study 26
3.2 Research questions 27
3.3 Participants 27
3.4 Research design 28
3.5 Procedure and sampling 28
3.6 Method of data analysis 28
Chapter 4: Results 29
Chapter 5: Discussion, conclusion and implications 33
Appendix 1: Questionnaire 42
Appendix 2: Figures in literatures relevant to research 48
Appendix 3: Tables of questionnaire 63
Appendix 4: Ethical Approval Email 71
Appendix 5: Borrowing Consent Form 72
Appendix 6: Sample Informed Consent Form 73

10
List of Figures

Figure 1: Housing tenure in Hong Kong by number and percentage in 2014 (Campos et al,2016)
48
Figure 2: Housing tenure structure by age groups in percent (Campos et al,2016) 49
Figure 3: Demographic characteristics of 160 university students participation of studies in 2014
(Campos et al,2016) 52
Figure 4: Expectation of homeownership financing of students(aged 17 to 37 years old) in Hong
Kong in 2014 (Campos et al,2016) 53
Figure 5: Willingness of students (aged 17 to 37 years old) in Hong Kong to buy an apartment in
2014 53
Figure 6: Different anticipated housing pathways (willingness to buy/financing) of students(aged
17 to 37 years old) in Hong Kong in 2014 53
Figure 7: youth housing pathways framework in Hong Kong 54
Figure 8: factors affected homeownership (Li,2015) 55
Figure 9: Five most important factors affecting generation X's tenure choice (Li,2015) 58
Figure 10: Five most important factors affecting Generation Y's tenure choice decision (Li,2015)
58
Figure 11: Factors affecting generation X's demand for homeownership (Li,2015) 59
Figure 12: Factors affecting generation Y's demand for homeownership (Li,2015) 60
Figure 13: Results of principal component factor analysis for generation X (Li,2015) 61
Figure 14: Rotated component matrix generation Y (Li,2015) 62

List of Tables

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of participants (N=72) 63

Table 2: Willingness on Homeownership 64
Table 3: Public housing and housing difficulties of youth 65
Table 4: Housing Market in different opinions and suggestions 66
Table 5: Frequency in multiple response in public housing consideration 68
Table 6: Cross Tabulation of multiple response in public housing consideration 69
Table 7: Mean and SD of Public housing and housing difficulties of youth 69
Table 8: Mean and SD of Housing market in different opinions and suggestions 70

11
 Chapter 1:Introduction

1.1 Background

Income levels of young people mismatch to high housing prices as median monthly salary of

aged 15-24, 25-34 were $13,000 and $18,300 respectively in 2018(Census and Statistics

Department,2019). It has a dramatic change in setting housing prices by taking the average

housing price of Hong Kong island as an example, it increased 17 percent between January to

May 2019, while it decreased 8 percent between May to September 2019, in which it increased 6

percent in total(Census and Statistics Department,2019). Average housing price that less than 40

square meters, between 40-69.9 square meters, 70-99.9 square meters, 100-159.9 square meters

and 160 square meters or above were $481,174, $448,008, $550,137, $571,458 and $576,289

respectively in September 2019(Census and Statistics Department,2019), which total was

$2,145,852 in 2019. Difficulties of owning houses in Hong Kong, including higher housing

prices as mainlanders make investment in purchasing house property, or mismatch with income

level of young people. It was significant to explore the impact of housing policy to youths

homeownership in Hong Kong.

1.2 Theoretical rationale for the project

Research is to explore impacts of housing policy to youth homeownership and views on existing

housing policy of youths in Hong Kong.

1.3 Objective and significance of project

Research objectives are as following:

12
1) To compare on income level of youths and housing price in Hong Kong.

2) To review on impact of housing policy in HKSAR.

Research will be important in determining the difficulty of owning houses in existing of housing

policy of HKSAR to youth and to explore the impact of youth homeownership of housing policy

in HKSAR as homeownership is term in explaining it can benefit to youth or not in tackling

housing problem.

1.4 Organization of the dissertation

The first chapter is background and theoretical rationale of research. The second chapter is

literature review in notions of “housing affordability”, “social mobility” and “homeownership”,

also background of housing policy in Hong Kong. The third chapter is theoretical study and

research design. The fourth chapter is data results of research. The fifth chapter is discussion,

conclusion and implication of research.

13
 Chapter 2: Literature review

2.1 Concept of “housing affordability”

“Housing affordability” was defined as “common way of summarising the nature of the housing

difficulty in many nations”(Hulchanski,1995,p.471), which included formulation of housing

needs, housing shortage and housing rent issues(Hulchanski,1995; Tang,2012). It was referring

to rent ability for each person and material or social experience expression for people(Yip &

Lau,2002; Ong,2000,p.51), which related to household and individual housing situation, or

challenges in balancing cost of actual and potential housing(Stone,2006,p.151). It was

comprehensive term in explaining late propelled national agenda and multiple ways in

measurement of housing expenditure and household income(Friedman & Rosen,2019,p.565),

stated as to meet different forms of affordability, including family income level and size of

dwelling unit on affordability(Gopalan & Venkataraman,2015,p.130). It was a problem of

housing costs and related rents form or payment of mortgage in months, household income levels

and market rents(Leishman & Roweys,2012,p.379,cited from Clapham, Clark &

Gibb,2012,p.379).

“Housing affordability” was one of challenges affected household budget levels, payment for

basic needs in expenditure, emergency savings reduction and opportunities in different countries,

such as the United Kingdom, raised public awareness throughout political parties

slogan(Clapham, Clark & Gibb,2012; Anacker,2019). The United Kingdom government

suggested different funding and programmes, including “housing infrastructure funds”,

“government capital grant programme”, “home building fund” and “help to buy programme” in

tackling housing affordability(Anacker,2019,p.2). “Help to buy programme” helped first-time

home purchasers in home deposit saving individually and buyers were received a bonus account
14
from government in 3000 pounds, while stamp duty for eligible home buyers(Anacker,2019).

“Housing infrastructure fund” and “government capital grant programme” were to facilitate

home construction in 200,000 new homes(Anacker,2019). “Home building fund” was one of

assistance in overcoming difficulties from small private sector developers(Anacker,2019).

“Housing affordability” was also defined as relationship between rents, housing prices and

household incomes as different reasons caused both rents and housing prices increased, such as

unavailable land development, challenges for property developers in increasing planning

regulations and construction costs, malfunction of filtration and chains, also both national, state

and local government retrenched social policy in reduction of housing affordable

funding(Anacker,2019). However, household income “lagged behind” relationship between rents

and housing prices as efficient technology, housing trend compensation, reduction in household

membership and national regulations(Anacker,2019; Balchin & Rhoden,2019).

Term of “affordable housing” was a different definition of “housing affordability” as it defined

challenges to communities in decreasing housing supply(Anacker,2019; Chiu,2007). Reasons

caused challenges in affordable housing were “impractical regulations in both inter and intra-

state and inter and intra-city movement”, “difficult in reduction of building regulations” and

“difficult in decreasing design, construction, utility, and regulatory fees and developer

profits”(Anacker,2019,p.8). Housing building regulations were tightened and difficult to reduce

as the United States local planning department didn’t “compromise health, safety and welfare”,

which made “long run home safer” and caused unaffordable housing(Anacker,2019,p.9). There

were discussions focused cost reduction in housing affordability development and cost-

effectiveness promotion throughout “consolidation, coordination, simplification, and

streamlining of processes, including underwriting”(Anacker,2019,p.9), also efficient

15
development timelines facilitation, improvement in both incentives and knowledge of existing

sources flexibility and creation of products in meeting needs(Anacker,2019; Lund,2006).

“Affordable housing” was elusive concept and was “social rented, affordable rented and

intermediate housing in provision to eligible households needs that was not met by

market”(Lund,2011; Lund,2017,p.129). It was determined safety net approach and housing

benefits in accessing rent sectors(Lund,2006;2011;2017). Safety net approach linked and

connected to individual perception of housing necessity(Lund,2011;2017). It was assumed as a

residual income approach in determining devotion of housing cost(Lund,2006;2011;2017).

Housing benefits was a selective concept in “affordable housing” and involved universal credits

in rent payment(Lund,2006;2011;2017). It was assumed prescription of low income in maximum

caused housing unaffordability in defining safety net under inefficient housing benefits in terms

of “affordable housing”(Lund,2006;2011;2017).

“Housing affordability” was defined as social and material experiences in association to housing

situations(Chung, Chung, Gordon, Mak, Zhang, Chan, Lai, Wong & Wong,2019). It was

recognised as a linkage between housing unaffordability and poor health(Chung et al,2019).

There was an association between physical and mental health with effect of housing

affordability(Chung et al,2019). To reflect situation of Hong Kong and most developed world in

association of “housing affordability” and health, housing affordability ratio was 20.9 in

comparison to Hong Kong and global world(Chung et al,2019). Actual income of public

increased 0.28 percent based on accountancy of inflation rate from 2004 to 2016. It was

determined as primary predictor in adoption of residual approach under association with

individual health. It was assumed lower housing affordability could cause negative effects to

individual health(Chung et al,2019,p.169).

16
2.2 Concept of “social mobility”

“Social mobility” referred as movement and opportunities between individuals and different

social groups, its impacts based on income level, secure employment and advance

opportunities(Kapur,2018), which related to social inequality, class and stratification and

inclusion and exclusion(Nunn, Johnson, Monro, Bickerstaffe & Kelsey,2007). It was divided into

absolute and relative social mobility measurement. Absolute social mobility was the scale of

shift of movement of individuals and social groups, which was measured as decomposition of

immobility, or mobility rate of vertical and non-vertical, upward or downward mobility. Relative

social mobility was class movement as social changes to individual mobility and structural

changes of society(Nunn et al,2007; Falcon & Joye,2014,p.6123,cited from

Michalos,2014,p.6123). It was phenomenon in shifting positions from previous employment as

intergenerational mobility included social or class stratification and identification, occupational

or socioeconomic status. Intragenerational mobility was studies on transfer of status from family

to children and observed past employment(Falcon & Joye,2014,p.6124,cited from

Michalos,2014,p.6124). Different key factors affected “social mobility”, such as income

inequality, employment relations in different occupations group, high economic growth,

movement of social hierarchy, social capital in opportunities and network, cultural capital,

education attainment and job mobility in labour market(Nunn et al,2007; Nunn,2012;

Guardiancich,2016; Iveson & Deary,2017).

Intergenerational income mobility referred to moving upward opportunity in income distribution

related to family background(Wong,2015). To reflect “social mobility” context, it was based on

relative position in income distribution. Measurement was used as an income percentile in

17
ranking to measure intergenerational mobility, rather than income measurement(Wong,2015).

Intergenerational mobility had remained unchanged in over decades in the United

States(Wong,2015). Data was used in estimation of education mobility under linkage between

years of schooling and family relationship in Hong Kong(Wong,2015). Under rank to rank

correlation of education mobility with family to child in Hong Kong, it reflected

intergenerational education mobility had sharply declined from 0.369 in 1951 to 1956 to 0.258 in

1961 to 1966 on the basis of family schooling(Wong,2015).

2.3 Concepts of “homeownership”

“Homeownership” was defined as demand determined housing pathways in “theoretical

framework” to find phenomena of uncertainty in youth housing affordability(Campos, Yiu, Shen,

Liao & Maing,2016,p.224). It was one of analysis in descriptive and understanding different

relationships, involved “housing production”, “housing consumption” and “housing

distribution”(Campos et al,2016,p.224).

To reflect Hong Kong housing situation, Hong Kong housing price index had dramatic changes

between 1995 to 2014 as it rose from 100 points to 150 points in between 1995 to 1996. It

dropped sharply from 120 points to 60 points in between 1997 to 2003, finally raised from 60

points to a high level of 250 points in between 2003 to 2014(Campos et al,2016). Due to

fluctuation of Hong Kong housing price index, also “high transaction cost” and high housing

price, which affected homeowners and first time housing buyers in homeownership of Hong

Kong(Campos et al,2016).

In 2014, there were total 2,405,000 domestic households lived in different housing type in Hong

Kong, which 30 percent of households lived in public rental housing, 16 percent of households

18
lived in subsidised homeownership housing, while 36 percent of households lived in owner-

occupiers in private housing, 18 percent of households lived in private housing renters and 1

percent of households lived in temporary housing(Campos et al,2016). It reflected challenges of

Hong Kong youth homeownership as decrease of youth private ownership levels caused an

increase of youth homeownership challenges(Campos et al,2016). From 1981 to 2011, share of

private homeownership below 25 years old declined to 0.81 percent in 2011(Campos et al,2016).

While for youth between 25 to 34 years old, share of private homeownership also dropped

sharply from 21 percent in 1981 to 10 percent in 2011(Campos et al,2016). Mortgage restriction

for young first time buyers in purchasing property caused challenges of youth homeownership as

maximum loan to value ratio from Hong Kong Monetary Authority was being implemented and

“applicable to properties with value HK$6 million or below and subject to the LTV cap of 70%

was lowered to 60%”(Campos et al,2016,p.227). Since mortgage restriction for young first time

buyers in purchasing property implemented, it indicated Hong Kong youths should save $14,000

for each month in 6 years to afford “initial payment” of purchasing small size property in

average price $3,000,000, resulted as youths homeownership challenges in meeting

requirements(Campos et al,2016). University graduates chose to have low-pay or part time jobs

to become eligible in public housing applications that assisted low income families(Campos et

al,2016). Under research studies of housing and youths in Hong Kong in 2014, it showed 160

local and non-local university students participating in studies(Campos et al,2016). To reflect

expectation, willingness and different pathways on homeownership, it was shown expectation of

payment in homeownership throughout borrowing more or less mortgage, or even needed

financial support from families(Campos et al,2016). For willingness in homeownership, it

reflected different expectations of homeownership between Hong Kong youths and non-local
19
youths as only 43 percent of youths in Hong Kong willing in homeownership, while 47 percent

of non-local youths willing in homeownership(Campos et al,2016). For different housing

pathways, it was summarized willingness to purchase house or made financement of youths in

Hong Kong, which was believed different pathways of homeownership determined by individual

perceptions of youths in Hong Kong(Campos et al,2016).

“Homeownership” was defined as “housing pathways framework” connected with social

inequality(Campos et al,2016,p.229). “Housing pathways” was “dynamic sequences” in lifespan

coverage, also determining voluntary and involuntary changes in life transition and time

consideration in past, present and future housing(Campos et al,2016). It was defined as

individual housing choices and affected by social structures, which was “housing concern

patterns over time and space”(Campos et al,2016,p.230). It was based on consideration of

“individual perceptions, attitudes, aspiration, meanings and norms” in engaging changes of

housing environment, which being used in previous research of youth homeownership

situations(Campos et al,2016,p.230).

It reflected youth “heterogeneous experience” and mutual linkage between structural changes in

youth homeownership, housing market regulations, job market regulations and economic

development in youth housing situations(Campos et al,2016,p.230). Under changes of housing

environment, young generations had their housing choices depended on family situation or

support as they chose to stay with family until enough savings for “mortgage deposit in

accessing owner occupations”(Campos et al,2016,p.231). Youth suffered disability continued

living with parents, while youth involved “health constraints”, such as alcohol or drug abuser,

being forced by parents in leaving parental housing and “tend to follow a chaotic

pathway”(Campos et al,2016,p.231).
20
“Homeownership” was one of desires for youth in major society(Campos et al,2016). Linkage

between socio-economic status of youth, educational and family background in crucial states as

it depended from different perceptions on housing affordability and homeownership(Campos et

al,2016). It was way in “perceiving stable housing that could give status”, which caused both

public and private renting were stigmatised(Campos et al,2016,p.231). To reflect difficulties of

youth housing pathways in Hong Kong, “perception of affordability and homeownership” and

“expectation of financial support from parents” determined youth housing pathways(Campos et

al,2016,p.231). “Perception of affordability and homeownership” determined Hong Kong

youth’s optimistic and pessimistic feeling to housing affordability and homeownership(Campos

et al,2016). “Expectation of financial support from parents” determined Hong Kong youth’s low

and high expectation of financial support from parents in owning a house by themselves(Campos

et al,2016). Both determined preferences in purchasing high or low quality private and public

housing, also rent different types of housing(Campos et al,2016). It reflected situation of increase

from expectation of parents financial support while drop from perception of affordability and

homeownership, resulting as trend decline in housing pathways(Campos et al,2016).

Differences in youth housing pathways and homeownership divided “socially and economically

problematic”(Campos et al,2016,p.232). It had been caused by social and economic inequalities

under exacerbated by housing market functions(Campos et al,2016; Li & Cheung,2017).

Different housing needs for different generations in Hong Kong was assumed housing policy

failed to satisfy youth generations(Li,2015). Demand of homeownership was affected by high

expectations of finance, unemployment rate, high housing cost for single family, mortgage,

relative cost to rent and politics nature globally(Li,2015). It was affected by economic,

demographical, social and housing market factors in Hong Kong(Li,2015).

21
2.4 Background of housing policy in Hong Kong

In early years, Hong Kong housing strategy was “supply-led development” as increase in

population or income levels and numbers of households, also changes in “business cycle

conditions”, “building costs”, “planning and building regulations”, “politics development”,

“compliance with environmental restrictions” affected both housing demand and supply in Hong

Kong, which caused “unavoidable forecast in housing demand” since housing market was

monopolised by land supplier and housing providers(Wong,2015,p.9). From mid 1980s, housing

demand started as no requirements of forecasting “complex factors” in increasing demand, which

planned “long term housing strategy”(Wong,2015,p.9). After 1997, Hong Kong housing policy

was arranged in building 85,000 housing units, including 50,000 public housing and 35,000

private housing units to meet public housing needs(Cheung,2018). Until the financial crisis, it

failed since increased housing demand resulted as both housing demand and supply were not

equilibrium, which caused collapsing of housing market(Cheung,2018). 7 hundred thousand

public rental flats provided to 2 million people. Housing Authority provided indirect and direct

application method to public housing applicants on owning house by measuring income and

limits on total net asset value(Lui & Suen,2011). Role of waiting list was to give maximum 3

options and accommodation to eligible applicants, it improved family sizes under apply housing

transfer(Lui & Suen,2011). Homeownership schemes provided more options in applying

subsidized flat, not just public rental housing. Ratio of mortgage and income should less than 40

percent, target group can afford 50 percent of flats and 30 percent discount of market value in

flats, allowed selling on flats under open market to public rental housing applicants and paying

premium were 3 principles in setting prices of HOS flat(Lui & Suen,2011).

22
Home purchase affordability ratio measurement was measured as ratio of 45-square-meter

private unit to a median household income, which excluded residents living in public housing

with a monthly mortgage payment of 70 percent and a term of 20 years(Cheung,2018). It had

dramatic changes as the ratio was met at a lower point of 20 percent in 2003, raised to 38.2

percent in 2009 and met highest point of 52.3 percent and 58 percent in 2012 and 2015

respectively. It rose 63 percent to 67 percent in 2016 and 2017 respectively, which was higher

than 45 percent of average value(Cheung,2018). In 2012, housing problem was defined severity

and urgency as reflection of high housing prices and phenomenon of subdivided

flats(Cheung,2018). It caused risk of housing structures and worse living environment, resulted

as housing unaffordability crisis to young generations in Hong Kong(Cheung,2018). Demand

control, supply control, government involvement of housing market, rent control and subsidized

homeownership were used in solving housing unaffordability crisis(Cheung,2018). Demand

control included restrictions on amount of mortgage loans, tax measures and restrictions on

foreigners' home ownership(Cheung,2018). Government arranged urban planning and land

zoning for relieving housing issues in supply control(Cheung,2018). In 2012, solving housing

issues was set top priority in helping grassroot and middle class in housing

affordability(Cheung,2018). Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee suggested long

and short term housing strategies in increasing housing and land demand, arrangement of new

housing plan, introduction of white form secondary market scheme, stop introduction of my

home purchase scheme, “Hong Kong land for Hong Kong residents” pilot scheme and measures

of controlling housing prices liked buyer stamp duty or special stamp duty, etc(Cheung,2018).

Hong Kong housing policy was demand orientation as goal of Committee drew up vision and

direction of long term housing strategies provided different types of adequate and housing
23
affordability to residents. It focused on increasing housing demands to rebuild stairs of housing

affordability and increase social mobility(Cheung,2018).

Public housing to private housing ratio of 6 to 4 and determination of housing environment

standard were being suggested in public consultation(Cheung,2018). Transitional housing was

for housing needs, “well-off tenants policy” review, provided more subsidized housing and other

measures in tackling housing issues in Hong Kong were also suggested(Cheung,2018). The 10

years target of Hong Kong housing demand was set as long term target for housing affordability

and public housing was determined as suitable housing(Cheung,2018). It proposed ratio between

new public and private housing in 10 years as significant means were increasing public housing

and government housing demand under high housing prices(Cheung,2018). It was flexible in

maintaining high convertibility in private and public housing under ratio 6 to 4(Cheung,2018).

Committee proposed a 10 years rolling target in updating extension of housing demand was

based on updated economic society development, household structures, property changes and

other factors in evaluation and correction(Cheung,2018).

Committee also suggested government to place priority of citizens in housing needs under

limitation of land and housing resources. Distributive policy suggested in optimization under

elderly home principles, including families series plan. Improvement of quota and measurement

system to applicants were eligible for more than 45 years old in provision of housing matching

opportunities(Cheung,2018). This plan further expanded its eligibility to 40 years old and 35

years old(Cheung,2018). Priority in caring for households lived in a worse housing environment

in restriction of subdivided flats or others to improve safety standards of housing

environments(Cheung,2018). Although no specialization in youth housing policy throughout

consultation documents from the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee, it still
24
suggested improvement measures in different dimensions of long term housing strategies since it

could create long term benefits for youth in housing affordability and

homeownership(Cheung,2018).

Housing policy in Hong Kong was associated with land demand or supply policy since it aimed

to expand housing capacity to housing policy in Hong Kong(Cheung,2018). Under a crowded

living environment, high living density or housing in short supply, only 7 percent of land used in

housing planning(Cheung,2018). Housing difficulties could be tackled when more than 1 percent

of land used in housing(Cheung,2018). It was used as a rezone in a housing plan(Cheung,2018).

The Steering Committee on Land Supply and Committee on Planning and Land Development

were significant in deciding land usage in housing(Cheung,2018). Increased long and short term

land origin and density of housing when it was debated rezoning process. It was difficult to

decide and balance contemporary severe housing shortage(Cheung,2018). Rezoning green areas

and brownfields as usage of housing development was important(Cheung,2018). Hong Kong

government faced difficulties and challenges in land exploration for building houses. Debate in

region's basic support and requirement of evaluation caused challenges for Hong Kong

government in land usage for housing plans(Cheung,2018).

25
 Chapter 3: Research methodology

3.1 Theoretical framework in the study

"Housing affordability" indicated renting ability of each person by measurement of housing cost,

expenditure cost and household income(Ong,2000). “Social mobility” also defined as

“opportunity”, “movement” from different groups and individuals(Kapur,2018), which was

related to “social inequality, inclusion and exclusion”(Nunn et al,2007,p.26).“Housing

affordability” covered rent ability for each person in defining “homeownership” and assumed

personal income can rent instead of purchasing a house. It had a mutual relationship with “social

mobility” as when housing costs arise in Hong Kong, youths can’t afford owning a house in the

market.

From above literature review on concepts of “housing affordability”, “social mobility” and

“homeownership”, it reflected youth housing situation in Hong Kong as both determined

whether young generations could afford higher housing prices or not(Campos et al,2016). From

background of housing policy in Hong Kong, it historically reflected youth housing situation in

Hong Kong since there were different difficulties in housing affordability and homeownership.

26
 Housing affordability:Renting
ability of each person
Measurement: housing cost,
expenditure cost and household
income
(Ong,2000)
Difficulties in
purchasing house for
young people in
Hong Kong when
housing price arise
Social mobility: Opportunity and
movement from different groups and
individuals(Kapur,2018)
Themes: “social inequality, inclusion
and exclusion”.(Nunn et.al,2007,p.26)
Mutual relationship:
Housing price
increase, young Difficulties in
people can’t afford purchasing house for
high housing price young people in Hong
in market Kong before or after
housing price arise

Homeownership: Assume income level of each persons: rent instead of purchasing

house defined as one of “housing pathways framework” that connected with social
inequality(Campos et al,2016,p.229)

Hong Kong government housing policy: green form and white form application in applying
public rental housing, homeownership scheme from Housing Authority, which divided into
indirect and direct application in measuring income and limits on total net asset value(Lui &
Suen,2011,p.19; Cheung,2018).

3.2 Research questions

Research questions are (a)Why is it difficult for youths to owning house in Hong Kong?(b)Can

housing policy in HKSAR solve those difficulties?

3.3 Participants

Participants are youth between 18-30 years old and from associate degree to bachelor degree in

university. Some respondents are currently studying or working in part-time or full-time jobs.

27
3.4 Research design

This is a quantitative research. Surveys on reasons on difficulties of youths in owning a house,

which viewing on current situation in owning houses and existing housing policy in Hong Kong

effectiveness in tackling housing difficulties on youths.

3.5 Procedure and sampling

For procedure, in academic literature review, it will get both concepts on “housing affordability”,

“homeownership” and “social mobility”, also existence of housing policy in Hong Kong. Online

questionnaire design on asking difficulties of owning houses and views of youth on existing

housing policy. The step on how to find survey respondents is to ask friends from university, by

sending a link of an online survey in HKBU Qualtrics through WhatsApp or other social media

platform. For sampling, research will randomly sampling as sample size is 72 youths between

18-30 years old.

3.6 Method of data analysis

Research based on descriptive statistics in running SPSS programs and generate data results

using basic frequency and descriptive.

28
 Chapter 4: Results

Data analysis results showed basic information of respondents under frequency and descriptive.

Detailed information of participants is presented in table 1 to 8 with frequency, percentage and

descriptives(see Appendix 3).

Table 1(see Appendix 3) showed participants information in this research. 33 boys and 39 girls

participated in this study(45.8 percent of boys and 54.2 percent of girls). 46 respondents aged 21-

24 years old(63.9 percent) and 21 respondents aged 18-20 years old(29.2 percent). 24

respondents lived in private housing(33.3 percent) while 19 respondents lived in government

housing(26.4 percent). 37 respondents whose houses were purchased(51.4 percent), while 29

respondents whose houses were rented(40.3 percent).

Table 2(see Appendix 3) showed different willingness on homeownership. 31 respondents

weren’t willing to plan on purchasing houses(43.1 percent). In contrast, 26 respondents were

willing to plan on purchasing houses(36.1 percent). It reflected 12 respondents considered

employment income and property price ratio when planning on purchasing houses(16.7 percent).

9 respondents considered address convenience to daily life or not when planning on purchasing

houses(12.5 percent). 34 respondents were willing to plan for a public housing application(47.2

percent).

Table 3(see Appendix 3) reflected reasons for youth housing difficulties in Hong Kong. 44

respondents strongly agreed low income was main reason for youth housing difficulties(61.1

29
percent), while 26 respondents also strongly agreed competition of mainlanders and Hong Kong

residents purchase and sell property market caused youth housing difficulties(36.1 percent).

Table 4(see Appendix 3) determined youth views of Hong Kong housing policy. 43 respondents

agreed government housing measures, such as Double Stamp Duty should continue in

controlling increase of housing prices(59.7 percent). 33 respondents agreed government should

develop pilot scheme for first home buyers(45.8 percent), while 29 respondents agreed urban

planning and relaunch “Sandwich Class Housing Scheme” and “First Time Home Loan Scheme”

as homeownership could help in solving youth housing difficulties(40.3 percent). It seemed 35

respondents agreed developing transitional housing also solved youth housing difficulties(48.6

percent). 26 respondents agreed “HK land for HK residents” policy could help in solving youth

housing difficulties(36.1 percent). 27 respondents believed progressive rate and progressive tax

could solve youth housing difficulties(37.5 percent). 31 respondents viewed shelving Green

Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme could redistribute housing resources in solving youth

housing difficulties(43.1 percent).

Data analysis indicated all factors in public housing consideration with multiple responses,

including “housing spaces and sizes”, “address is convenient for daily life”, “entertain with

friends and family”, “environment for future marriage”, “encourage by family and friends” and

“others: accept in all” were all contributors to public housing consideration of youths in Hong

Kong(all means: 1.00)(see table 5 and 6 in Appendix 3).

30
From table 5 and 6(see Appendix 3), it showed frequency, percentage and cross tabulation of

multiple responses in public housing considerations respectively. Table 5(see Appendix 3)

reflected 57.7 percent of respondents considered address was convenient to their daily life or not

when planning to apply public housing. 25 percent of respondents considered housing spaces and

sizes could match their desire or not. Table 6(see Appendix 3) showed 12 boys and 18 girls(92.3

percent of boys and 85.7 percent of girls)considered address was convenient to their daily life or

not when planning to apply public housing. 4 boys and 9 girls(30.8 percent of boys and 42.9

percent of girls)considered housing spaces and sizes could match their desire or not.

For survey, 5-likert scaling was adopted to evaluate participants’ response tendency in housing

difficulties of youths in Hong Kong and youth views of Hong Kong housing policy, 1-strongly

agree, 2-agree, 3-neutral, 4-disagree and 5-strongly disagree, which meant 2.5 was cut off points

to decide nature of data result, when mean was higher than 2.5 that meant response prefers to

agree, the higher the stronger. To explore reasons of housing difficulties of youths in Hong Kong,

6 reasons in housing difficulties of youths were examined to see whether they could contribute to

reasons of housing difficulties of youths in Hong Kong. Mean and SD of each reason was

reported(see table 7 in Appendix 3).

For reasons of housing difficulties of youths in Hong Kong in table 7(see Appendix 3), youth

believed that “different values in property market (e.g. purchase a property will have a good

quality of life)” and “less citizen’s response of Hong Kong government housing property

measures” were first two contributors to reasons of housing difficulties of youths in Hong Kong,

mean(SD) of “different values in property market (e.g. purchase a property will have a good
31
quality of life)” and “less citizen’s response of Hong Kong government housing property

measures” were 2.61(.779) and 2.36(.969) respectively.

To explore youth views of Hong Kong housing policy, 9 views of Hong Kong housing policy of

youths were examined to see whether they could contribute to youth views of Hong Kong

housing policy. Mean and SD of each reason was reported(see table 8 in Appendix 3).

For youth views of Hong Kong housing policy in table 8(see Appendix 3), four powerful

contributors to views of Hong Kong housing policy were “Reclamation(e.g. Lantau Tomorrow),

explore country park and using land resumption project to replan housing strategies and land

supply in deliberating housing issues”, “Shelve Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership

Scheme in redistribution of housing resources”, “Develop transitional housing” and “Relaunch

“Sandwich Class Housing Scheme” and “First Time Home Loan Scheme” as homeownership to

solve housing issue”, mean(SD) of “Reclamation(e.g. Lantau Tomorrow), explore country park

and using land resumption project to replan housing strategies and land supply in deliberating

housing issues”, “Shelve Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme in redistribution of

housing resources”, “Develop transitional housing” and “Relaunch “Sandwich Class Housing

Scheme” and “First Time Home Loan Scheme” as homeownership to solve housing issue” were

3.07(1.09), 2.57(.901), 2.57(.869) and 2.50(.919) respectively.

32
 Chapter 5: Discussion, conclusion and implications

To discuss with, concepts of “housing affordability” determined inclusion of formatting housing

needs, housing shortage and housing rent issues(Hulchanski,1995). It was also measured in

individual and household rent ability(Anacker,2019). “Housing affordability” was community

challenges and housing situations associated with social and material experiences(Chung et

al,2019). Concepts of “social mobility” determined movement and opportunities between

individuals and different social groups(Kapur,2018). It divided absolute and relative forms

measurement in society. Concepts of “homeownership” determined as a theoretical framework

in analysing phenomena of uncertainty in youth housing affordability(Campos et al,2016). It was

defined as a housing pathway framework in individual choices and desires in housing

policy(Campos et al,2016; Li,2015). It was affected by economic, demographical, social and

housing market factors in either Hong Kong and global context(Li,2015). Background of Hong

Kong housing policy had been focused on demand or supply oriented development. It was

determined different housing strategies in solving youth housing unaffordability under policy

process in Hong Kong(Cheung,2018; Wong,2015).

It was believed youth suffered housing unaffordability either in Hong Kong or global

society(Campos et al,2016). Although housing policy was developed in Hong Kong to solve

housing difficulties, it still analysed severe homeownership to youths in Hong Kong(Campos et

al,2016). Therefore, my survey research with 72 youths explored different willingness on

homeownership, reasons of youth housing difficulties and different suggestions or opinions in

housing policy. For willingness on homeownership, it seemed 16.7 percent of respondents

considered whether their employment income could meet housing prices in table 2(see Appendix

3). 57.7 percent of respondents considered address could be convenient to daily life or not when
33
planning to apply for public housing in table 5(see Appendix 3). When talked about reasons of

housing difficulties of youths, more than 60 percent of respondents believed volatility of

property market and low income were main reasons of housing difficulties of youths presented in

table 3(see Appendix 3). For youths views of housing policy in Hong Kong, it seemed many

youths agreed different suggestions of Hong Kong housing policy, such as government measures

DSD should be continued in controlling housing prices, develop pilot scheme for first home,

urban planning, develop transitional housing, “HK land for HK residents” policy, progressive

rates and property tax, shelve Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme and relaunch

“Sandwich Class Housing Scheme” and “First Time Home Loan Scheme” as homeownership

that presented in table 4(see Appendix 3).

To compare my research and literature research from Li(2015) and Campos, Yiu, Shen, Liao &

Maing(2016), both were similar in determined youth housing affordability and reasons of youth

housing unaffordability in Hong Kong context. Under 72 cases in my research, it showed

frequency and descriptive results in reasons of housing difficulties and their opinions on Hong

Kong housing policy. It was implicated with study from Campos et al(2016) while results were

dissimilar. It was believed less respondents weren’t willing in planning of purchasing houses

under frequency and percentage results in my research in table 2(see Appendix 3). However, in

research from Campos et al(2016), it showed 43 percent of respondents between 17 to 37 years

old were willing to purchase houses, which was dissimilar to results of my research through

survey.

To discuss with results from above, it was believed 62.5 percent of respondents agreed property

market volatility was one reason in affecting youth homeownership and housing affordability

due to increase of housing prices. Also, 61.1 percent of respondents more strongly agreed youths
34
suffered low income that affected youth homeownership and housing affordability in Hong Kong.

In previous research from Li(2015), it showed results in ranking different reasons of youth

homeownership and housing affordability. 26.4 percent and 16.3 percent of generation Y ranked

income as first factor in affecting youth homeownership and housing choices(Li,2015). 21.4

percent and 15.2 percent of generation Y ranked income as second factors in affecting youth

homeownership and housing choices(Li,2015). My research result was dissimilar to study from

Li(2015)as it ranked different values in property market as the first reason for housing

difficulties of youths in Hong Kong(see table 7 in Appendix 3). My research survey results were

significant to Hong Kong housing policy as it was believed reclamation, exploration of country

parks and using land resumption projects were first ranked in table 8(Mean=3.07, SD=1.09)(see

Appendix 3), in which Hong Kong government should consider continuing land strategies to

solve housing difficulties of youths. Although Cheung(2018)argued difficulties in finding land

for building houses to satisfy youths' homeownership, including population density increased,

land supply for housing was tightened and limited by judicial review(Cheung,2018), my research

survey results still significantly implicated housing policy in Hong Kong since land strategies

were common for Hong Kong government to increase land supply for housing usage. However,

increased land supply was not equal to tackle housing difficulties of youths since developers or

other stakeholders were involved(Cheung,2018). More interest groups believed redistributive

justice and suggested that government should use vacant land to develop transitional housing.

They didn’t accept Development Bureau's interpretation of land supply for housing usage. It was

difficult to release land for housing development usage in satisfying youths homeownership in

Hong Kong(Cheung,2018).

35
Research limitation

Challenges were “data reliability”, “data quality” and time limitation on approaching youths in

18-30 years old. Since online survey was set in HKBU Qualtrics, which limited sample size of

72 university students. As online surveys had been shared through its link for respondents to

access in answering questions, it still believed less reply after sent link of online survey. It

resulted in a sampling error in data collection process as difficult analyse answers without

responses when returning surveys. Survey responses were not fully answered were excluded in

this research. One limitation was only targeted at local youths in Hong Kong, especially youths

with degrees, which research did not include other youths graduated with other university

degrees in above, youths with no job and school or other households faced housing difficulties in

Hong Kong.

Conclusion

Research questions are (a)Why is it difficult for youths to owning house in Hong Kong?(b)Can

housing policy in HKSAR solve those difficulties? From data results, it showed different reasons

caused housing difficulties of youths, included property market volatility, low income,

competition between Hong Kong residents and mainlanders purchase and sell in property market,

less responses to Hong Kong government housing measures, different values in property market

and social mobility. It was believed different values in property market was first ranked in

reasons for youth housing difficulties. For youth views of Hong Kong housing policy, more

youths first ranked reclamation and other land strategies could deliberate youth housing

difficulties in Hong Kong. However, it seemed reclamation and other land strategies had its

limitations when built houses since increased land supply was not equal to tackle housing
36
difficulties of youths. It caused different interest groups or other stakeholders to have different

interpretations of redistributive justice in society.

It was implicated to further studies as youths were still faced with housing unaffordability and

low homeownership in Hong Kong or global society. Hong Kong government housing policy

was still a focus point from different scholars in evaluation of whether it met youths housing

needs or not.

37
References:
Anacker, K. B. (2019). Introduction: housing affordability and affordable housing. International

Journal of Housing Policy,19 (1), 1-16.

Balchin, P. & Rhoden, M.(2019).Housing Policy: An Introduction(4th ed.).Oxon: Routledge.

Campos, B. C., Yiu, C., Shen, J., Liao, K., & Maing, M. (2016). The anticipated housing

pathways to homeownership of young people in Hong Kong. International Journal of

Housing Policy, 16(2), 223–242. doi: 10.1080/14616718.2015.1130605

Census and Statistics Department.(2019). Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics. Nov 28.

2019. Retrieved from

https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp20.jsp?productCode=B1010002

Cheung, B. L. (2018). An Unavoidable Reality: A Review of the five-year housing policy of the

director(in Chinese). Hong Kong: New Century Hong Kong Social Studies Series

Chiu, R. (2002). Social Equity in Housing in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: A

Social Sustainability Perspective. Sustainable Development, 10(3), 155-162.

Chiu, R. (2007). Planning, Land and Affordable Housing in Hong Kong. Housing Studies, 22(1),

63-81.

Clapham, D. F., Clark, W. A. & Gibb, K.(2012). The Sage handbook of housing studies. London:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Chung, Y. N. R., Chung, K. K. G., Gordon, D., Mak, J. K. L., Zhang, L., Chan, D., Lai, T. T. F.,

Wong, H., & Wong, S. Y. S.(2019). Housing affordability effects on physical and mental

health: household survey in a population with the world's greatest housing affordability

stress. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 74(2), 164-172.

Falcon, J. & Joye, D. (2014). Social Mobility. In Michalos, A. C.(2014). Encyclopedia of Quality

38
 of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 6123-6127). Canada: Springer.

Friedman, R., & Rosen, G. (2018). The challenge of conceptualizing affordable housing:

definitions and their underlying agendas in Israel. Housing Studies, 34(4), 565–587. doi:

10.1080/02673037.2018.1458289

Gopalan, K., & Venkataraman, M. (2015). Affordable housing: Policy and practice in India.

IIMB Management Review, 27(2), 129–140. doi: 10.1016/j.iimb.2015.03.003

Guardiancich, I. (2016). The ‘Leap’ from Coordination to Harmonization in Social Policy:

Labour Mobility and Occupational Pensions in Europe. JCMS: Journal of Common

Market Studies, 54(6), 1313-1331.

Hulchanski, J. D. (1995). The concept of housing affordability: Six contemporary uses of the

housing expenditure­to­income ratio. Housing Studies, 10(4), 471–491.

doi:10.1080/02673039508720833

Iveson, M., & Deary, I. (2017). Intergenerational social mobility and subjective wellbeing in

later life. Social Science & Medicine, 188, 11-20.

Kapur, R. (2018). Social Mobility and Participation. Sep 30. 2019. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323825520_Social_Mobility_and_Participation

Leishman, C. & Rowley, S. (2012). Affordable housing. In Clapham, D. F., Clark, W. A. &

Gibb, K.(2012). The SAGE handbook of housing studies.(pp. 379-396). London: SAGE

Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781446247570.n20

Li, L., & Cheung, H. (2017). Housing price and transaction intensity correlation in Hong Kong:

Implications for government housing policy. Journal of Housing and the Built

Environment,32(2), 269-287.

Li, Y. M. R. (2015). Generation X and Y’s demand for homeownership in Hong Kong. Pacific
39
 Rim Property Research Journal, 21(1), 15-36, DOI: 10.1080/14445921.2015.1026195

Lui, H. K., & Suen, W. (2011). The effects of public housing on internal mobility in Hong Kong.

Journal of Housing Economics, 20(1), 15–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jhe.2010.11.001

Lund, B. (2006). Understanding housing policy. Bristol: Policy Press.

Lund, B. (2011). Understanding housing policy (2nd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press.

Lund, B. (2017). Understanding housing policy (3rd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press.

Nunn, A., Johnson, S., Monro, S., Bickerstaffe, T. & Kelsey, S.(2007). Factors influencing

social mobility. Crown: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Nunn, A. (2012). The political economy of competitiveness and social mobility. British

Politics,7(2), 86-110.

Ong, S. E.(2000). Housing Affordability and Upward Mobility from Public to Private Housing in

Singapore. International Real Estate Review, 3 (1),49-64.

Stone, M. E. (2006). What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach.

Housing Policy Debate, 17(1), 151–184. doi: 10.1080/10511482.2006.9521564

Tang, P. Y. (2012). Measuring the affordability of housing association rents in England: A dual

approach. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 5(3), 218-234.doi:

http://dx.doi.org.lib-ezproxy.hkbu.edu.hk/10.1108/17538271211243571

Wong, Y. C. R.(2015a). Hong Kong Land for Hong Kong people: fixing the failures of our

housing policy. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University press

Wong, Y. C. R.(2015b). Fixing Inequality in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University

press

Yip, N. M. & Lau, K. Y. (2002). Setting rent with reference to tenants’ affordability: Public

40
housing rent policy in Hong Kong. Journal of Housing and the Built

Environment,17(1),409-418.

41
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
香港房屋政策影響問卷調查(survey about impact of housing policy in HKSAR)

你好，我是香港浸會大學社會政策研究課程四年級的學生，現正研究有關香港房屋政策影

響問卷調查，所得資料只用於研究分析之用，並將絕對保密，所有個人資料並不會被公開。

在研究報告撰寫之後的六個月，所有收集的資料將會被銷毀。如果你同意的請按下一步，

如果不同意請按上一頁離開。如閣下對是項研究有任何查詢，請與我聯絡 (電郵地址:

18672361@life.hkbu.edu.hk)。

Hello, I am a year 4 student of bachelor of social science(hon)in social policy at the Hong Kong

Baptist University. I am studying the impact of housing policy in HKSAR Questionnaire. The

information obtained is for research and analysis and will be kept strictly confidential. All

personal information will not be public available. After the study report was written in six

months, all collected information will be destroyed. If you agree, please click Next. If you do not

agree, please press the previous page to leave. If you have any enquiries about the study, please

contact me (email address: 18672361@life.hkbu.edu.hk).

香港年輕人買樓和供樓的狀況 current situation of owning houses of youths in HK

1.你現時所住的居屋是哪一類？What kind of house do you currently live in?

□居屋 government housing □私人住宅 Private housing

□公共房屋 public housing □村屋 villages □其他(請列明)others(please

specify):___________________________

42
2.你現時的住所是你家人(或你自己)租還是買的？Is your current living property rented or

bought?

□租 rent □自置 buy □不知道 don’t know

3.你有沒有買樓的打算？Do you have plans to purchase a house?

□有（請跳至第 4 題）yes(please move to Q4) □已經買樓 purchase already □沒有 no □不知道

don’t know

4.承上題，若你有買樓的打算，你會考慮什麼條件？From Q3, if you plan to purchase a

property, what conditions would you consider? (只選一項 choose one only)

□工作收入和樓價比例 Employment income and property price ratio □是否和家人一起居住

whether living with family members or not □住址是否方便日常生活 whether address

convenient to everyday life or not □是否有樓宇擁有權 have homeownership or not □投資

investment □其他(請列明)others(please specify):___________________________

5.你有沒有考慮申請公屋抽籤的打算？Do you have plans to have lucky draw applying for

public housing?

□有考慮（請跳至第 6 題）yes(please move to Q6) □已經申請抽籤 drawn already □沒有 no □

不知道 don’t know

43
 6.承上題，如有申請參與公屋抽籤，你考慮了哪一些因素而再此決定是否接受抽籤結果？

From Q6, if you participate in public housing lucky draw, what factors will you consider before

deciding whether to accept lucky draw result?(可選多項 multiple options)

□房屋空間大小 housing spaces and sizes □住址方便日常生活 Address is convenient for daily

life □和親朋好友娛樂 Entertain with friends and family

□將來婚姻的環境 Environment for future marriage □親朋戚友鼓勵 Encouraged by family and

friends □其他(請列明)others(please specify):___________________________

7.你認為香港年輕人為什麼買不到樓？Why young people in Hong Kong cannot purchase a

house?

非常同意 同意 agree 一般/中立 不同意 非常不同意

strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
disagree

樓市波動 Property market □ □ □ □ □

volatility

低收入而需要工作多年才能 □ □ □ □ □
儲首期 Low income and need
to work for many years to
save money in first period

內地人和香港人買賣樓市競 □ □ □ □ □
爭 competition of mainlanders
and Hong Kong residents
purchase and sell property
market

市民對政府對樓市的措施反 □ □ □ □ □
應不大 less citizen’s response
of Hong Kong government

44
housing property measures

對樓市買賣價值觀不同（例 □ □ □ □ □
如買樓會有好的生活素質）
Different values in property
market (e.g. purchase a
property will have a good
quality of life)

社會流動性（例如買樓會增 □ □ □ □ □
加年輕人向上流動機會）
Social mobility (e.g.
purchasing a property will
increase opportunity for
young people to have upward
mobility)

對香港政府房屋政策的看法 view towards housing policy in HKSAR

8.總括來說，以下有幾段關於香港現行房屋政策的觀點和建議，你是否認同？To sum up,

following paragraphs of opinions and suggestions on Hong Kong's current housing policy. Do

you agree?

非常同意 同意 agree 一般/中立 不同意 非常不同意

strongly neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

政府應該繼續推動加辣措施(例如： □ □ □ □ □
雙倍印花稅）以控制樓價升勢
government should continue on
measures(e.g. DSD) in controlling
increase of housing price

推動「港人首次置業先導項目」 □ □ □ □ □
develop pilot schemes for first home

政府以填海規劃（例如推行明日大 □ □ □ □ □
嶼願景計劃）、發展郊野公園和運
用“收回土地條例”重新規劃房屋策
略和土地供應舒緩房屋問題

45
Reclamation(e.g. Lantau Tomorrow),
explore country park and using land
resumption project to replan housing
strategies and land supply in
deliberating housing issues

透過市區重建解決房屋問題 urban □ □ □ □ □
planning to solve housing issues

發展過渡性房屋 develop transitional □ □ □ □ □

housing

港人港地政策是應該重推 “HK land □ □ □ □ □

for HK residents” policy is needed

以累進差餉和房產稅舒緩房屋供應 □ □ □ □ □
短缺問題 using progressive rates and
property tax to deliberate housing
supply shortages

擱置「綠表置居先導計劃」以重新 □ □ □ □ □
分配公屋資源 shelve Green Form
Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme
in redistribution of housing resources

重推「夾心階層住屋計劃」和「首 □ □ □ □ □
次置業貸款計劃」以置業為主導解
決房屋問題 Relaunch “Sandwich
Class Housing Scheme” and “First
Time Home Loan Scheme” as
homeownership to solve housing issue
個人資料 Personal information

性別 Gender

□男 Male □女 Female

年齡 Age

□小於 18 small than 18 □18-20 □21-24 □25-30 □大於 30 large than 30

46
現時就讀及就業 current study and work

□只是全職工作 full-time job only □全職工作和兼職在學 full-time job and part time in school

□只是全職在學 full-time in school only □全職在學和兼職工作 full-time in school and part-

time job □不在學和不工作 no school and job

現時就讀狀況 current education level

□毅進文憑 Yi jin □副學士/高級文憑 Associate degree/higher diploma degree

□學士學位 bachelor degree □碩士 master degree □博士 doctor degree □不在學 not in school

現時就業狀況 current job status

□兼職 part-time □全職工作 full-time □未有工作 no job

個人平均每個月的收入 individual income in monthly average

□$3000 以下 below $3000 □$3,000-3,999 □$4,000-4,999 □$5,000-5,999

□$6,000-6,999 □$7,000-7,999 □$8,000-$8,999 □$9,000-9,999 □$10,000-14,999 □$15,000-

19,999 □$20,000-29,999 □$30,000 以上$30,000 or above □收入不定 unstable income □不知道

don’t know □沒有工作 (not in labour force)

~你已經完成問卷，多謝。End of survey, thank you~

47
Appendix 2: Figures in literatures relevant to research
Figure 1: Housing tenure in Hong Kong by number and percentage in 2014 (Campos et al,2016)

48
Figure 2: Housing tenure structure by age groups in percent (Campos et al,2016)

49
50
51
Figure 3: Demographic characteristics of 160 university students participation of studies in 2014 (Campos et al,2016)

52
Figure 4: Expectation of homeownership financing of students(aged 17 to 37 years old) in Hong Kong in 2014 (Campos et
al,2016)

Figure 5: Willingness of students (aged 17 to 37 years old) in Hong Kong to buy an apartment in 2014

Figure 6: Different anticipated housing pathways (willingness to buy/financing) of students(aged 17 to 37 years old) in Hong
Kong in 2014

53
Figure 7: youth housing pathways framework in Hong Kong

Purchase high quality

private housing

Purchase low quality private

housing or subsidized housing
Rent high quality
Low private housing High
expectation Rent low quality expectation
of financial private housing of financial
support support from
from Rent subdivided housing parents
parents
Public housing
application

54
Figure 8: factors affected homeownership (Li,2015)

55
56
57
 Figure 9: Five most important factors affecting generation X's tenure choice (Li,2015)

Figure 10: Five most important factors affecting Generation Y's tenure choice decision (Li,2015)

58
Figure 11: Factors affecting generation X's demand for homeownership (Li,2015)

59
Figure 12: Factors affecting generation Y's demand for homeownership (Li,2015)

60
Figure 13: Results of principal component factor analysis for generation X (Li,2015)

61
Figure 14: Rotated component matrix generation Y (Li,2015)

62
Appendix 3: Tables of questionnaire

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of participants (N=72)

Frequency Percentage(%)

Gender Male 33 45.8

Female 39 54.2

Age group 18-20yrs 21 29.2

21-24yrs 46 63.9
25-30yrs 5 6.9

Study and work Full-time job only 2 2.8

Full-time job and part time in school 5 6.9
Full-time in school only 40 55.6
Full-time in school and part-time job 25 34.7

Education level Associate degree/higher diploma degree 15 20.8

Bachelor degree 57 79.2

Job status Part-time job 35 48.6

Full-time job 3 4.2
No job 34 47.2

Income Below $3,000 21 29.2

$3,000-$3,999 6 8.3
$4,000-$4,999 3 4.2
$5,000-$5,999 1 1.4
$8,000-$8,999 1 1.4
$10,000-$14,999 2 2.8
$15,000-$19,999 2 2.8
Unstable income 9 12.5

63
 Not in labour force 27 37.5

Type of housing Government housing 19 26.4

Private housing 24 33.3
Public housing 17 23.6
Villages 12 16.7

Rent or buy Rent 29 40.3

Buy 37 51.4
Don’t know 6 8.3

Table 2: Willingness on Homeownership

Frequency Percentage(%)

Plan in housing purchasement Yes 26 36.1

Purchase already 2 2.8
No 31 43.1
Don’t know 13 18.1

Consider in housing Employment income and 12 16.7

purchasement property price ratio
Whether living with family 3 4.2
members or not
Whether address convenient 9 12.5
to everyday life or not
Have homeownership or not 1 1.4
Investment 1 1.4

Plan in public housing Yes 34 47.2

application
Drawn already 6 8.3
No 26 36.1

64
 Don’t know 6 8.3

Table 3: Public housing and housing difficulties of youth

Frequency Percentage(%)

Consider in public housing Housing spaces and sizes 13 18.1

application
Address is convenient for 30 41.7
daily life
Entertain with friends and 3 4.2
family
Environment for future 4 5.6
marriage
Encouraged by family and 1 1.4
friends
Others: accept in all 1 1.4

Housing difficulties of youth: Strong agree 19 26.4

property market volatility
Agree 45 62.5
Neutral 4 5.6
Disagree 3 4.2
Strongly disagree 1 1.4

Housing difficulties of youth: Strong agree 44 61.1

Low income and need to work
for many years to save money in Agree 13 18.1
first period
Neutral 15 20.8

Housing difficulties of youth: Strong agree 26 36.1

competition of mainlanders and
Hong Kong residents purchase
and sell property market Agree 21 29.2
Neutral 19 26.4
Disagree 6 8.3

65
Housing difficulties of youth: Strong agree 15 20.8
less citizen’s response of Hong
Kong government housing
property measures Agree 25 34.7
Neutral 24 33.3
Disagree 7 9.7
Strongly disagree 1 1.4

Housing difficulties of youth: Strongly agree 5 6.9

different values in property
market (e.g. purchase a property
will have a good quality of life) Agree 26 36.1
Neutral 33 45.8
Disagree 8 11.1

Housing difficulties of youth: Strongly agree 17 23.6

Social mobility (e.g. purchasing
a property will increase
opportunity for young people to Agree 22 30.6
have upward mobility) Neutral 25 34.7
Disagree 8 11.1

Table 4: Housing Market in different opinions and suggestions

Frequency Percentage(%)

Government should continue on Strongly agree 9 12.5

measures(e.g. DSD)in controlling
increase of housing price
Agree 43 59.7
Neutral 16 22.2
Disagree 3 4.2
Strongly disagree 1 1.4

Develop pilot schemes for first Strongly agree 26 36.1

home
Agree 33 45.8

66
 Neutral 12 16.7
Disagree 1 1.4

Reclamation(e.g. Lantau Strongly agree 8 11.1

Tomorrow), explore country park
and using land resumption project
to replan housing strategies and Agree 9 12.5
land supply in deliberating housing Neutral 32 44.4
issues
Disagree 16 22.2
Strongly disagree 7 9.7

Urban planning to solve housing Strongly agree 20 27.8

issues
Agree 29 40.3
Neutral 15 20.8
Disagree 6 8.3
Strongly disagree 2 2.8

Develop transitional housing Strongly agree 4 5.6

Agree 35 48.6
Neutral 23 31.9
Disagree 8 11.1
Strongly disagree 2 2.8

“HK land for HK residents” policy Strongly agree 25 34.7

is needed
Agree 26 36.1
Neutral 12 16.7
Disagree 6 8.3
Strongly disagree 3 4.2

Using progressive rates and Strongly agree 12 16.7

property tax to deliberate housing
supply shortages
Agree 27 37.5

67
 Neutral 24 33.3
Disagree 8 11.1
Strongly disagree 1 1.4

Shelve Green Form Subsidised Strongly agree 6 8.3

Home Ownership Scheme in
redistribution of housing resources
Agree 31 43.1
Neutral 25 34.7
Disagree 8 11.1
Strongly disagree 2 2.8

Relaunch “Sandwich Class Housing Strongly agree 9 12.5

Scheme” and “First Time Home
Loan Scheme” as homeownership
to solve housing issue Agree 29 40.3
Neutral 24 33.3
Disagree 9 12.5
Strongly disagree 1 1.4

Table 5: Frequency in multiple response in public housing consideration

Frequency Percentage( Percent of

%) case(%)

Consider in Housing spaces and sizes 13 25 38.2

public housing
application
Address is convenient for 30 57.7 88.2
daily life

Entertain with friends and 3 5.8 8.8

family

Environment for future 4 7.7 11.8

marriage
Encouraged by family and 1 1.9 2.9
friends
68
 Others: accept in all 1 1.9 2.9
Total 52 100 152.9
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Table 6: Cross Tabulation of multiple response in public housing consideration

Number Percentag Number Percentag

of e(%) of e(%)
count(Ma count(Fe
le) male)

Consider in public Housing spaces and 4 30.8 9 42.9

housing sizes
application

Address is convenient 12 92.3 18 85.7

for daily life

Entertain with friends 2 15.4 1 4.8

and family

Environment for 0 0 4 19
future marriage

Encouraged by family 0 0 1 4.8

and friends
Others: accept in all 0 0 1 4.8
Percentages and totals are based on respondents.
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Table 7: Mean and SD of Public housing and housing difficulties of youth

Mean SD Rank

Property market volatility 1.92 .783 5

Low income and need to work for many years to save money in 1.60 .816 6
first period

Competition of mainlanders and Hong Kong residents purchase 2.07 .983 4

and sell property market

Less citizen’s response of Hong Kong government housing 2.36 .969 2

69
property measures

Different values in property market (e.g. purchase a property 2.61 .779 1

will have a good quality of life)

Social mobility (e.g. purchasing a property will increase 2.33 .964 3

opportunity for young people to have upward mobility)

Table 8: Mean and SD of Housing market in different opinions and suggestions

Mean SD Rank

Government should continue on measures(e.g. DSD)in 2.22 .773 5

controlling increase of housing price

Develop pilot schemes for first home 1.83 .751 8

Reclamation(e.g. Lantau Tomorrow), explore country park and 3.07 1.09 1

using land resumption project to replan housing strategies and
land supply in deliberating housing issues

Urban planning to solve housing issues 2.18 1.03 6

Develop transitional housing 2.57 .869 2

“HK land for HK residents” policy is needed 2.11 1.11 7

Using progressive rates and property tax to deliberate housing 2.43 .947 4
supply shortages
Shelve Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme in 2.57 .901 2
redistribution of housing resources

Relaunch “Sandwich Class Housing Scheme” and “First Time 2.50 .919 3
Home Loan Scheme” as homeownership to solve housing issue

70
Appendix 4: Ethical Approval Email

From: Gloria K S Chak <gloriachak@hkbu.edu.hk>

To: 18672361@life.hkbu.edu.hk

Cc: sowk@hkbu.edu.hk,
avalaubu@hkbu.edu.hk
Date: Dec 18, 2019, 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Application for the ethical/safety clearance procedures
Dear Chan Chun Sum Brian,

Please be informed that your application for the ethical/safety clearance procedures for the
Project " A study on the impact of Hong Kong housing policy on youth homeownership" has
been approved.

Thank you for your attention.

Best regards,
Faculty of Social Sciences

71
Appendix 5: Borrowing Consent Form
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK

Honours Project

I agree that the Department may provide other social work students with softcopy

or a copy of my project for purposes of private study or research, on the

understanding that any such copy is not further reproduced or published in any

form without my special written consent.

AUTHOR: ____Chan Chun Sum Brian __________________________________

STDUENT NUMBER: _18672361_________________________________________

TITLE: _ A study on the impact of Hong Kong housing policy on youth

homeownership____________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Signed __ ______________________________ Date ______________________

72
Appenddix 6: Samplle Informed Consent Foorm

香港浸
浸會大學
學
社
社會工作作系

參與畢業研
研究問卷
卷調查同意
意書

我是陳駿
駿森，是香 香港浸會大學 學國際學院
院（社會政策
策專業）四四年級學生，正進行一
一項
關於「香
香港房屋政 政策對青年房 房屋擁有權
權的影響研究
究」畢業論論文的研究，旨在瞭解
解香
港房屋政
政策對青年 年人的影響和 和青年人住
住屋困難的原
原因 。特別
別邀請您參加
加是次的問
問卷
過程約 20-225 分鐘。參
調查，過 參與純屬自願性質。是
是次研究並不不為參加者
者提供個人利
利
益。

是次所收集到的資
資料將會絕對保密，並
並只用作研究用途。是
是次所得到的所有個人人資
料，將不會
訊或資料 會出現在任何
何的報告中
中，研究結束
束後，所有
有的資料將會
會銷毀。

1. 本人
人______________同意參
參與「香港
港房屋政策對
對青年房屋屋擁有權的影
影響研究」問卷調
查。
人明白參與
2. 本人 與是項研究純 純粹自願性
性質的。本人
人可以在問問卷調查開始
始前隨時可
可以
退出，而而不會影響 響本人任何方 方面的發展
展。
3. 本人
人明白研究 究的目的及用 用途，並同
同意進行此項
項活動。

日後如對
對是項研究
究有任何查詢
詢，請與研
研究員陳駿森
森聯絡。

如你明白以上內容
容，並願意參
參與是項研
研究，請在下
下方簽署。

簽名﹕________________________________________
參加者簽
(姓名 名﹕ )

參加者監
監護人簽名
名﹕_________________________________
(姓名﹕ )

研究者簽
簽名﹕________________________________________
(姓名名﹕ )

日期：_______________________________________________

73