Housing, Theory and Society

ISSN: 1403-6096 (Print) 1651-2278 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shou20

Socio‐cultural sustainability of housing: a

conceptual exploration

Rebecca L. H. Chiu

To cite this article: Rebecca L. H. Chiu (2004) Socio‐cultural sustainability of

housing: a conceptual exploration, Housing, Theory and Society, 21:2, 65-76, DOI:
10.1080/14036090410014999

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090410014999

Published online: 04 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4017

View related articles

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=shou20
Socio-Cultural Sustainability of Housing: a Conceptual
Exploration
Rebecca L. H. Chiu
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Housing, Theory and Society 2004; 21: 65–76.

As an important component of the built environment, housing has a crucial role to play in the sustainable development
of cities. The sustainability of housing development embraces the environmental, social, cultural and economic aspects of
housing, which intertwine with one another. This paper specifically investigates the concepts of social and cultural sustain-
ability and then situates them within the housing context. It discusses the areas of concern of these two strands of sustainability
in housing, arguing that they converge where the use of environmental resources for and the ecological impacts of housing
activities are influenced and determined by socio-cultural factors. Social and cultural sustainability diverge where “social well
being” and “culture” respectively become the subjects of sustainability. Some results of a residents’ survey conducted in Hong
Kong are used to provide empirical examples for some of the arguments raised in this paper. This article concludes that the
sustainable development perspective offers an integrative approach to housing inquiries.
Key words: sustainable development, social sustainability, cultural sustainability, environmentally sustainable housing, socio-
cultural preconditions, equity, housing quality, housing heritage

Rebecca L. H. Chiu, Centre of Urban Planning & Environmental Management, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam
Road, Hong Kong, China. E-mail: rlhchiu@hkucc.hku.hk

INTRODUCTION pursuit of one affects that of the others (Khan, 1995;

Ensuing from the environmental protection movement
in the 1960s and 70s, the term “sustainable develop-
ment” has become a buzzword in the development
strategies of governments since the 80s. Although the
term is defined differently by various governments,
the fundamental concept posed in the definition of the
World Commission on Environment and Development
is generally upheld: “development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commissions on Environment and Development,
1987:23). In essence, sustainability of the ecological
systems and equity within and between generations are
the key concepts of sustainable development. Sustain-
ability initially referred to “environmental sustain-
ability” or “ecological sustainability”, that is, the long-
term capability of the Earth to accommodate ever
expanding human needs and wants, given their toll on
the natural ecology. As the sustainable development
debate developed, it was argued by many that apart
from “environmental sustainability”, other strands of
sustainability, namely, “social sustainability”, “cultural
sustainability” and “economic sustainability” should
also be recognized because they are also key dimen-
sions of development. The four strands of sustainability
are in fact inter-linked and should not be isolated; the
 2004 Taylor & Francis. ISSN 1403–6096
DOI 10.1080/14036090410014999
Goodland and Daly, 1996; Mitlin and Satterthwaite,
1996; Hart, 1999; Williams et al., 2000; Chiu, 2003).
As a key component of the built environment,
housing plays a crucial role in the sustainable devel-
opment of cities. The primary purpose of housing
development is to meet housing needs and to improve
housing conditions. Put into the context of sustainable
development, the meeting of such housing needs and
demands should also be qualified by the capacity of
the natural environment to make such provisions.
Thus sustainable housing development can be defined
as “housing development that meets the housing needs
and demands of the present generation without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs and demands”. Housing is nonetheless more
than meeting accommodation demands, it is simulta-
neously an important measure of social developments,
a key economic concern and a cultural element. Thus
the sustainability of housing development embraces the
environmental, social, cultural and economic aspects.
Ultimately an integrated perspective based on the
sustainable development concepts should be estab-
lished to provide a holistic and comprehensive frame-
work for analysing housing issues. Before this can
be done, however, each of these aspects needs to be
examined individually and thoroughly from the sus-
tainability perspective as they are complex social
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
66 R.L.H. Chiu
science problems, deserving attentions on their own.
Their intricate relationships with the new paradigm
of sustainable development have to be teased out
carefully. This paper therefore grapples with the social
and cultural dimensions of housing in the sustainable
development perspective. These two dimensions are
considered in one paper because they are sometimes
taken as one broad aspect, and this paper will identify
their convergence and divergence.
Generally, social sustainability and cultural sus-
tainability are key dimensions of sustainable develop-
ment. These two dimensions often inter-lock and are
sometimes indistinguishable. When social sustain-
ability is interpreted in terms of social constraints
limiting development, cultural factors are significant,
as cultural values and customs are often at play to set
social norms. The same relationships apply when social
sustainability is interpreted as social preconditions
necessary to support environmental sustainability.
Culture affects the social structure, social values and
life styles of a society, and hence the impact of human
activities on the natural environment. The relationship
between social and cultural sustainability is even more
intimate when social sustainability refers to the upkeep
or improvement of the well being of people in this and
future generations. This is because such improvements
involve, as discussed later, social relations, the distri-
bution of resources and benefits, and quality of life, all
of which are culture-specific.
Based on the work of Chiu (2003) which argues that
the social sustainability of housing should focus on
both the people and the environment rather than just
one of them, this paper further explores the conceptual
issues involved in the cultural and social dimensions
of sustainable housing development. It initially dis-
cusses the general concepts of social and cultural
sustainability and identifies areas common to these
concepts. It then proposes a framework for examining
the social and cultural sustainability of housing of
a place. Each component of this framework and its
interconnectedness with the others are elaborated and
Table 1. Interpretations of social sustainability
Interpretation 1 Interpretation 2
. Social constraints limiting . Social pre-conditions determining
development distribution of resources and assets
– social relations within and over generations
– customs – rules
– structure – values
– values – preferences
– norms
* Development-oriented * Environment-oriented
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
new data from a residents’ survey on environmental
consciousness conducted in Hong Kong in April 2001
is used to provide empirical evidence.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
Since the publication of the Brundtland report in 1987
(World Commission on Environment and Develop-
ment, 1987), there has been a plethora of literature
on sustainable development. Initially, the intellectual
debate on this new paradigm was mainly confined to
two of its basic dimensions: economic sustainability
and environmental sustainability (Cernea, 1993). Later
it branched out into the social and cultural dimensions
as well. In fact, the Brundtland report of 1987 already
pointed out that “perceived needs are socially and
culturally determined, and sustainable development
requires the promotion of values that encourage
consumption standards that are within the bounds of
the ecological possible and to which all can reasonably
aspire” (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987:44).
Social sustainability
The three different interpretations of social sustain-
ability summarised by Chiu (2003) from the extant
literature reflect these inter-connections (Table 1). One
of the interpretations equates social sustainability
with environmental sustainability, in that develop-
ments are restricted by social constraints, as by
ecological limits (Munro, 1995). The social constraints
are set by social norms. If an activity breaches the
social limits, it will fail because of people’s resistance.
Hence for an activity or development to be socially
sustainable, it has to keep to specific social relations,
customs, structure and value. The thrust of this
interpretation is therefore the influence of social
values, norms, and social structure on the continuation
or progress of development policies, projects or activ-
ities. This interpretation is thus development-oriented
Interpretation 3
. Maintenance or improvement of
the well-being of people
– increased social
cohesion and integrity
– enhanced social stability
– improvement in the quality of
life
* People-oriented

as its main concern is social constraints that limit
development.
The second interpretation can be considered as a
further elaboration of the first one in the context of
environmental protection; it refers to the social
preconditions for sustainable development. More pre-
cisely they are the social conditions necessary to sup-
port ecological sustainability (Mitlin and Satterthwaite,
1996:25). The basis for this interpretation is similar to
that reflected in the above quote from the Brundtland
report: rules and values within a social context deter-
mine how natural resources and assets are distributed
within and between generations. The focus of this
interpretation is on ecological sustainability, and is
therefore environment-oriented.
The third interpretation of social sustainability is
people-oriented, referring to maintaining or improving
the well being of people in this and future generations
(Borrini-Feyerabend and Buchan, 1997; Pugh, 1996;
Townroe, 1996). The aims are social cohesion and
integrity, social stability and improvement in the
quality of life. Correspondingly there should be reduc-
tions in social inequality, especially in terms of social
exclusion, social discontinuity and destructive conflicts
(Hediger, 2000; Polese and Stren, 2000). Thus equitable
distribution and consumption of resources and assets,
harmonious social relations and acceptable quality of
life are the central issues.
These three interpretations together provide further
insights into sustainable development. To pursue de-
velopment which is environmentally sustainable, we
have to begin with changing the attitudes and values
of people on the consumption and distribution of
resources and assets. This could be a long process,
unless triggered off by crises. These values and atti-
tudes are hence preconditions for pursuing environ-
mental sustainability. To meet needs and aspirations
of the human race, however, the sustainability of the
Earth is not the only concern. Simultaneously, we need
to make our society more equitable, harmonious,
cohesive and be able to provide a better quality of
life to people. The environmental and social aspects
are however connected. If the conditions of the Earth
deteriorate and natural resources available to human
activities diminish, then social inequity, conflicts and
hence social segregation, instability and dissension
may worsen (Chiu, 2003). Social sustainability is thus
intertwined with environmental sustainability. It is even
more intimately interwoven with cultural sustain-
ability.
Cultural sustainability
Before canvassing the concepts of cultural sustain-
ability, we need to straighten out the basic concepts of
culture. Social relations, social structure, value, norms,
Socio-cultural sustainability of housing 67
customs, rules, the conceptions of equity, and life style
are either affected by or part and parcel of a culture.
In unpacking the concept of “culture”, Rapoport (2001)
has distinguished two dimensions of elements that
determine culture: the social dimension including kin-
ship, family structure, social network, identity, status
and so forth; and the ideological dimension encom-
passing values, ideals, images, norms, standards,
expectations, rules, and so forth. This breakdown
underscores the influence of social structure in culture,
and hence their inseparable relationship. A finer defi-
nition for culture should, however, cover three major
aspects as summarized from the works of Rapoport
(1969 and 2001), Schusky and Culbert (1973), and
Thaman (2002). The first is its aesthetic and artistic
aspect. This covers fine arts, music, popular culture,
performing arts, and so on. The second aspect refers to
the cultivation of mind and spirit. It includes knowl-
edge, belief, religion and ideologies. The third aspect
is the anthropological perspective: the way of life;
and it pertains to the social aspect of human behaviour.
It is the totality of the socio-cultural convention in-
herent in a specific society. It includes morals, values,
laws, codes, customs, traditions, heritage, life styles
and the ways we socialise within specific social struc-
tures. The above three aspects overlap and influence
one another in various ways.
The attributes of culture in general bear relevance
to the sustainability concept. First, culture is stored
and passed on from one generation to the next. In the
process, it cumulates, and improves or evolves over
time and space, but it may also become extinct.
Another is the diversity of culture: there are many
separate cultures and each is different from others.
Culture thus gives identity to a place over different
time periods (Darlow, 1996; Fischer and Hajer (eds.),
1999; Raberg, 1997; Schusky and Culbert, 1973). An
important attribute of culture particularly pertinent to
the sustainable development perspective is that “cul-
ture is the means by which man adapts to his
environment and secures things that he needs for his
survival” (Schusky and Culbert, 1973:45). Therefore,
the culture of a place is also inseparable from the
natural environment and it certainly has a role to play
in the pursuit of environmental sustainability of a
place.
The concept of cultural sustainability is not as well
established as that of social sustainability, and it is
often subsumed under social sustainability because
of its social dimension (see, e.g. Munro, 1995). Never-
theless, Hardoy et al. (1993) has concisely pointed
out two important interpretations of cultural sustain-
ability (Table 2). The first refers to the contribution
of shared values, perceptions and attitudes to the
achievement of sustainable development. The second
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
68 R.L.H. Chiu
Table 2. Interpretations of cultural sustainability
Interpretation 1
* The contribution of shared values, perceptions and
attitudes to sustainable development
* Cultural sustainability as a pre-condition for
sustainable development
interpretation refers to the sustainability of a culture
itself, and in this case, culture is regarded as a critical
component of development. Thus culture should
evolve with socio-economic developments over time,
and its evolutionary process should be recognised
through conservation of the cultural heritage.
The interpretations of cultural sustainability found in
the literature generally fall into these two categories.
Cernea (1993) has argued that even if development
projects were economically and environmentally sound,
they would stumble and crumble if they were not
culturally and socially robust. Thus cultural sustain-
ability is a pre-condition for sustainable development.
Norms which are more conducive to sustainable de-
velopment are argued to be those which “are protective
of the environment, support thrift, honesty, defend
property, and assert the value of mutual support etc …”
(Cernea, 1993:28). Khan (1995) has also argued that
the main threat to sustainable development comes
from the cultural front, notably the culture of maxima
promoted and pushed by the Western societies.
Consumerism and materialism have not only consti-
tuted the major items of personal and the state agenda
in many societies, the pursuit of these goals has in fact
been made noble and respectable.
Similarly Thaman (2002) also contests that for
development to be sustainable, it must be rooted in
people’s cultural values; and indeed culture is the
foundation of sustainable development. Colonialism
and post-colonial globalisation are, however, destroy-
ing the values and belief systems of indigenous
peoples, and replacing them with those of the Western
society. The indigenous ways of seeing the Earth in its
totality, and its emphasis on the connectedness and
interrelatedness of all things and all people, are giving
way to Western perceptions. The Western knowledge,
skills and values have dis-empowered the indigenous
people. Hence, the future of the indigenous people is
not sustainable, and the inability to sustain is caused by
the processes of “development” of another culture.
Culture, in this case, is not included as a component of
development, at least with respect to the subjugated
culture.
As earlier discussed, culture is not static; it evolves
with time and it has its own identity. Cultural
sustainability therefore should not be equated with
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
Interpretation 2
* The sustainability of culture itself
* Culture as a critical component of development
* Cultural development to take place within the limits
of ecological capacity
keeping a culture static. Rather it refers to sustaining
cultural diversity and enabling cultures to evolve.
Further, cultures should flourish, and be enriched,
alongside with social and economic advancements.
Nevertheless, “cultural development”, similar to social
and economic developments, should take place within
the limits of the environmental capacity.
The common and specific concerns of social and
cultural sustainability
The common areas between social and cultural
sustainability are those relating to the socio-cultural
limits to and pre-conditions for sustainable develop-
ment (Figure 1). Both the cultural and social dimen-
sions of a society have strong influence on and are
indeed partially composed of the value, norms,
customs, social structure and life style of a community.
Therefore social and cultural sustainability are difficult
to separate and are often considered together. However,
both the social and cultural sustainability have their
respective distinctive areas of concern: the social well
being of the people for the former, and the continuation
of the culture for the latter. Some of the manifestations
of the social and cultural dimensions are also different.
Those of the social dimension may not be tangible; and
include levels of social cohesion, social stability, social
equality, social equity (i.e. fairness and justice), social
conflict, social inclusion and so on. Those of culture
may be more tangible: arts, music, performing arts,
literature and religion. Thus, while there are substantial
overlaps between these two dimensions of sustain-
ability, they are not the same. Such distinctions can
also be found in the context of housing.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
OF HOUSING
Prior to applying the concepts of social sustainability
to housing, Chiu (2003) defined the tenets of sustain-
able housing development. She argued that the pri-
mary concern of sustainable housing development is
to meet the housing needs of the people and not to
preserve the environment. However, the environment
has to be safeguarded from deteriorating to an extent

Fig. 1. Common and distinctive features of social and cultural sustainability.
that it diminishes the ability of future generations to
meet their housing needs. Further, sustainable housing
should not be merely about meeting basic needs, but
should also improve the liveability of the living
environment, both internal and external. Based on
these tenets, she proposes that the social sustainability
of housing should include four aspects: (a) the social
preconditions conducive to the production and
consumption of environmentally sustainable housing;
Fig. 2. Social and cultural sustainability of housing.
Socio-cultural sustainability of housing 69
(b) equitable distribution and consumption of housing
resources and assets; (c) harmonious social relations
within the housing system; and (d) an acceptable
quality of housing conditions. Following on from the
previous discussion about the common areas between
social and cultural sustainability, the first and the fourth
aspects are also pertinent to cultural sustainability.
A distinctive cultural dimension should however be
added: preservation of housing heritage (Figure 2).
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
70 R.L.H. Chiu
The rest of this paper will elaborate on each of these
five aspects. The purpose is to present a framework
for investigating the social and cultural sustainability
of housing of a given place. Some of the dimensions
have already been examined elsewhere by the author
(Chiu, 2002; Chiu, 2003). The major arguments and
findings of these studies will be incorporated in the
overall framework where appropriate. Illustrations,
including the results of a survey on environmental
consciousness, will be drawn from the housing system
of Hong Kong, with which the author is familiar. The
discussion begins with the socio-cultural pre-condi-
tions conducive to the production and consumption of
environmentally sustainable housing.
Socio-cultural preconditions
The socio-cultural preconditions of environmentally
sustainable housing pertain to the extent of environ-
mental consciousness in the values, norms, habits and
behaviours of housing production and consumption.
In relating the expression of culture to housing,
Rapoport (2001) argues that values lead to differences
in resources allocation; and tradeoffs are always made
as reflected in the relative value attached to the
dwellings, the neighbourhoods, and location within
the settlement. Further, values determine preferences
and choices; the latter in turn define norms and stan-
dards that are reinforced by formal and informal rules.
Together, they affect housing design, and lead to styles
and identities of cultural landscapes, which also shape
lifestyle (p. 151–153).
Placing these arguments in the sustainability con-
cepts, the consciousness and the willingness to live in
an environmentally sustainable way will affect, on the
parts of the housing producers and related government
organisations, the choice of housing sites (e.g. green-
field or brownfield sites); the regard given to the impact
of the proposed project on the natural environment
and the existing infrastructure; the land use planning
principles and development intensity; the use of en-
vironmentally friendly design and building materials;
the attention given to the effect of the proposed housing
design on the lifestyle and the physical quality of life
of future residents, and the adoption of environmen-
tally sound measures and systems during the construc-
tion process (for detailed discussion, see Bhatti, 1994;
Chiu, 2000; Rydin, 1992).
For housing consumers, values and norms which are
protective of the environment include reductions in
energy consumption, and the use of green design and
measures of the property. The most important are
nonetheless those which support thrift, and those
which prefer and are willing to spend more for
environmentally friendly properties. The culture of
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
maxima which enshrines consumerism and materialism
has caused many to continuously seek bigger homes,
ignoring the toll of their residential activities on the
natural environment. We seldom ask ourselves whether
we need all the space in our homes, how often the
different rooms are used (e.g. the lounge rooms in
Western houses), and whether we need the sizes of the
rooms as they are. Due to past conventions and local
climatic and topographic reasons, different commu-
nities would have different size standards which
provide homes of comfortable quality. But when we
“trade up” to bigger homes, our consideration is often
given to financial issues, the social status or image that
the residential choice may impart, and sometimes to
necessities. Rarely do we factor in environmental
concerns. Summarizing the foregoing, these would
include the sizes of homes which are within the
environmental capacity to provide for this and future
generations, the environmental costs of unnecessary
residential activities, whether the property is designed
on environmental principles and built with green
materials, and the cost of environmentally friendly
homes.
To exemplify such matters, a survey to investigate
the environmental consciousness of housing con-
sumers in Hong Kong was conducted in April 2001
by the author. Three convenience samples of 200
residents each were randomly selected and interviewed
on the streets of three locations: an old but vibrant
district (Wanchai) near the city centre with mixed resi-
dential, retail and office uses; a public rental housing
estate (Wah Fu) built in the fringe of the main urban
area in the sixties by the government; and the rental
blocks of a subsidised housing estate (Verbena
Heights) built by a housing association in a new town
in the mid-nineties with environmentally friendly
concepts. Residents of these three residential locations
were generally of the low income groups as only
families meeting the income eligibility criteria were
admitted to the public and the subsidised estates, and
that housing in the old area was generally of a lower
quality affordable by the lower income families. The
choice of the three residential locations thus enabled
the comparison of views across lower income families
in public and private housing and those reside in accom-
modation with and without environmental design.
The survey results (Table 3) show that almost all
(98%) of the respondents supported the idea of
environmental protection, and most (94%) thought
that housing design and construction should mini-
mise the use of natural resources and adverse impact
to the environment. When asked whether developers
should provide the environmental information (e.g.
ventilation, energy used to produce and transport
building materials, use of recycled material) of their

Table 3. Environmental consciousness of housing consumers in Hong Kong (April 2001)
Attitude/Opinion on Environmental Protection
1. Support for environmental protection
2. Environmental impact of housing production should be minimised
3. Environmental information of development projects should be provided
4. Environmental information to be provided
Ventilation design
Energy embodiment of building materials
Environment-friendly design
Use of recyclable
5. Close of some lifts at night
6. Environmental protection is a factor of your home purchase decisions
development project, the replies were also predomi-
nantly positive (92%)1. When it comes to the questions
concerning their consumption behaviour, the responses
were less favourable, although a majority still support
the greening of housing. 75% of the respondents said
they would consider the factor of environmental pro-
tection when buying homes. However, only 6% thought
that environmental protection was a very important
factor, although half (51%) thought it important. About
one-third (31%) said that they definitely would not
pay higher prices for environmentally friendly design,
while about two-thirds (63%) said that they might.
Further, about half of the residents did not support
the closing of half of the lifts at night-time to save
energy.
These results may be reflective of a general aware-
ness in Hong Kong of the need to protect the
environment and to introduce green concepts in
housing design and construction. The green attitude
was however not fully translated into future housing
consumption behaviour and this might be due to
affordability constraints as the interviewees were
generally in the lower income brackets. Further, to
date only one housing estate in Hong Kong has been
built on green concepts, although piece-meal green
design and construction measures have been adopted,
mainly in the public sector. Some of the examples are
automated refuge collection systems in high-rises, the
use of softwood for landscape materials, and the use of
steel formwork rather than wood formwork. Therefore
there are scarcely any possibilities for green housing
consumption in the market, let alone for the formation
of norms for green housing consumption.
1
Information of greatest interest was ventilation (90%) and
environmental design (85%). Energy embodiment in building
materials (i.e. energy used to produce and transport the materials)
and whether recycled materials were used were of less interest (68
and 75% respectively).
Socio-cultural sustainability of housing 71
Percentage
Yes/Agree No/Disagree
98 0
94 6
92 8
90 10
69 31
85 15
75 25
49 51
75 25
Another purpose of the survey was to find out
whether residents in the more environmentally-friendly
accommodation had stronger environmental aware-
ness. A tabulation of the responses showed that
residents of the green housing estate showed slightly
greater propensities than those of the other two
locations in including environmental factors into
home purchase consideration, in placing greater
importance on environmental factors, and in their
willingness to pay for green designs (Table 4). In
fact, most of the respondents of Verbena Heights (80%)
liked the ventilation design and the design for max-
imising natural lighting (64%), although only half of
them thought that the design had helped to save
electricity expenses.
Statistical tests, however, showed that the proportion
of the respondents of Verbena Heights (the green
estate) who would include environmental protection
as a factor of home purchase decision was not sig-
nificantly greater than that of Wah Fu (the old public
housing estate) (z = 1.8, p > 0.025), but significantly
greater than that of Wanchai (the old district) (z = 3.4,
p < 0.025). Likewise, the importance accorded to
environmental protection in home purchase was simi-
lar among residents of Verbena Heights and Wah Fu
(z = 1.7, p > 0.025), but that of residents in Wanchai
was less than that of Verbena Heights (z = 3.3,
p < 0.025). Nonetheless, there were significantly
more residents in Verbena Heights who were willing
to pay 10 per cent more for green housing than those
in Wah Fu (z = 2.8, p < 0.025). But between Verbena
Heights and Wanchai, there was no significant differ-
ence (z = 1.7, p > 0.025). Thus, it may be concluded
that while green accommodation could help build
environmental awareness, other factors may also be
influential.
Government no doubt plays an important role in
shaping green values, attitudes and norms in housing
production and consumption. Legislation, laws, regu-
lations and codes are reflections of social and cultural
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
72 R.L.H. Chiu

Table 4. Comparison of the environmental consciousness of housing consumers in different residential sites (April 2001)

Percentage
Verbena Heightsa Wah Fu Estateb Wanchaic
1. Environmental protection is a factor of your home
purchase decisions
Yes 81 75 68
No 19 25 32
100 100 100
2. Importance of environmental protection in home
purchase decisionsd
Very important 11 10 4
Important 75 65 64
Not too important 16 25 33
100 100 101
3. Willingness to pay 10% more for environmentally-
friendly housingd
Affirmative 5 9 4
Possible 69 55 66
Negative 26 36 31
100 100 101
Notes:
a
Estate built on environment-friendly principles.
b
A public housing estate built in 1967.
c
An old residential cum retail district.
d
Percentages do not always sum to 100 due to rounding error.

values and are norms of a society, but they require
efforts and commitments from the governments to
formulate and to enforce them. The statutory require-
ment on large residential development projects to
conduct environmental impact assessment or town
planning regulations prohibiting the construction of
housing in conservation areas are some of the
examples.
Likewise, the government may provide subsidies
or incentives to encourage green housing production
and consumption. In 2001 and 2002, the incentives
announced by the Hong Kong government include
the exemption of green and innovative features from
gross floor calculation or site coverage. These features
include, among others, balconies, sky gardens, acoustic
fins, noise barriers, sunshades and reflectors. These
incentives were well received by developers and
amendments of development plans or inclusion of
these features in new plans have been made. These
government moves have not only been effective in
enhancing environmental consciousness, but have also
facilitated the supply of environmentally friendly
buildings. Finally it is important that governments
support and spread the knowledge, values and ration-
ality that contribute to sustainable housing develop-
ment. Government plays even more important roles
in facilitating equity distribution and consumption of
housing resources.
Equitable distribution and consumption of housing
resources and assets
Equity is often equated with justice or fairness, and
is occasionally confused with equality which, in its
absolute form, refers to the treatment of all persons
in the same way in all respects (Rees, 1971, p. 125).
As housing policies often involve the use of public
resources and the provision of subsidy to the needy,
the concept of equity, which carries the notion of
fairness, is often used in evaluating housing policies
and their outcomes. In assessing whether housing or
other welfare policies are equitable, attention is often
given to the distribution of benefits and disbenefits:
who benefits and who loses, and by how much. To
assess whether distribution is fair and just, two op-
erational concepts are often used: horizontal equity –
equal treatment of people in equal positions; and
vertical equity – unequal treatment of people in
unequal positions (Chiu, 2002; Headey, 1978; Lamp-
man, 1977; Le Grand, 1991). In housing policies, the
concern of horizontal equity is with whether families
of the same income range receive the same amount
of subsidies or other forms of assistance to solve
housing affordability or/and accessibility problems.
The concern of vertical inequity is with whether the
intensity of subsidies and assistance is decided in
accordance with the severity of the affordability and

Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2


accessibility problems faced by the recipient house-
holds.
The conception of equity is always shaped by, inter
alia, the political ideology of a society. As delineated
by Headey (1978), the Swedish government distributed
housing services and costs based on the social demo-
cratic conception of equity. That is, they provided good
quality neighbourhoods and land use planning as well
as satisfactory housing for the entire population, and
distributed housing services favouring the low-income
families. In contrast, the governments of the U.S. and
the U.K., though pronounced to have adopted liberal
equity principles, actually implemented housing pro-
grams which produced outcomes akin to the elitist
conception of equity. That is, the fiscal measures and
subsidy cuts produced the effects that the upper income
groups were subsidised most in housing consumption.
The conception of equity of a society therefore quali-
fies the principles of horizontal and vertical equity and
may affect the tolerance of certain forms of horizontal
inequity. For instance, in the case of Sweden, due to
the traditional opposition to means testing, the Swedish
society has been less concerned with horizontal
inequity.
The sustainable development perspective reinforces
a primary equity concept in housing. That is, in a fair
society, the basic housing needs of every household
must be met, each enjoying at least a fundamental
standard of accommodation as defined by the society.
This new perspective also adds new elements to
housing equity. As argued by Badshah (1996), equi-
table development should not just be about justice
and fairness, it should also enable the poor to make
choices themselves, and that there should be the
potential for improving the quality of life, while not
jeopardising the opportunities of others to do so.
Translating these into housing policies, Chiu (2003)
argues that equitable housing policies should maximise
choices in housing services if so desired by home
purchasers, enhance housing mobility and avoid hous-
ing programs which, while benefiting some sections
of the population, adversely affect the opportunities of
others to obtain desirable and affordable housing.
Applying these concepts to Hong Kong, Chiu (2003)
found that the conception of equity in Hong Kong lies
somewhere between the Swedish and the American/
British models. It may be called liberal welfarism due
to the almost equal split between the public and the
private housing sectors. The emphasis of this housing
system has been placed on home ownership since the
change of government in 1997. The 1998 Asian
financial crisis and the ensuing economic recession
nonetheless had the unintended effect of causing the
shift of housing resources from the home ownership
sector to the public rental housing sector, thereby
Socio-cultural sustainability of housing 73
reducing the vertical and horizontal inequity among
low and lower-middle income households. Although
these changes were caused by economic factors, the
housing policies of the new government had none-
theless widened choices and enhanced mobility among
the low and lower-middle income families. However,
the middle and upper-middle income groups, who were
not qualified for housing subsidy and hence sought
housing services from the market, became the major
losers when falls in housing prices led to depreciations
in their asset worth.
Harmonious social relations within the housing
system
As previously discussed, social sustainability should
involve reductions in social discontinuity and conflicts,
and the strengthening of social cohesion and social
stability. Applying these principles to housing systems,
they may be translated as more harmonious relation-
ships between housing producers and end-users, land-
lords and tenants, and haves and have-nots, as well as
among residents in general. They may also refer to the
influence of the stakeholders in the housing arena,
particularly with regard to housing price and rental, and
the empowerment of the less privileged (Chiu, 2003).
The major concerns are to resolve conflicts of interests
and promote the building up of social capital in the
housing arena. There are many ways to accomplish
these, hinging upon the social settings and the social
fabric.
Cernea’s 1993 study may provide some general
directions for the achievement of these objectives.
He argued that to achieve self-sustainability in de-
velopment projects, the strategies should not only be
concerned with technology intensity, but organisa-
tional intensity as well. He further contended that
projects emphasising an organisational strategy would
enhance the degree of organisational density of a
community, thus creating and accumulating social
capital. He defined the organisational intensity of a
development strategy as the degree of presence of
provisions for building organisational capacity (i.e.
allowing the grass-roots to be organised to collectively
or individually carry out the tasks inherent in the
development project) into that particular program or
strategy. Organisational density refers to the frequency
of various types and forms of organisations in a given
social environment and the multiple belongingness
of individuals to an organised form of social action.
An organisationally dense society would enable indi-
viduals to interact more regularly among themselves,
and would empower individuals in development
activities. Thus organisation-intensive development
strategies, which allow more grass-roots participation
in the community’s development, would help build
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
74 R.L.H. Chiu
up the organisational density of the community,
making the organisation of the community more
participatory. Cernea concluded that the higher the
organisational density, and the better the fit between
social organisation, technology, and natural resources
management, the higher the likelihood of achieving
sustainable development.
Applying these concepts to housing development,
this paper contends that they imply the involvement
of the public or at least the stakeholders in the for-
mulation and implementation processes of housing
policies or legislation, both through formal and
informal networks and channels. The genuine involve-
ment of the community, including the grass-roots,
enables the building of consensus or at least mutual
understanding of the views and stances of different
parties, thus reducing possible conflicts, misunder-
standings, mistrust and divisiveness when the strate-
gies, regulations, or policies are implemented. The
relationships of stakeholders within the housing system
could thus become more harmonious, and the improve-
ments of housing development and living conditions
may be facilitated as decision makers know better
the needs and wants of the society. Further, a housing
system which is more organisation-intensive would
help create more social capital for the society,
strengthen social cohesion and reduce social conflicts.
Thus the more organisation-intensive and organisation-
dense housing strategies and policies are, the more
socially sustainable they are, and the more socially
sustainable the community is too. These may be
evidenced in the greater acceptability of new housing
policies and measures across different social strata.
The labour-led corporatist housing system of Sweden
described by Kemeny (1992) is perhaps a prime
example of an organisation-intensive and organisa-
tion-dense housing system which is embedded in a
social polity of a similar nature.
An acceptable quality of housing conditions
This aspect of the social and cultural sustainability
of housing is more tangible, and objective and quan-
titative assessment may be made. The quality of
housing consists of internal housing conditions and
the immediate external living environment, or housing
quality and neighbourhood quality as termed by Evans
and Kantrowitz (2002). Internal housing conditions
include adequacy of housing space (indicated by space
standard or number of rooms per person), degree of
sharing, degree of self-containment, privacy, exposure
to safety hazards, structural quality, ventilation and
natural lighting. Objective government data are often
available for the assessment of these conditions.
Indicators for demonstrating the immediate external
living environment may include cleanliness in the
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
neighbourhoods, access to open space and community
facilities or recreational opportunities, air quality,
noise level and exposure to crime (Chiu, 2003; Evans
and Kantrowitz, 2002; Hart, 1999). Although the open
space and community facilities are generally provided
to meet planning requirements, and air quality and
noise level are controlled by environmental regula-
tions, residents’ experience and views are crucial for
the assessment. The need to encompass subjective
factors in the gauging of housing conditions, such as
satisfaction and aspiration, has been well documented
in the works of, for instance, Evan and Kantrowitz
(2002) and Marsh et al. (2000). They pointed out,
however, that self-reporting may constitute a source
of errors regarding housing and neighbourhood
quality.
The above indicators have been applied by Chiu
(2003) to examine the quality of housing conditions
in Hong Kong. Apart from the secondary data, house-
hold level data were collected in the survey mentioned
above. The indicators were found to be useful for
revealing the quality of housing conditions although a
difficulty was the lack of consistent and reliable data
which are available at regular intervals for establishing
trends to detect improvements or otherwise. Another
difficulty is setting sustainable standards for indicators
which do not pertain to safety and health, such as space
and noise standards.
These indicators are devised in the context of high-
density Asian cities such as Hong Kong. Low-density
cities with less congested living environments may
have different concerns for their living environment.
Differences are inevitable because of social, cultural
and geographical variations, and accordingly the basic
housing standards acceptable to the local communities
are also different. As stressed by Ozaki (2002), “a
house is not only a physical space in which people
live, but also a space where social interactions and
rituals take place” (p. 209). Ozaki demonstrated that
because England had a more individualistic culture
than Japan, the housing forms of the former placed
more emphasis on personal privacy. Due to modernisa-
tion and Westernisation, however, open and shared-
bedrooms in Japan were giving way to individual
closed bedrooms. It was further argued that the socio-
cultural factors had greater influence on housing de-
sign than climate, construction techniques and cost.
Similar arguments were made by Rapoport (1969) who
contended that the form and organization of housing
were more strongly influenced by the cultural milieu
than climatic conditions. Thus, housing form, espe-
cially the external appearance and internal structure,
has become an important manifestation and symbol
of a culture. Its preservation as a form of cultural
heritage is therefore important.

Preservation of housing heritage
Housing has a physical form, and the form reflects how
the inhabitants adapt to the natural habitat. Changes in
housing form demonstrate how the adaptation evolves
with time and technological advancement. The physi-
cal form of housing is therefore not only a reflection
of but also a component of culture itself. The internal
housing design, as discussed, is an outcome of the
socio-cultural values, customs and practices. External
housing forms and the housing structure are results
of the availability of building resources, the climatic
conditions, the construction capability of the inhabi-
tants and the aesthetics of specific communities over
specific periods of time. Housing forms therefore
reflect the many and varied environment-human rela-
tionships. They give identity to a culture especially in
the earlier periods when humans relied more directly
on natural resources and were bounded more by natural
constraints, and when construction technology did not
allow the wide spread of uniform modernist building
designs.
Housing forms of different stages therefore speak of
the changes of a culture and the cultural identity of a
place. They represent the aesthetic and the artistic
dimensions of culture, as well as the “way of life” of a
people. Since the seventies, there has been growing
concern about the preservation of historical buildings
for reasons of aesthetic value and heritage conser-
vation. This trend was intensified because, as Howard
(2000) contended, with the progress of globalisation
(basically Westernisation and Americanisation), the
desire to strengthen national, provincial or local dis-
tinctiveness has heightened. Visible evidence of the
past culture can contribute pedagogically and educa-
tionally to the cultural identity and the collective
memory of a people or a place (Tiesdell, 1996). It also
locates a contemporary society in its traditional context
and gives a sense of cultural continuity. The conser-
vation of residential buildings for aesthetic and
heritage values therefore enhances the continuation
of a culture. The design of residential buildings based
on contemporary local cultural and aesthetic values
mixed with those of the past enriches and sustains the
cultural identity of a place.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has discussed the concepts of social and
cultural sustainability and has attempted to apply the
concepts to establish a framework to examine the
socio-cultural sustainability of housing. It is argued
that while there are common areas between these two
dimensions of sustainability, there are important dis-
tinctions. The two dimensions converge where the
use of environmental resources for, and the ecological
Socio-cultural sustainability of housing 75
impacts of, housing activities are influenced and
determined by inseparable socio-cultural factors. The
two dimensions diverge where “social well being” and
“culture” respectively become the subject of sustain-
ability.
The paper has highlighted the areas of concern of
each component of the analytical framework, but it has
not provided sustainability criteria and standards for
evaluation. There are three major reasons for this. First,
it is impossible to provide comprehensive universal
standards given the socio-cultural and geographical
diversities of human settlements, although health-
related standards such as adequate sewerage and
water systems and pollution limits can be defined. It
is best to leave communities to decide on their own
internal and shared sustainability standards through
consensus building. Second, the pursuit of environ-
mental sustainability is so recent for many societies
that at the moment it is a question of building up the
green consciousness in housing rather than setting
ultimate targets. Third, for the sustainability of social
well being and culture, it is more meaningful to
monitor the trends by using qualitative and quantitative
indicators rather than defining “sustainable standards”.
The sustainable development paradigm potentially
offers a holistic and integrative approach to examine
housing issues. This paper has not only demonstrated
the possibility of examining the environmental, social
and cultural aspects of housing in an integrative
manner, but it has also related housing issues to the
general development of society. Similar investigation
should be given to the economic sustainability of
housing in another study. Together with the findings on
the environmental sustainability of housing as con-
cluded from the works of, for instance, Chiu, 2000, and
Bhatti et al., 1994, a comprehensive framework for the
analysis of housing development in the sustainable
development perspective can be constructed, offering
a new way of thinking in housing analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study presents some of the findings of the research
project “Sustainable housing development in Hong
Kong”, funded by the Research Grant Committee of
the University Grants Council of Hong Kong, China.
(Project no. HKU7198/97H.) The author is also
indebted to an anonymous referee for the very useful
comments.
REFERENCES
Badshah, A. A. (1996) Our Urban Future: New Paradigms for Equity and
Sustainability. London: Zed Books.
Bhatti, M. (1994) “Environmental futures and the housing question”, in
M. Bhatti, Brooke and M. Gibson (eds) Housing and the Environment:
A New Agenda. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing, pp. 14–33.
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
76 R.L.H. Chiu
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. and D. Buchan (eds) (1997) Beyond Fences: Seeking
Social Sustainability in Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Cernea, M. M. (1993) “Culture and organization: the social sustainability of
induced development”, Sustainable Development 1 (2): 18–29.
Chiu, R. L. H. (2000) “Environmental Sustainability of Hong Kong’s
Housing System and the Housing Process Model”, International
Planning Studies 5 (1): 45–64.
Chiu, R. L. H. (2002) “Social equity in housing in the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region: A social sustainability perspective”, Sustainable
Development 10 (3): 155–162.
Chiu, R. L. H. (2003) “Sustainable development, social sustainability and
housing development: the experience of Hong Kong”, in R. Forrest and
J. Lee (eds) Housing and Social Change: East-West perspectives.
London: Routledge, pp. 221–239.
Darlow, A. (1996) “Cultural policy and urban sustainability: making a
missing link?”, Planning Practice and Research 11 (3): 291–301.
Evans, G. and E. Kantrowitz (2002) “Socioeconomic status and health: the
potential role of environmental risk exposure”, Annual Review of Public
Health 23: 303–331.
Fischer, F. and M. A. Hajer (eds) (1999) Living With Nature: Environmental
Politics as Cultural Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hardoy, J. E., Mitlin, D. and D. Satterthwaite (1992) Environmental Problems
in Third World Cities. London: Earthscan Publications Limited.
Headey, B. (1978) Housing Policy in the Developed Economy: the United
States. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hediger, W. (2000) “Sustainable development and social welfare”, Ecolo-
gical Economics 32: 481–492.
Howard, P. (2000) “Editorial – Heritage challenges in the new century”,
International Journal of Heritage Studies 6 (1): 7–8.
Kemeny, J. (1992) “Swedish rent-setting policy: labour-led corporatism in a
strategic policy area”, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 16 (4): 555–570.
Khan, M. A. (1995) “Sustainable development: the key concepts, issues and
implications”, Sustainable Development 3: 63–69.
Lampman, R. (1977) “Concepts of equity in the design of schemes for
income redistribution”, in I. L. Horowitz (ed.) Equity, Income and
Policy: Comparative Studies in Three Worlds of Development. New
York: Praeger, pp. 19–28.
Le Grand, J. (1991) Equity and Choice: An Essay in Economics and Applied
Philosophy. London: HarperCollin Academic.
Housing, Theory and Society Vol. 21, No. 2
Marsh, A., Gordon, D., Heslop, P. and C. Pantazis (2000) “Housing
deprivation and health: a longitudinal analysis”, Housing Studies 15 (3):
411–428.
Mitlin, D. and D. Satterthwaite (1996) “Sustainable Development and
Cities”, in C. Pugh (ed.) Sustainability, the Environment and Urbaniza-
tion. London: Earthscan Publications Limited, pp. 23–62.
Munro, D. A. (1995) “Sustainability: rhetoric or reality?”, in T. C. Trzyna and
J. K. Osborn (eds) A Sustainable World: Defining and Measuring
Sustainable Development, published for IUCN – the World Conservation
Union by the International Center for the Environment and Public
Policy. Sacramental: California Institute of Public Affairs, pp. 27–35.
Ozaki, R. (2002) “Housing as a reflection of culture: privatised living and
privacy in England and Japan”, Housing Studies 17 (2): 209–227.
Polese, M. and R. Stren (eds) (2000) The Social Sustainability of Cities:
Diversity and the Management of Change. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Pugh, C (ed.) (1996) Sustainability, the Environment and Urbanization.
London: Earthscan Publications Limited.
Raberg, P (ed.) (1997) The Life Region: the Social and Cultural Ecology of
Sustainable Development. London and New York: Routledge.
Rydin, Y. (1992) “Environmental impacts and the property market”, in
M. Breheny (ed.) Sustainable Development and Urban Form. London:
Pion, pp. 217–241.
Rapoport, A. (1969) House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-hall, Inc.
Rapoport, A. (2001) “Theory, culture and housing”, Housing, Theory and
Society 17: 145–165.
Rees, J. (1971) Equality. London: Pall Mall, pp. 124–138.
Schusky, E. L. and T. P. Culbert (1973) Introducing Culture. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Thaman, K. H. (2002) “Shifting sights: the cultural challenge of sustain-
ability”, Higher Education Policy 15 (2): 133–142.
Tiesdell, S., Oc, T. and T. Health (1996) Revitalizing Historic Urban
Quarters. Oxford: Architectural Press, pp. 1–19.
Townroe, P. M. (1996) “Urban sustainability and social cohesion”, in
C. Pugh (ed.) Sustainability, the Environment and Urbanization.
London: Earthscan Publications Limited, pp. 179–196.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.