Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective

Ž .Automation in Construction 8 1999 511–524

Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kongperspective

A.M.M. LiuDepartment of Real Estate and Construction, The UniÕersity of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

Abstract

Ž .Post-occupancy evaluation POE has been developed to address the problem of acquiring feedback from the occupantswho are, arguably, in the best position to provide information for a future design database. This paper presents a study of the

Ž .factors on both physical and social levels , which influence residential satisfaction of a sample of occupants in a chosenresidential area in Hong Kong; factor analysis and multiple regression were carried out on the data. A comparison is alsomade of the perceived factors of dissatisfaction amongst the public and private housing occupants. It is suggested that awider systematic coverage of the subject through investigative and diagnostic POE should be carried out in Hong Kong.q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Residential satisfaction; Post-occupancy evaluation; Housing estate

1. Introduction

Hong Kong is known to be a small, yet dynamic, city in the Orient. The gross value of construction workŽ .performed by main contractors in 1995 amounted to HK$99 807 million US$1(HK$7.8 , of which HK$39 694

w xmillion is in respect of buildings 9 .The size of the residential market in the Hong Kong construction industry is quite large. The government’s

Housing Authority, in particular, is a large single client who is responsible for the maintenance of a substantialhousing stock. Their stock of rental flats amounts to 695 897 units and serves a population of 2.5 million peopleŽ . w xabout 40% of Hong Kong’s population as of the 2nd quarter in 1996 9 . Both the design and the performanceof these buildings then become major concerns of such a client owner, and thus post-occupancy evaluationŽ .POE should be of interest since it provides a mechanism for feedbackrfeedforward processes to be conductedbetween occupants and the designers.

The objective of this study is to identify those factors which determine occupants’ satisfaction in largehousing estates.

0926-5805r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Ž .PII: S0926-5805 98 00098-3

( )A.M.M. LiurAutomation in Construction 8 1999 511–524512

2. Building performance appraisal

While the most fundamental objective of a living organism is that of survival, there are other aspects ofconsideration such as spiritual, psychological, social and economic survival. All forms of survival entail the

w xmaintenance of a balance between the individual and the environment. Markus et al. 23 suggest that in thefield of design, any activity or object is considered to function as part of a system and consequently,interdependencies of the systems and the dynamism of the environment must be emphasised. Descriptions of

Ž .static entities e.g., assessment of building performance are of value only if they are considered as part of someŽ .other processes e.g., the constant maintenance of balance between the occupants and the environment .

The ‘building performance’ concept is based on the assumption that a building is designed and built tosupport and enhance the activities and goals of its occupants. There are different approaches to buildingperformance appraisal.

Ž .1 Overall approach to find out factors, on both physical and social levels, which affect housing residents’w xsatisfaction 2,7,11,15,17,20–22,35 .

Ž . w x2 Development of performance criteria and grading tools 3,4 .Ž . w x3 Relationship of residential satisfaction with children’s accident risk 16 , spatial density, crowding and

w xneighbourhood characteristics 6,31 .Ž . w x4 Quality appraisal of the building design in terms of both function and cost 5,8,12,13,19,24,33 .Depending on the approach taken to satisfy a particular research purpose, building appraisal can be done

Ž . Ž .during the design stage as in value engineering andror after completion of the building as in POE . Fig. 1shows that, while short-term benefit is derived from the contribution of the POE process to immediate problemsolving in current projects, medium-term benefit is drawn from the next building cycle.

Researchers who are interested in examining potential links between satisfaction and behavior propose thatimprovements in unsatisfactory environments should result in changes in occupants’ satisfaction and in the

w xsocial behavior of occupants 6,11,16 ; for instance, certain research is devoted to investigating design featuresw xthat might deter crime 14,25 and other researches are directed towards increased output in the work

environment.

Fig. 1. Building performance.

( )A.M.M. LiurAutomation in Construction 8 1999 511–524 513

Table 1Framework of study

Needs Criteria

Physiological Physical comfortHealthSafetyFunctional appropriateness

Psychological Psychological comfortPsychological safetyAesthetics

Sociological PrivacySecurityImagerstatusCommunity

Economic Space conservation

w xGenerally, empirical studies in residential satisfaction can be divided into two distinct approaches 2 . On onehand, there are those studies in which residential satisfaction is considered as a criterion of residential qualityw x15,22,35 , the objective of studies of which is to establish which factors determine the degree to which the

w xoccupant is satisfied with the residential environment; others 26,32 consider residential satisfaction not as acriterion but as a predictor of behavior. Using the latter approach, a low level of residential satisfaction canpredict behavior as in moving house, or, in cases where this is not possible, the adaptation of the housing to new

w xneeds as they arise, e.g., carrying out home improvements 27 . Thus, the studies which deal with residentialmobility and its consequences use residential satisfaction as a variable predictor of behavior. A study which

w xcombines the two approaches is the model offered by Weidemann and Anderson 36 in which residentialsatisfaction is considered as an attitude.

w xBonnes et al. 6 point out that there has been a recent gradual shift of emphasis in research away from therelationship between the individual and the physical characteristics of the environment towards an approach

w xdefined as ‘contextual’ 1,34 which focuses on the relationship between the individual and the sociophysicalenvironment, i.e., the purpose is to study the problems arising from this relationship in the contexts in whichthey occur.

Based on the above emphasis of work relating to the interdependencies of the peoplerbuildingrenvironmentsystems, the framework for studying residential satisfaction in this research is shown in Table 1; this forms thebasis for structuring the questionnaire to be sent to the occupants.

3. Objective and methodology

3.1. Scope of study

w xThough POE results are useful to the client in a number of ways 1,3,37 , no significant POE studies havebeen carried out systematically in Hong Kong. The Housing Authority undertakes ad-hoc appraisals for internalfeedback and such information is not readily available to the public.

ŽThe scope of this study is based on the framework of POE in stages of indicative, investigative and. w xdiagnostic of Preiser 29 . The occupants of three large housing estates were chosen as respondents to provide

self-reports of their satisfaction with their living environments.


3.2. ObjectiÕe

The objective of the research is to establish predictors, of both physical and social characters, whichinfluence the satisfaction of residents in large housing estates in Hong Kong.

3.3. Methodology

w xAmerigo and Aragones 2 , in a study on the residential satisfaction in council housing in Spain, comment onthe importance of obtaining distinct geographical placement of the samples. In this study, the geographical area

Ž .chosen is Sau Kei Wan, Hong Kong. There are various large housing estates both private and public in thisarea. In recent decades, Sau Kei Wan has become a popular residential area because of active developments byboth the private and public sectors. The study concentrates on occupants of large housing estates of comparablesize and in the same geographical area. The three estates chosen are Tai Koo Shing, Kornhill and Siu Sai Wan.The former two are private developments and the latter is a public housing estate under the management of theHousing Authority. All these estates have a commercial shopping complex with car park and a public transportterminus.

The public housing estate in this study consists of 11 residential blocks of 29 storeys each. The average sizeof the flats is 60 m2. The occupants are tenants of the Housing Authority. The two private estates, Tai KooShing and Kornhill, are very similar in nature and both were developed by major real estate developers. Eachestate has a number of residential blocks, ranging from 20 to 30 storeys high, and a Mass Transit RailwayŽ . 2 2underground station. The sizes of the flats range from 60 m to 120 m with an approximate average currentselling price of HK$85 000rm2.

The study is not restricted to the investigation of selected variables but is designed to include as manyvariables as possible which are important in assessing building performance and to consider the large number of

Žvariables simultaneously. To achieve this purpose, a total of 51 questions attributes to ‘overall satisfaction of.the building’ are included in the questionnaire. The data collected are subject to factor analysis in order to bring

forth the structure of the evaluations expressed. The factors which emerged are then subject to multipleregression analyses where the dependent variable is the ‘overall satisfaction of the building’.

The main purpose of the questionnaire is to ascertain which features of the home and its surroundings areconsidered to be the primary attributes of overall satisfaction. The questionnaire consists of nine categories witha total of 51 questions and each occupant has to rate in terms of level of satisfaction on a five-point scale from‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’.

Corresponding to the framework in Table 1Ž .1 Aesthetics of the building psychologicalŽ .2 Siting and location of the estate economicŽ . Ž .3 Use of space physiological physical comfort

Ž .psychological psychological comfortŽ . Ž .4 Building envelope physiological functional appropriatenessŽ . Ž .5 Amenities sociological communityŽ . Ž .6 Health physiological personal and environmentalŽ .7 Safety and security physiological

sociologicalŽ . Ž .8 Social needs sociological privacy, imagerstatusŽ . Ž .9 Miscellaneous maintenance and population density

Ž .Questionnaires shown in Appendix A were delivered into letter boxes of the three residential estates, a totalof 150 were sent to occupants of each estate. Occupants were told of a date of visit to their residence to collect


Ž .the questionnaire rather than relying on return mail such as self-addressed envelope . A total of 212questionnaires was collected in this manner.

4. Results

Since the sample consists of respondents from both private and public housing estates, analysis of varianceŽ .ANOVA is carried out on the occupants’ assessments of residential satisfaction to test the null hypothesis of

Ž .m sm , i.e., there is no difference between the means of satisfaction from the two types public and private of1 0Žhousing estates’ residents in this geographical area. The null hypothesis is accepted at as0.01 F values

.5.570 . Next, factor analysis is carried out to reduce the number of variables to a smaller set of independentw xfactors 10,18,30 .

Ž .The results of the factor analyses are given in Table 2. Principal Component Analysis Oblimin rotation iscarried out with nine factors being generated. These factors, F to F , in Table 2 explain 60% of the variance.1 9

Ž .Multiple regression using stepwise method is carried out on the factors generated in Table 2 against thevariable, ‘overall satisfaction of the building’. The multiple regression analysis produces the following equationŽ 2 .adjusted R s0.48198 :

Y s b X qb X qb X qb X qb X yc1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5

s 0.0859F q0.0631F q0.1199F q0.0360F q0.0464F y0.7774;6 3 8 1 5

Ys residential satisfaction; F sspatial movement; F sconvenience of location; F sappropriateness of site6 3 8

including privacy; F smanagement and maintenance of the estate; F ssurroundings.1 5

The regression equation is useful in identifying the major factors which affect residential satisfaction and canw xbe incorporated into the subsequent phases of the POE process 28 , i.e., investigative stage and diagnostic

Ž .stage. These factors are spatial moÕement within the living habitat , conÕenience of location, appropriatenessŽ .of site including privacy , management and maintenance of the estate and the surroundings; they all have a

Ž .positive correlation with residential satisfaction. The variables contained in each factor are given in Table 2.Apart from the factor, spatial moÕement, which concerns the internal living environment of the occupants, all

other factors in the regression equation concern the external environment of the habitat. Planners and designersshould consider these factors as indicators of satisfaction and made more aware of their significance in carryingout planning and development of housing estates.

5. Residents’ dissatisfaction

The occupants were asked to rate each variable in terms of their satisfaction levels on a five-point scale,Ž .ranging from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ see Appendix A . Responses for each question range from j

to n which represent the continuum of a five-point scale from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’. A score, s,is given to each response category where scores are: very dissatisfieds0; dissatisfieds25; fairs50;satisfieds75; very satisfieds100.

Ž .The weighted average satisfaction index WAS is calculated to express residential satisfaction:n

psÝj

WASs n

pÝj

where pspercentage of respondents who express an opinion of their satisfaction.


Table 2Factor analysis

Factor Factor label Variables in factor Factor loading

F Management and maintenance of the estate Maintenance of residential block 0.711231

Cleanliness of public areas 0.66845Security measures of the building 0.64690to control trespassersMaintenance of public areas 0.63535Density of population within the estate 0.46925Adequacy of refuse disposal 0.37027

F Lighting and ventilation Adequacy of daylight distribution in the flat 0.688832

Adequacy of natural ventilation in the flat 0.49010Lighting level of public areas 0.38986

F Convenience of location Postage service 0.758903Ž .Anticrime measures report centres, etc. 0.69649

Convenience storesrmarkets 0.57984Ease of access by public transport 0.50640

F Appearance of building Building form 0.700394

Entrance design of building 0.65451External appearance compared 0.60206to nearby buildings

F Surroundings Orientation of flat 0.829235

View from window 0.58117Adequacy of landscaping areas 0.42777

Ž .F Spatial movement Functional quality of lifts waiting time, etc. 0.574156

Leisure facilities 0.51810Size of the flat 0.45984

ŽSecurity measures collapsible gate, y0.29555.window grilles, etc.

F Fire services installation Escape routes in case of fire y0.816567ŽFire services installation including y0.62220

.adequacy of fire extinguishers, etc.

F Appropriateness of site Privacy 0.671718

including privacy Appropriateness of site for residential purpose 0.63106

F Building materials used Durability of external building finishes 0.669929

Water tightness from rain 0.66264Ž .Sanitary fittings wash basin, WC, etc. 0.62229

Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin measure of sampling adequacy s0.80244.Bartlett test of sphericity s1687.9022.Significances0.00000.

Tables 3 and 4 show the grouping of the various variables into WAS categories of 0–20, 20–29, 30–39,40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70 and above for the private housing sample and public housing sample,respectively.

The profiles of the two groups are quite different, indicating that they may be subject to different aspects ofdissatisfaction. A summary of their profile is drawn from Tables 3–5 and listed below.


Table 3Occupants’ ratings—private housing

WAS Question

0–20 45 Special requirements for the disabled20–29 47 Elderly centres

48 Nurseries and child care centres30–39 14 Adequacy of parking space40–49 28 Postage service

46 Social and recreation centres50–59 1 Building form

2 Building height3 External appearance of buildings compared with others in the vicinity4 Entrance design of building5 Colour of building6 Size of estate7 Ease of access by public transport9 Size of your flat

Ž .10 Vertical circulation capacity of lifts and space of stairwaysŽ .11 Horizontal circulation within building corridors, stairways

13 Space utilisation of flat layout15 Adequacy of landscaping areas16 Floor to ceiling clear height17 Proportion of windows: walls18 Durability of external building finishes19 Water tightness from rain

Ž .20 Windows material and water tightness, etc.Ž .21 Electric fittings quantities and positions, etc.

22 Sanitary fittingsŽ .23 Functional quality of lifts waiting time, etc.

24 Orientation of flat25 View from window26 Structural integrity27 Leisure facilities31 Uninterrupted water supply34 Adequacy of natural ventilation in flat

Ž .36 Water quality cleanliness, etc.37 Cleanliness of public areas

Ž .39 Design of fire services system fire extinguishers, etc.40 Escape in case of fire

Ž .43 Anticrime measure report centres, etc.49 Density of population within the estate50 Maintenance of public areas51 Maintenance of residential block

60–69 8 Appropriateness of site for residential building12 Adequacy of refuse disposal29 TV transmission30 Uninterrupted power supply32 Convenience storesrmarkets33 Adequacy of daylight distribution in flat35 Acoustic quality38 Security measures of the building to control trespassers41 Lighting level of public areas

Ž .42 Adequacy of security measures of your flat collapsible gates, etc.44 Privacy from neighbours

G70 None


Table 4Occupants’ ratings—public housing

WAS Question

0–20 None20–29 37 Cleanliness of public areas

38 Security measures of the building to control trespassers30–39 7 Ease of access by public transport

12 Adequacy of refuse disposal18 Durability of external building finishes19 Water tightness from rain50 Maintenance of public areas51 Maintenance of residential block

40–49 4 Entrance design of building14 Adequacy of parking space

Ž .20 Windows material, water tightness, etc.21 Electric fittings22 Sanitary fittings26 Structural integrity28 Postage service

Ž .42 Adequacy of security measures of your flat collapsible gate, etc.Ž .43 Anticrime measures report centres, etc.

45 Special requirements for the disabled46 Social and recreational centres47 Elderly centres48 Nurseries and child care centres49 Density of population within the estate

50–59 1 Building form3 External appearance compared with nearby buildings5 Colour of building6 Size of estate9 Size of your flat

Ž .11 Horizontal circulation corridors, stairways, etc.13 Space utilisation of flat layout16 Floor to ceiling clear height

Ž .23 Functional quality of lifts waiting time, etc.24 Orientation of flat25 View from window27 Leisure facilities32 Convenience storesrmarkets35 Acoustic quality

Ž .36 Water quality cleanliness, etc.39 Design of fire services installation40 Escape routes in case of fire41 Lighting level of public areas44 Privacy from neighbours

60–69 2 Building height8 Appropriateness of site for residential purpose

Ž .10 Vertical circulation capacity of lifts and space of stairways15 Adequacy of landscaping areas17 Proportion of windows: wall area29 TV transmission30 Uninterrupted power supply31 Uninterrupted water supply33 Adequacy of daylight distribution in flat34 Adequacy of natural ventilation in flat

G70 None


Table 5WAS—public vs. private samples

Number of variables

WAS Public housing occupants Private housing occupants

0–20 0 120–29 2 230–39 6 140–49 14 250–59 19 3460–69 10 1170 and above 0 0Total 51 51

It can be seen that the major difference arises in the WAS categories of 30–39, 40–49, and 50–59. Theseamount to 76.47% of the total variables in the public housing group and 72.55% of the total variables in theprivate housing group. The difference is particularly acute in the WAS category of 50–59.

The private housing group is taken as the basis for comparison to examine the following in turn:Ž .Ø Variables that are rated the same 50–59 by both the private and public sample;

Ž .Ø Variables that are rated higher 60–69 by the public sample;Ž .Ø Variables that are rated lower below 50 by the public sample.

Ž .Variables that are rated the same 50–59 by both private and public samples

Building form External appearance of buildingColour of building Size of estateSize of the flat Horizontal circulationSpace utilisation of flat layout Floor to ceiling clear heightFunctional quality of lifts Orientation of flatView from window Leisure facilitiesWater quality Design for fire services systemEscape in case of fire

Ž .Variables that are rated higher 60–69 by the public sample

Building height Vertical circulationAdequacy of landscaping areas Proportion of windows: wall areaUninterrupted water supply Adequacy of natural ventilation

Ž .Variables that are rated lower below 50 by the public sample

( )The following are rated by the priÕate housing sample at 50–59Entrance design of building Ease of access by public transportU

Durability of external building finishesU Water tightness from rainU

Ž .Windows materials and water tightness Electric fittingsSanitary fittings Structural integrity

U Ž .Cleanliness of public areas Anticrime measure report centres, etc.Density of population within estate Maintenance of public areasU

Maintenance of residential blockU


( )The following are rated by the priÕate housing sample at 60–69Adequacy of refuse disposal servicesU Security measures of the buildingU

Adequacy of security measure of the flat

ŽU .The ones marked with an asterisk are the variables which scored particularly low. They are rated by theŽ .public housing sample to be below WAS of 40 in the WAS categories of 30–39 and 20–29; see Table 4 .

There are 22 variables in the public housing sample and six variables in the private housing sample whichscored below WAS of 50. It can be seen that there is a higher level of dissatisfaction amongst the public housingoccupants.

There is also discrepancy in their respective areas of concern. Of the variables which score below 50, theŽ .major concerns of the public housing occupants lie in the areas of 1 maintenance and cleanliness of the

Ž . Ž .building estate, 2 integrity of the building fabric and 3 ease of access by public transport. The majorconcerns of the private housing occupants lie in the lack of facilities for the disabled as well as for recreational,elderly and childcare facilities.

The differences in the level of satisfaction with the residential environment between subjects of differentsocial status may reflect the variations in the perceptions of social class. It can be argued that town planners and

Ždesigners should take into account not only the needs but also the perceptions of the occupants perceived.attributes of residential satisfaction in different social classes in order to create a more harmonious residential

Ž .environment, maximising comfort or, at least, minimising dissatisfaction with the resources at their disposal.Since the public housing occupants are especially dissatisfied with the poor quality of the maintenance of theirbuilding estate, the government should pay more notice to property management.

6. Conclusion

The study of residential satisfaction may serve as one component of a broader quality and productivityimprovement programme in the client’s organisation, for instance in public housing projects; it expresses theHousing Authority’s concern for the quality of the building to main contractors. The study may be used to showdesign and planning professionals that residential satisfaction is taken seriously by the client institution and thatconsultants working for the client will be held accountable for the consequences of their planning and designdecisions. The continuous feedback in particular aspects of the long-term performance of buildings, such asenergy utilisation, spatial movement, management and maintenance of the estate, can be used to documentdeficiencies as part of the justification of new construction or remodelling projects—especially in the case of

Ž .the Housing Authority which utilises a number of standard designs for residential blocks. It may also 1enhance the private developer’s competitive standing in the marketplace and improve the company’s public

Ž .image and reputation and 2 fend off threats of outside agencies and pressure groups by showing that the publicclient has the will and the means to regulate itself in providing quality housing by means of the continual testingand updating of planning standards and the long-term upgrading of resource literature and decisions guidelinesfor the design professions.

However, in whatever manner the assessment of residential satisfaction is carried out, it is essentially anŽ .estimate taken at one particular point in time to represent a summary of the occupant s ’ experience and

expectancies up to that point. Therefore, these results must be interpreted in this light and, in particular, theeffect of time on the assessment must be considered. For instance, a construction programme, althoughseemingly a summary of what takes place on site, can be thought of more vividly as a description of the processof construction for a given building at a particular point in time. It is apparent that it will interact with other

Ž .processes within the system e.g., the design process and as a consequence the programme will be liable to


Žchange over time. Occupants’ expectancies may also change over time—for instance, as the maintenance or.property management sub-system interacts with the environment.

This research has provided an insight to the constituent factors of residential satisfaction in large housingestates but further research is desirable:Ø to investigate if the variables contributing to residential satisfaction in large private housing estates differ

significantly from those in large public housing estates;Ž .Ø to determine if geographical area and other social factors like family income affect residential satisfaction

and, if so, how and to what extent;Ø to carry out investigative and diagnostic stages of POE to further investigate the components of dissatisfac-

tion;Ø to study the relationship between the design management process and the outcome, i.e., the building itself

and the inherent residential satisfaction level.

Appendix A. Questionnaire

This is a translated version; the original is in Chinese.

Please insert a tick in the appropriate space.

1sVery satisfied 4sDissatisfied2sSatisfied 5sVery dissatisfied3sFair 6sNot applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6( )A Aesthetics

Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.1. Building formŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.2. Building height

Ž Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.3. External appearance compared with others.in the neighbourhood

Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.4. Entrancerlobby designŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.5. Colour of the building

( )B LocationŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.6. Size of estateŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.7. Ease of access by public transportŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.8. Appropriateness of site for erection

of residential buildings

( )C Use of spaceŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.9. Size of your flat

Ž . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.10. Vertical circulation within building lifts, stairways etc.Ž . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.11. Horizontal circulation within building corridors etc.

Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.12. Adequacy of refuse disposal facilitiesŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.13. Space utilisation of flat layoutŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.14. Adequacy of car parking spaceŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.15. Adequacy of landscaping areas


Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.16. Floor to ceiling clear heightŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.17. Proportion of windows: walls

( )D Building enclosureŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.18. Durability of external building finishesŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.19. Water tightness from rain

Ž . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.20. Windows material and water tightness, etc.Ž . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.21. Electric fittings number of sockets and positions, etc.Ž . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.22. Sanitary fittings number of wash basins, water closet, etc.

Ž . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.23. Functional quality of lifts waiting time, etc.Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.24. Orientation of flatŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.25. View from windowŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.26. Structural integrity

( )E AmenitiesŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.27. Leisure facilitiesŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.28. Postage serviceŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.29. Television transmissionŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.30. Uninterrupted power supplyŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.31. Uninterrupted water supplyŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.32. Availability of convenience storesrmarkets nearby

( ) ( )F Health personal and enÕironmentalŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.33. Adequacy of daylight distribution in flatŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.34. Adequacy of natural ventilation in flatŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.35. Acoustic quality

Ž . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.36. Water quality cleanliness, etc.Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.37. Cleanliness of public areas

( )G Safety and SecurityŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.38. Security measures of the building to control trespassers

Ž . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.39. Fire services system adequacy of fire extinguishers, etc.Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.40. Adequacy of escape routes in case of fireŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.41. Lighting level of public areas

Ž Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.42. Security provisions of flat collapsibler.sliding front gates, etc.

( )H Social needsŽ . Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.43. Anticrime measures report centres, etc.

Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.44. Privacy from neighboursŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.45. Special requirements for disabledŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.46. Social and recreation centresŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.47. Elderly centresŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.48. Nurseries and child care centres

( )I MiscellaneousŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.49. Density of population within the estateŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.50. Maintenance of public areasŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.51. Maintenance of residential blockŽ. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž. Ž.Your overall satisfaction of the building


References

w x1 I. Altman, B. Rogoff, World views in psychology: trait, interactional, orgasmic, and transactional perspectives, in: Stokols, AltmanŽ . Ž .Eds. , Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York 1987 , pp. 7–40.

w x Ž .2 M. Amerigo, J.I. Aragones, Residential satisfaction in council housing, Journal of Environmental Psychology 10 1990 313–325.w x Ž . Ž .3 R. Becker, Quality of performance in use of building systems, Building and Environment Journal 19 3 1984 .w x Ž .4 R. Becker, Application of the performance concept, in: A. Warszawski Ed. , Industrialisation and Robotics in Building, Harper and

Ž .Row, New York 1990 .w x Ž .5 D. Beeston, The measurement of quality and its cost, in: Brandon, Powell Eds. , Quality and Profit in Building Design, E&FN Spon

Ž .1984 .w x6 M. Bonnes, M. Bonaiuto, A.P. Ercolani, Crowding and residential satisfaction in the urban environment, contextual approach,

Ž . Ž .Environment And Behavior 23 5 1991 531–552.w x Ž .7 D. Canter, The purposive evaluation of places: a facet approach, Environment And Behavior 15 1983 659–698.w x Ž .8 W. Caudill, S. Rowlett, C. Scott, Architecture by Team, Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York 1974 .w x9 Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics, Hong Kong Government Printer 1996, Oct. 1996.

w x Ž .10 A.L. Comrey, H.B. Lee, A First Course in Factor Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum 1992 .w x11 C. Cook, Components of neighbourhood satisfaction. Responses from urban and suburban single-parent women, Environment And

Ž .Behavior 20 1988 115–149.w x Ž .12 K. Draper, Systematic quality appraisal, in: Brandon, Powell Eds. , Quality and Profit in Building Design, E&FN Spon, 1984.w x Ž .13 R. Flanagan, Life cycle costing—a means for evaluating quality? in: Brandon, Powell Eds. , Quality and Profit in Building Design,

Ž .E&FN Spon 1984 .w x14 G. Francescato, S. Weidemann, J.R. Anderson, Evaluating the built environment from the users’ point of view: an attitudinal model of

Ž . Ž .residential satisfaction, in: W.F.E. Preiser Ed. , Building Evaluation, Plenum, New York 1989 .w x Ž .15 G.C. Galster, G.W. Hesser, Residential satisfaction. Compositional and contextual correlates, Environment And Behavior 13 1981

735–758.w x16 A. Garling, T. Garling, Parents’ residential satisfaction and perceptions of children’s accident risk, Journal of Environmental

Ž .Psychology 10 1990 27–36.w x17 K. Hourihan, Contest-dependent models of residential satisfaction. An analysis of housing groups in Cork, Ireland, Environment and

Ž .Behavior 16 1984 369–393.w x18 D.G. Kleinbaum, L.L. Kupper, K.E. Muller, Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods, PWS-KENT Publishing,

1988.w x Ž .19 S. Lera, Speculative housing: a critical appraisal of the design quality of some starter homes, in: Brandon, Powell Eds. , Quality and

Profit in Building Design, E&FN Spon, 1984.w x20 A.M.M. Liu, H.C. Lee, POE—an ivory concept in the concrete jungle? International Conference on Tall Buildings—Reach for the

Sky, Kuala Lumpur, CI-Premier, Singapore, July 1992, pp. 143–150.w x Ž .21 C. Loo, Neighbourhood satisfaction and safety. A study of a low income ethnic area, Environment and Behavior 18 1986 109–131.w x Ž .22 R.W. Marans, S.W. Rodgers, Toward an understanding of community satisfaction, in: Hawley and Rock Ed. , Metropolitan American

Ž .in Contemporary Perspective, Halstead, New York 1975 .w x23 T.A. Markus, P. Whyman, J. Morgan, D. Whitton, T. Maver, D. Canter, J. Fleming, Building Performance, Applied Science

Ž .Publishers, Barking 1972 .w x24 A. Morris, Value and its assessment in the context of housing loan adaptations for physically handicapped people, in: Brandon and

Ž . Ž .Powell Ed. , Quality and Profit in Building Design, E&FN Spon 1984 .w x Ž25 O. Newman, Design guidelines for creating defensible space, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1976, cited in

.Francescato et al., 1989 .w x26 S.J. Newman, G.J. Duncan, Residential problems, dissatisfaction and mobility, Journal of the American Planning Association 45

Ž . Ž .1979 154–166, Cited in Amerigo and Aragones, 1990 .w x Ž .27 H. Premius, Housing as a social adaptation process. A conceptual scheme, Environment And Behavior 18 1986 31–52.w x Ž .28 W.F.E. Preiser, H.Z. Rabinowitz, E.T. White, Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York 1988 .w x Ž .29 W.F.E. Preiser, Towards a performance-based conceptual framework for systematic POEs, in: W.F.E. Preiser Ed. , Building

Ž .Evaluation, Plenum, New York 1989 .w x Ž .30 R.J. Rummel, Applied Factor Analysis, Northwestern Univ. Press, Evanston 1970 .w x Ž . Ž .31 A.B. Shlay, Castles in the sky. Measuring housing and neighbourhood ideology, Environment and Behavior 17 5 1985 593–626.w x Ž . Ž32 A. Speare, Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility, Demography 11 1974 173–188, Cited in

.Amerigo and Aragones, 1990 .w x Ž .33 A. Spedding, Design quality and cost in educational buildings, in: Brandon and Powell Ed. , Quality and Profit in Building Design,

Ž .E&FN Spon 1984 .


w x Ž .34 D. Stokols, Conceptual strategies of environmental psychology, in: Stokols and Altman Ed. , Handbook of Environmental Psychology,Ž .Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York 1987 , pp. 41–70.

w x35 S. Weidemann, J.R. Anderson, D.J. Butterfield, P.M. O’Donell, Residents perception of satisfaction and safety. Basis for change inŽ .multifamily housing, Environment And Behavior 14 1982 95–724.

w x Ž .36 S. Weidemann, J.R. Anderson, A conceptual framework for non-residential satisfaction, in: Altman and Werner Ed. , HomeŽ .Environments, Plenum, New York 1985 .

w x Ž .37 E.T. White, Post-occupancy evaluation from the client’s perspective, in: W.F.E. Preiser Ed. , Building Evaluation, Plenum, New YorkŽ .1989 .

Documents

Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective