people living in ageing buildings their quality of life and sense of belonging

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0272-4944/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.je

�CorrespondE-mail addr

Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 347–360

www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp

People living in ageing buildings: Their quality of life andsense of belonging

Sik Hung Nga,�, Ping Kwong Kama, Raymond W.M. Pongb

aDepartment of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Hong KongbCentre for Rural & Northern Health Research, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada P3E 2C6

Abstract

The first objective of this study is to develop measures of housing-related environmental factors (quality of dwelling, neighbours and

community) and place belonging. Another objective is to test the impacts of housing-related environmental factors on quality of life

(QoL) and place belonging. Interview data were collected from 576 residents in six districts that had been designated for demolition as

part of a major urban renewal programme in Hong Kong. The findings showed that the QoL measures (life satisfaction, family life and

health) were related weakly (or not at all) to various demographic and socio-economic factors. By contrast, the environmental factors,

when added to the regression equations, significantly raised the variance explained. For place belonging, the environmental factors

closest to the home of the residents (i.e. quality of dwelling and neighbours) exerted a greater influence than the more distal factor (i.e. the

wider community). The overall findings demonstrated the relevance of housing to two issues—QoL and place belonging—that are

important topics in environmental social psychology relating to urban renewal.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ageing building; Quality of life; Place belonging

1. Introduction

Human survival depends critically on access to a safeshelter. Caves, tents, boats, mud huts, and modernskyscrapers are some of the main forms of dwelling usedor invented by humans. Increasingly, with urbanizationmore and more people are housed in high-densityresidential buildings that not only shape their immediateliving environment, but also their neighbourhood and thewider community. Residential buildings therefore impacton residents’ quality of life (QoL) through their physicalconditions as well as by the neighbours that they haveattracted and the wider community wherein they aresituated. Through these layered impacts of dwelling,neighbours and community, housing may also affectresidents’ sense of belonging or attachment to the place.The twin impact of housing on QoL and place belongingare explored in the present study carried out in one of the

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

nvp.2005.08.005

ing author. Tel.: +852 2788 8989.

ess: [email protected] (S.H. Ng).

world’s most densely populated cities, namely, HongKong.For reasons that will be made clear below, the focus of

the study is on people living in old buildings that have beendesignated officially for demolition in a large-scale urbanrenewal programme. We were able to interview thembefore their relocation to other parts of the city, thuscapturing on record the QoL and sense of belonging of asection of the population caught up in the throes of urbanrenewal. We feel that research that situates the study ofQoL and belongingness in the context of housing would betimely for Hong Kong and, just as important, useful for theadvancement of environmental social psychology.

1.1. Urban renewal

As the economy and population of Hong Kong grew,most notably since the end of World War II, so did thegrowth in the numbers of new buildings (Leung & Yiu,2004). Except for houses built for the very rich, the vastmajority of buildings are multi-storeyed and concentrated

www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp

ARTICLE IN PRESSS.H. Ng et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 347–360348

in urban areas. By now, there are over 8500 multi-storeyedbuildings of 30 years of vintage or older, and the number isprojected to increase by 50% in the next decade. Forresidential buildings that are not occupied by owners butrented out for profit, they are not well looked after bytenants. On top of poor building maintenance resultingfrom disinterested tenant neglect, another major reason forpoor building maintenance is due to multiple ownership ofthe same building. Multiple ownership complicates collec-tive efforts of building maintenance, not all others arewilling to bear the financial burden of building main-tenance, as some would prefer to be ‘‘free-riders,’’ andmany owners have migrated overseas anyway. These localfactors have accelerated the aging of the vast stock of oldbuildings falling prematurely into dilapidated conditions,in stark contrast to other countries where homes of thesame old age as those in Hong Kong are still in soundconditions, well maintained, and a pleasant part of theenvironment.

The scale and urgency of the problem has prompted aseries of actions by the Hong Kong Special AdministrativeRegion (SAR) Government. In his 1999 Policy Address,the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR Governmentoutlined a new urban renewal strategy aimed at improvingthe QoL for people housed in dilapidated buildings in oldand run-down areas. In 2001 the Urban RenewalAuthority (URA) was established, replacing the LandDevelopment Corporation, and soon after followed by thedevelopment of the Urban Renewal Strategy (URS). In itsassessment, the URS identified over 200 derelict projectsites on the Hong Kong Island, in the Kowloon Peninsula,and Tsuen Wan in the New Territories for urban renewalover a period of 20 years, affecting 2000 buildings that wereconsidered to be dilapidated and unsound. The financialcost for urban renewal was estimated to be more thanUS$32,000 million.

Other than the sheer scale and urgency of the housingproblem, the URS also highlighted a ‘‘people-first’’ policyof urban renewal based on four principles: owners willreceive fair compensation, all displaced tenants will berehoused, adverse impact will be minimized, and thecommunity must benefit through upgraded facilities (seeKam, Ng, & Ho, 2004, for an account of the new policyand its historical significance). Interestingly, QoL has beeninvoked as an overarching aim of the people-first policy.Beyond urban renewal, for housing policy generally theHong Kong SAR Government has been keen to increasepeople’s sense of belonging to Hong Kong in order toenhance social integration and to guard against outwardmigration en masse (La Grange & Ming, 2001). A repeat ofthe exodus from Hong Kong following the 1989 Tienan-men crackdown would be extremely costly politically toboth Hong Kong and mainland China. Both types ofconcern—QoL and place belonging—are amenable topsychological investigation and provide an opportunityfor psychology to address QoL and social belonging in apolicy-relevant way.

1.2. Quality of life

QoL has generated numerous studies not only inmedicine/nursing (e.g. Draper, 1997) and the social sciences(e.g. Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976; Orley &Kuyken, 1994; Schuessler & Fisher, 1985), but increasinglyin gerontology (e.g. Abeles, Gift, & Ory, 1994; Birren,Lubben, Rowe, & Deutchman, 1991; Lawton, 1996;Nordenfelt, 1994). In psychology, happiness and subjectivewell-being research is most closely related to QoL, eachwith its own considerable literature (e.g. Argyle, 2001;Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999). With respect tohousing and the impact of relocation, a QoL-approach canbe found in the early works of Porteous (1977) and Chow(1988) carried out in Boston and Hong Kong, respectively.Issues arising therein and in later works (e.g. Yuan,Yuen, & Low, 1999) include theoretical, measurementand policy issues. Let us take up the measurement of QoLfirst.The WHOQOL Group (1998) has developed a measure

of QoL covering 24 facets of QoL in up to six life domains.A similar and equally encompassing measure has beenproduced by Cummins (1999). A shorter measure thatfocuses on life satisfaction is an older scale developed byNeugarten, Havighurst, and Tobin (1961). This index iseasy to administer to people of varying ages, includingolder people (James & Davies, 1986), and has the furtheradvantage of providing a summary index of the subjectiveexperience of QoL that is just as important as, if not moreso than, any objective index of QoL (Gibson, 1998).Further, as Leitmann (1999) has argued, the most usefulQoL measures should reflect local needs and conditionsand not strive to be comprehensive or universal. For thesereasons, in the present study, QoL measures are of threekinds to encompass both general and local conditions: (1) adomain-independent, generalized measure based on lifesatisfaction, (2) a health-related measure based on func-tioning abilities and sleep, and (3) a quality-of-family lifemeasure to reflect the great cultural importance Chinesetend to place on families. Note that although sleep may betaken for granted in residential areas that are quiet andspacious, it can be problematic in overcrowded apartmentsand noisy environments such as those prevailing in urbanrenewal districts. For this reason, it would be relevant toinclude it in the study.From a theoretical perspective, the three layers of

housing-related factors already noted above may providea systematic way of understanding QoL among residentswho are living under the shadow of urban renewal: (1) thephysical condition of the dwelling as perceived by residents,(2) neighbours, and (3) the wider community. Theimportance of dwellings should be obvious, but they aloneonly scratch the surface of QoL. In an early study ofhousing squatters in Hong Kong, Hopkins (1971) foundthat resettlement alone did not necessarily improve thequality of living compared to squatters who remained un-resettled. Other factors beyond the immediate residential

ARTICLE IN PRESSS.H. Ng et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 347–360 349

environment have to be taken into account, such as thoseoutlined above. The three layers of housing-related factorsare not comprehensive, but overlap substantially with thelist of potential factors identified by Grayson and Young(1994) in their review of QoL in cities. Conceptually theyrepresent environmental factors, some more proximal toresidents’ home than others, that could have an impact onresidents’ QoL and sense of belonging.

As the housing-related factors do not exist in a socialvacuum, they may be linked with income, propertyownership status (owner-occupiers versus tenants, seebelow), gender and age. For example, although theresidents are all living in buildings that have been declaredderelict by the URA, the actual physical conditions andsize of the dwelling vary with income and ownership status.Further, interaction with neighbours and access to com-munity facilities may also vary with income and ownershipstatus, as well as with gender and age. Thus it would benecessary to include these socio-economic (income andownership status) and demographic (gender and age)factors in order to assess more rigorously the independentimpact of the housing-related factors.

1.3. Place belonging

Place belonging, defined here as a sense of belonging to aparticular place as if it were one’s own home, is territory-based and can be distinguished from belonging to a socialgroup based on ethnicity, gender religion, and so forth.Notwithstanding this difference in referential meaning,place belonging is similar to group belonging in terms ofthe comfort and sense of security they both bring(McAndrew, 1993). The similarity does not stop here. Insocial psychology research, group belonging is not simply afundamental element in the hierarchy of human needs (e.g.Maslow, 1970), but also a powerful source of social identityand pride that contribute greatly to the sense of self andself-definitions (e.g. Brewer & Hewstone, 2004). Knowl-edge of one’s group membership answers the ‘‘Who am I?’’question by answering the question of ‘‘Which groups am Ia member of?’’ Similarly, environment psychology as wellas urban and rural studies have shown that place belongingis a source of identity (e.g. Forrest & Kearns, 2001;Korpela, 1989; Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003). ‘‘Aplace to call home,’’ as Cuba and Hummon (1993, p. 111)have put it aptly, is an important source of identity in thesocial construction of selfhood—it answers the abstract‘‘Who am I?’’ question by answering the more concretequestion of ‘‘Where is the place I call home?’’

Thus, as Low and Altman (1992) have pointed out, thestudy of place belonging is worthwhile for the light it shedson residents’ identity and sense of selfhood arising fromtheir knowledge of and emotional attachment to a place.Belonging or attachment to a place, just as in the case ofbelonging or attachment to a social group, is a complexconcept. The ‘‘place’’ may, for example, refer to theancestral home (which may no longer exist), the place of

birth, the current place of residence (which may bedifferent from one’s birthplace), and so forth. It mayalso refer to a hierarchy of concentric spaces expand-ing from the home block to the immediate neighbourhood,the surrounding community or district, the city, andbeyond (e.g. Golledge & Stimson, 1997). Of this hierarchyof spaces, neighbourhood and community have attractedconsiderable attention from researchers (e.g. Cook,1988; Galster, 2001; Hummon, 1992; Rivlin, 1987).By contrast, attachment to the city has been less wellattended to.In the present study, an attempt will be made to find out

the extent of housing impact on belonging to the city. As inthe QoL part of the study, the general research questionthat is of special interest to place belonging is the relativeimpact of the three layers of housing-related variablesalready referred to above. But in addition, by pitching thestudy of place belonging to the city, it has politicalimplications that make it particularly relevant to thecurrent situation in Hong Kong. In the colonial past ofHong Kong, only a limited sense of community existed inthe territory (Lau, 1985). Since the return of the territory’ssovereignty to China, one of the most important politicalconcerns of the government is how to enlarge and deepenbelongingness to Hong Kong in order to enhance societalintegration (Lau, 2002). Towards this end, the presentgovernment has made use of housing as a policy tool, onthe assumption that making ownership of property morewidely accessible to citizens will enhance the sense ofbelongingness in society and hopefully also increasesocietal integration. The impact of property ownershipon belonging, however, is tenuous (La Grange & Ming,2001) and in need of further testing. More generally, aspointed out by Verberg (2000), the validity of such a‘‘political incorporation’’ thesis is uncertain and in need ofscrutiny. The present study will test for the impactof property ownership and compare it with the impact ofthe other variables. It should be noted that althoughthere are other dimensions of place belonging such asattachment to the neighbourhood, it is the sense ofbelonging to Hong Kong itself that is of interest herebecause of its current political relevance and implicationsfor housing policy.To summarize, the objectives of the present study are:

�
To develop multiple measures of housing-relatedenvironmental factors (quality of dwelling, neighboursand community) and a single measure of placebelonging. � To test the impacts of housing-related environmental
factors on QoL and place belonging.

Socio-economic and demographic variables will beincluded in the statistical analyses in order to provide amore rigorous assessment of the independent impacts ofthe housing-related environmental factors on QoL andplace belonging.


2. Method

2.1. Procedure

A survey was carried out in 2002–2003 of 576 residents inthe first six districts that had been designated by the UrbanRenewal Authority for demolition on the bases ofstructurally unsound conditions, fire or health risks,ineffectiveness of repair, and so forth. A sample of thesebuildings can be found in Fig. 1.

The total number of households was estimated by URAto be 1800. As many households had already moved awayprior to the present survey, the number of remaininghouseholds for the survey was reduced. Based on our ownsite visits, the estimated number of remaining householdswas about 1200. All household units still living in thedistricts at the time of the survey were visited with the aimof interviewing either an older (56–94 years), a middle-aged(30–55 years) or a younger (12–29 years) householdmember. Households that were missed on the first callwere left with a letter inviting them to take part in thestudy, and subsequently revisited at least once on adifferent day and different time so to maximize theresponse rate. A total of 576 households participated inthe survey, from which either an older, a middle-aged or ayounger members was interviewed. The effective responserate, excluding missed calls, was 82%. (The overallresponse rate including missed calls was approximately48%.) As the buildings were in dilapidated conditions, andmany of the visits had to be conducted in the evening,interviewers carried out their tasks in pairs to ensurepsychological and physical safety. Other than a fewincidents of barking dogs, no danger or physical harmwas encountered.

2.2. Participants

Geographical distribution: A total of 576 residents fromas many households completed the interview. They weredrawn from six districts in Tai Kok Tsui (145), Sham ShuiPo (99) Mongkok (33), Wanchai (42), Sai Ying Pun (169),and Sheung Wan (88). The relatively small numbers ofparticipants in Mongkok and Wanchai were due to thesmall number of affected buildings and the early relocationof residents before the present study began. The districtswere distributed equally on the Hong Kong Island andKowloon Peninsula.

Demographic and socio-economic background: The sam-ple consisted of more males (56%) than females, and moremiddle-aged (44%) than older (38%) or younger (18%)residents. Age means (S.D.) of the three age groups were44.7 (6.9), 69.5 (9.1), and 21.6 (5.9), respectively. Underhalf (46%) of the sample had received no secondary schooleducation, and only 7% possessed post-secondary qualifi-cations. Their monthly median household income wasaround US$1650. As to be expected, the sample was belowthe general population in terms of both educational

attainment and household income. Specifically, accordingto the 2001 census statistics, only 29% of the generalpopulation received no secondary education and as manyas 16% possessed post-secondary qualifications. Themonthly median household income of the general popula-tion was US$2340.

Housing situation: About a third of the sample was madeup of owners (33%), and the remainder were tenants.Slightly less than half of the sample (47%) were soleoccupiers of the flat or apartment, whereas others sharedthe dwelling with one or more other households. Overallthe average household size was 3.15 persons and theaverage size of the dwelling per household was 333 sq ft.They had been living in their present building for anaverage of 15 years, and in the same district for 22 years.Almost half of the sample (49%) reported three or moredilapidated conditions in their building from a list of six,confirming the poor physical condition of the buildings.With respect to their future housing expectations, the mostwanted improvements in descending order were more space(67% of residents wanted this), better ventilation, betterhygiene, and better natural lighting (55%). Overall,community participation (in community centres, churches,clan and kin associations, etc.) was low. Fewer than a third(30%) of the sample had participated in any of thecommunity associations or clubs, and these for not morethan once a month.

2.3. Measures

This study is part of a larger project that used anextensive interview schedule for collecting data to addressthe present research questions as well as others. Only theformer will be analysed herein for present purposes. Priorto the main study, informal interviews were conducted withover 20 residents either individually or in small groups togenerate items for the environmental factors. The finalselection of items was based on face validity and, wherepossible, congruence with relevant studies.

2.3.1. Background variables

Demographic and socio-economic background: Theseinclude age, gender, marital status, length of residence inHong Kong, employment status, education level andhousehold income.

Current housing situation: Residents were asked toindicate their property ownership status (owners ortenants), household size, length of residence in the dwell-ing, and dilapidated conditions of the building.

2.3.2. Environmental variables

Quality of dwelling: Residents were asked to indicatetheir level of satisfaction with nine specific aspects of theirdwelling (size of floor area, ventilation, hygienic condi-tions, natural lighting, sleeping area, dinning and readingareas, toilet and kitchen facilities). The nine items over-lapped considerably with the dwelling conditions identified

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Exterior and interior conditions of some old buildings.

S.H. Ng et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 347–360 351

in a Hong Kong study carried out by Phillips, Siu, Yeh,and Cheng (2005). In addition to the nine items, residentsalso indicated their level of satisfaction with their dwellingoverall. The response format comprised five levels ofsatisfaction (1 ¼ very unsatisfied, 5 ¼ very satisfied).

Quality of neighbours: Neighbourhood and the quality ofneighbours are complex concepts (Galster, 2001). Forpresent purposes, as indicated by interviews with localresidents and overseas research (e.g. Fischer, 1982), thesocial-interactive characteristics of neighbours were chosento anchor the measure of the quality of neighbours,comprising the frequency of social interaction, perceivedhelpfulness, and satisfaction with the relationship withneighbours. Accordingly, residents were asked to rate theirfrequency of social interaction with neighbours (0 ¼ none,5 ¼ a lot), their perceived helpfulness of neighbours

(0 ¼ none, 5 ¼ a lot), and their satisfaction with theirrelationships with neighbours (1 ¼ very unsatisfied,5 ¼ very satisfied). They also indicated their overallsatisfaction with their neighbours (1 ¼ very unsatisfied,5 ¼ very satisfied). Note that the first two items, because oftheir very nature, allowed ‘none’ as the answer and this wasscored as zero, although in actual fact very few respondentsused this category of response. The special provision of‘‘zero’’ was not needed for the last two items.

Quality of the wider community: Community quality wasmeasured by, first, five items concerning communityfacilities that were helpful to but non-essential for living(i.e. public parks, park facilities, community centreservices, availability of public libraries and recreationalfacilities, standard of library and recreational facilities);and second, three items measuring community facilities of


a more essential nature (i.e. public transport, health clinicsand shopping). The distinction between essential and non-essential facilities was based on a consideration of the factthat most of the residents living in run-down districtsdesignated for urban renewal were not car owners and hadto rely on public transport for visitation and for commut-ing to work and to school. By the same token, residentsplaced a high premium on ready and convenient access tohealth clinics and to shopping facilities for food and othernecessities. For these reasons, public transport, healthclinics and shopping were deemed to be more essential thatother facilities such as public parks in the local context,although the latter remained important. In the study,residents indicated their levels of satisfaction with each ofthe eight items and with their community overall (1 ¼ veryunsatisfied, 5 ¼ very satisfied).

2.3.3. Measures of QoL

Life satisfaction: This was measured by four itemsadapted from the Life Satisfaction Index Form A(Neugarten et al., 1961) covering ‘‘happiness,’’ ‘‘recentyears were the best time of your life,’’ ‘‘interesting as well asmeaningful life’’ and ‘‘feeling depressed.’’ Residents wereasked to indicate their levels of agreement or disagreementwith each item on a 4-point scale (1 ¼ agree strongly,4 ¼ disagree strongly). For example, ‘‘I am happy as ever.’’Responses to the first three, positively worded, items werereverse coded so that across all four items higher scoresindicated higher life satisfaction.

Quality of family life: Family life was measured by threeitems covering quality time for family interaction, satisfac-tion with family life, and family support on a 5-point scale(1 ¼ low, 5 ¼ high).

Health: Four items on work ability, learning ability,ability to deal with daily situations, and quality ofsleep were constructed to measure health on a 5-pointscale (1 ¼ low, 5 ¼ high).

2.3.4. Place belonging

Place belonging: Place belonging was measured by threeitems on the extent to which Hong Kong was consideredhome, the degree of belongingness to Hong Kong, and thestrength of self-identification and pride as a Hong Konger.The content of these items overlapped with measures ofgroup identification (Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, &Williams, 1986). For the first item, respondents indicatedtheir answers on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ not at all, 5 ¼ a lot).For the last two items, a marking scale of 100 points wasprovided for respondents to express their strengthsof belongingness and self-identification. For example,‘‘Out of a maximum of 100 points, how many pointswould you give to your sense of belonging to Hong Kong.’’For the purpose analyzing the three items jointly, the 5-point scale used in the first item was later rescaled to a 100-point scale, that is, 1 was rescaled to 0, 2–25, 3–50, 4–75,and 5–100.

3. Results

3.1. Overview

As noted above, multi-item scales were developed tomeasure housing-related environmental factors, QoL, andplace belonging. For each scale, an exploratory factoranalysis was carried out to identify the number ofcomponents (dimensions) that made up the scale, followedby reliability analysis to select the smallest number of itemsthat would yield the highest Chronbach’s alpha. The resultsshowed that the multi-item scales were all unidimensional,with the exception of the health scale. As will be reportedbelow, the latter was decomposed into a functioningabilities and a sleep scale.

3.2. Housing-related environmental factors

Quality of dwelling: As noted earlier under Method,residents were asked to indicate their level of satisfactionwith nine aspects of their dwelling. Exploratory factoranalysis extracted two components with eigenvalues great-er than 1. Together, they accounted for 71% of thevariance. Inspection of the scree plot showed a sharpflattening after the first component, which alone explained60% of the variance. Thus a one-component solution wasadopted. Reliability test of the nine items resulted in aChronbach’s alpha of .92. This a could not be raised bydeleting any item. Accordingly, a 9-item scale was adoptedfor measuring the quality of dwelling (Dwe9).

Quality of neighbours: Following the procedure above, a3-item scale with an a of .80 was developed for measuringthe quality of neighbours (Neig3).

Quality of the wider community: The 5-item scalemeasuring community facilities that were helpful to butnon-essential for living had an a of .78. This will be referredto as ComN5. The 3-item scale (ComE3) measuringcommunity facilities of a more essential nature also hadan a of .78.

Validating the Dwe9, Neig3, ComN5 and ComE3 scales:As the four housing-related environmental scales devel-oped herein were the hypothesized key predictors of QoLand place belonging, it was deemed necessary to establishtheir validity. For this purpose, as noted under Method,residents were asked to indicate their overall satisfactionwith their dwellings, neighbours, and the community, eachon a single-item question. Table 1 shows the fourcorrelations (bold typed) between the multi-item scalesand their corresponding one-item overall measure. Theywere all significant, and higher than any other correlationsin the inter-correlation matrix. Thus, there was someevidence for both convergent and discriminant validities ofthe scales.Note that the three items for overall satisfaction were

used for validating the housing-related environmentalmeasures, rather than for increasing their reliabilities. Evenif the overall items were included in their respective

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Inter-correlations (Pearson) and reliabilities of scales

Satneig1 Comsat1 Dwe9 Neig3 comN5 comE3

Dwesat1 .216* .328* .717* .072 .208* .229*

satneig1 .285* .206* .471* .132* .206*

comsat1 .289* .128* .435* .396*

dwe9 .062 .219* .185*

Neig3 .080 .043

comN5 .265*

Reliability — — .92 .80 .78 .78

*po.01 (2-tailed).

Dwesat1: overall satisfaction with dwelling (1-item).

Satneig1: overall satisfaction with neighbours (1-item).

Comsat1: overall satisfaction with community (1-item).

Dwe9: satisfaction with various aspects of dwelling (9-item).

Neig3: satisfaction with various aspects of neighbours (3-item).

ComN5: satisfaction with non-essential community facilities (5-item).

ComE3: satisfaction with essential community facilities (3-item).

Table 2

Means and standard deviations of measures

Mean S.D.

Dwesat1 3.0 1.2

Satneig1 3.7 .9

Comsat1 3.8 .9

Dwe9 3.1 1.0

Neig3a 3.8 1.3

comN5 3.4 .9

comE3 4.4 .7

Life satisfactionb 2.6 .6

Sleep 3.4 1.2

Functioning ability 3.4 .9

Family life 3.6 .9

Belongingc 70.7 19.7

Scale range of all other measures ¼ 1 (low)–5 (high).aScale range ¼ 1 (low quality of neighbours)–6 (high quality of

neighbours).bScale range ¼ 1 (low satisfaction)–4 (high satisfaction).cScale range ¼ 0 (weak sense of belonging to Hong Kong)–100 (strong

sense of belonging to Hong Kong).

S.H. Ng et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 347–360 353

measures, the as were increased by no more than .05. Asthe overall satisfaction with the community was used tovalidate two separate measures of community satisfaction,its inclusion in both measures would cause redundancyand render the two measures less distinct. For thesereasons, the overall satisfaction items were not includedin the measures.

3.3. Measures of QoL

Life satisfaction (4 items, a ¼ .71): Residents’ responsesto life satisfaction items were subjected to exploratoryfactor analysis. One component with an eigenvalue ofgreater than 1 was extracted that accounted for 54% of thevariance. Reliability test showed that all four items shouldbe retained to form the life satisfaction scale (LS) with ana ¼ .71.

Quality of family life (3 items, a ¼ .68): Exploratoryfactor analysis of responses to the three items extracted onefactor with an eigenvalue of greater than 1. Reliability testshowed that all three items should be retained with ana ¼ .68.

Health (functioning abilities, 3 items, a ¼ .74; sleep, 1item): Exploratory factor analysis of the four health itemsextracted one significant factor. However, reliabilityanalysis showed that the a could be raised from .67 to.74 by taking the ‘‘sleep’’ item out. Hence, health wasrepresented by an 1-item scale measuring the quality ofsleep and by a 3-item scale measuring functioning abilities(a ¼ .74).

Inter-correlations among QoL measures: Life satisfaction,quality of family life, sleep, and functioning abilities werecorrelated moderately with each other in the positivedirection. The six correlation coefficients ranged from .21(between life satisfaction and functioning abilities) to .35(between life satisfaction and sleep), with a mean of .28,suggesting that the four measures were taping into relatedbut fairly distinct aspects of the QoL.

3.4. Place belonging (3 items, a ¼ .70)

Exploratory factor analysis extracted one factor andreliability test showed an a ¼ .70 for the three-item scale.

3.5. Summary of descriptive statistics of the measures

Table 2 summarizes the means and standard deviationsof the measures, along with their minimum and maximumscale points.

3.6. Impact of housing-related environmental factors on

QoL

Overview of regression analyses: Each measure of QoLwas regressed on the four environmental predictors as well

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Regression analysis of life satisfaction

Block b t pp

1 R2 ¼ :021, F ð4; 532Þ ¼ 2:85, po:05Ownership status �.061 �1.383 ns

Income .117 2.549 .011

Gender �.034 �.783 ns

Age group .093 2.018 .044

2 R2 ¼ :125, F ð8; 508Þ ¼ 9:07, po:0001Ownership status .005 .115 ns

Income .128 2.878 .004

Gender �.025 �.595 ns

Age group .017 .373 ns

DWE9 .163 3.563 .000

NEIG3 .160 3.828 .000

COMN5 .109 2.474 .014

COME3 .146 3.317 .001

Table 4

Summary of regression analyses showing significant standardized beta and

R2

Measures of QoL

LS Sleep Functioning abilities Family life

Predictors

Ownership status — — — .16

Income .13 .11 .11 .19

Gender — — — —

Age — — — —

Dwe9 .16 .24 — —

Neig3 .16 — .09 .15

comN5 .11 — — .12

comE3 .15 .14 .15 .11

R2 .13 .12 .06 .13

Note: LS ¼ life satisfaction. po:05.

S.H. Ng et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 347–360354

as the economic and demographic variable of propertyownership status, household income, gender and age. Priorto this, in order to compare the impacts of the environ-mental predictors with that of the economic/demographicvariables, measures in the latter category were entered firstas a block in the regression analysis. Ownership status andgender were coded as dummy variables with owners ¼ 0,non-owners ¼ 1, males ¼ 0, and females ¼ 1.

In order to provide a fuller context for evaluating theregression analyses, we first produced descriptive correla-tions between the four economic/demographic variablesand the four environmental variables, as well as inter-correlations among the environmental variables aftercontrolling for the economic/demographic variables. The16 correlations (Spearman’s rho) between the economic/demographic variables and the environmental variableswere generally low (�.32 to .25, absolute mean ¼ .10), aswere the six partial inter-correlations of the environmentalvariables after controlling for the economic/demographicvariables (.01–.25, mean ¼ .12). The generally low correla-tions suggested no violation of the assumption of multi-collinearity, and this was confirmed to be the case in all ofthe regression analyses. Specifically, in all four sets ofregression analyses to be reported below, the VIF statisticswere less than 1.3, and the Tolerance statistics were higherthan .8, which were safely remote from threshold valuesthat would signal problems of high multicollinearity (e.g.Fox, 1997). Further regression diagnostics were conductedto produce regression standardized residuals, histograms ofresiduals, and partial regression plots. Generally, theresults indicated no problems of outliers, non-normalityor non-linearity. The only cause for concern was a smallskewness in the sleep measure of QoL. However, sinceregression is robust in the face of some deviation from theassumption of normally distributed residual error, nocorrection was deemed necessary. In the results to bereported below, the level of statistical significance was setat po:05.

Impact on life satisfaction: Property ownership status,household income, gender and age were entered first as ablock in the regression analysis. As shown in Table 3, thesefour variables accounted for 2.1% of the variance (R2) andtwo of them (income and age) were significant at the po:05level. Higher income and older age were predictive ofhigher life satisfaction. When the four environmentalpredictors were entered in the second block, R2 was raisedsignificantly to 12.5% with all four predictors showing asignificant beta coefficient. Note that age was no longersignificant, suggesting that its impact on life satisfactionwas mediated through one or more of the environmentalpredictors. Income remained to be significant. Comparedto income, all environmental predictors except comN5(non-essential community facilities) contributed more tolife satisfaction and in the predicted, positive direction.Note that as all four environmental predictors were enteredin the regression analysis in block 2, they each contributedunique variance. Further, their impacts were generally

independent of each other because of their low inter-correlations shown in Table 1. Finally, as the environ-mental predictors were correlated lowly with income (allfour correlations were smaller than .11), their impacts werealso largely independent of that of income.

Impact on health (sleep): The two-block regressionanalysis was repeated for sleep, measured by a single itemasking residents to indicate their satisfaction with theirsleep. The results were similar to that of life satisfactionexcept that neighbours and non-essential communityfacilities were not significant predictors of sleep (seesummary of this and other results in Table 4).

Impact on health (functioning abilities): Regressionanalysis showed, first, that ownership status, income,gender and age accounted for 2.4% of the variance withincome and ownership status as the only significantpredictors. When the four environmental predictors wereentered in the second block, R2 was raised significantly to


6.3% with two of the four predictors showing a significantbeta coefficient in addition to household income (owner-ship status was no longer significant). All three significantpredictors were approximately equal in impact, as mea-sured by their standardized betas.

Impact on quality of family life: Block one of theregression analysis showed that ownership status andincome were significant predictors. When the four environ-mental factors were entered in the second block, R2 wasraised significantly from 7.2% to 12.9% with three of thefour measures showing a significant beta coefficient inaddition to ownership status and income (see Table 4).Family life was better for owners and increased withincome and with the quality of neighbourhood andcommunity.

3.7. Impact of housing-related environmental factors on

place belonging

Block 1 of the regression analysis showed that propertyownership status and age, but not gender or income, weresignificant predictors of belonging. When the four envir-onmental predictors were entered in the second block, R2

was raised from 7.3% to 11.3% with two of the fourpredictors showing a significant beta coefficient, namely,quality of dwelling and neighbours. As shown in Table 5,better dwelling and neighbours were associated withstronger belonging, as was older age. Ownership statuswas no longer a significant predictor.

Further analyses were carried out to see if the age effectwas confounded by length of residence in Hong Kong. Asmay be expected, age was positively correlated withresidence length, r ¼ :416, df ¼ 574, po:001. When resi-dential length was added to the regression analysis (secondblock), age remained significant and had a higher beta(.157) than any of the other three significant predictors(residence length, beta ¼ .130; dwelling, beta ¼ .152;neighbours, beta ¼ .103). Thus, age continued to contri-

Table 5

Regression analysis of belonging

Block Beta t pp

1 R2 ¼ :073, F ð4; 531Þ ¼ 10:41, po:0001Ownership status �.111 �2.601 .010

Income .036 .813 .416

Gender .055 1.288 .148

Age .245 5.497 .000

2 R2 ¼ :113, F ð8; 507Þ ¼ 8:077, po:0001Ownership status �.059 �1.323 ns

Income .045 1.014 ns

Gender .041 .950 ns

Age .203 4.446 .000

Dwe9 .165 3.597 .000

Neig3 .096 2.271 .024

comN5 �.001 �.026 ns

comE3 .056 1.268 ns

bute unique variance in the presence of residencelength, although its effect was not entirely independentof residence length because of their moderate inter-correlation.

4. Discussion

To assess the QoL of residents living in ageing buildingsthat had been targeted for urban renewal, and to comparethe impacts of different predictors on QoL, the presentstudy developed measures of QoL and of housing-relatedenvironmental predictors. Using these tools, the presentstudy has uncovered a number of findings worthy of note,although given the small sample and generally low valuesof R2 and beta, they are suggestive only. The discussionbelow is therefore hypothetical rather than deterministic,and serves to illustrate the further need for research. In sodoing, we shall attempt to proffer a number of conceptsand analyses.The study found, first, that of the QoL measures, all four

were affected by household income, one (family life) byownership status, and none by gender or age. Theeconomic basis of QoL was clearly established, a findingconsistent with the literature showing that people withhigher socio-economic status have better health statusthat in turn leads to higher QoL. Yet, the economicand demographic predictors, even when combined, ac-counted for less than 8% of the variance of any one of theQoL measures. The four environmental predictors, whenadded to the regression equations, raised the varianceaccounted for (R2) significantly. Across all four QoLmeasures, predictors that proved to be significant weremainly environmental variables rather than economic/demographic variables. Overall, then, the impacts ofenvironmental predictors on QoL were stronger relativeto economic/demographic variables. Of these environmen-tal predictors, essential community facilities (shopping,transport, medical clinics) exerted the most pervasiveimpact—it affected all four QoL measures—followedby neighbours (affecting three measures) and then bythe physical conditions of dwellings and non-essential community facilities (each affecting two QoLmeasures).Life satisfaction, the most generic of the four measures

of the QoL, was affected by income and by all of theenvironmental predictors. The latter predictors, whenadded to the regression equation, raised the R2 from1.8% to 13%. This substantial increase in R2 indicates thaturban renewal may have considerable positive impact onlife satisfaction by improving the quality of dwellings,neighbours and the community of relocated residents. Afollow-up study of the residents would provide thenecessary data for assessing the actual impact resultingfrom relocation. For now, we may proffer the followingscenario.Given the derelict condition of residents’ present dwell-

ings, the relocation of residents to newer and better


dwellings is likely to have an immediate positive impact onlife satisfaction. Thereafter, further impact would dependon other aspects of housing. First, if the community towhich residents are relocated can provide better facilitiesthan those afforded by their current community, thenfurther positive impact may be obtained. But there is noguarantee that facilities would be better in the new than inthe old community. Even if the facilities are better in thenew community, residents need time to get used to and toactually make use of them as they adapt to the newenvironment. Second, with respect to neighbours, theirimpact on QoL depends even more strongly on residents’ability to develop a new network of trusted and helpfulneighbours to replace the old one. Time and meaningfulsocial interactions are required for this form of socialcapital to evolve (e.g. Purdue, 2001; Hardin, 2002). Thisanalysis points to potential difficulties, especially for theelderly (Moorer & Suurmeijer, 2001), due to the lengthyprocess of adaptation to the new environment followingdislocation from a familiar environment where residentshave been living for many years.

The scenario above for life satisfaction points to thefollowing ‘‘psychological cost-benefit’’ of QoL during theprocess of urban renewal. On the one hand, urban renewalbrings immediate positive impact due to the improvedphysical quality of dwellings. On the other hand, impactsdue to neighbours and community are less certain and,even if they are positive in the longer run, would requireconsiderable adaptation on the part of the residents. Suchadaptation may be difficult because an unfamiliar high-density urban environment, to which the residents willmost likely move into from their current familiar low-density environment, is not conducive to openness orfriendliness that may otherwise facilitate the integration ofnew residents into the community (e.g. Milgram, 1977).This argument, by pitting the positive and immediateimpact of improved dwellings against the remote and lesscertain impact of neighbours and community, leads us todevelop a quantifiable index of the ‘‘psychological cost-benefit’’ of QoL based on the standardized beta coeffi-cients. If the standardized beta coefficient of dwellingexceeds that of neighbours and community, then the netcost-benefit is favourable to QoL. Otherwise, the net cost-benefit is unfavourable. For life satisfaction, as can becalculated from Table 4, the net cost-benefit is negative (.17�.16 �.12 �.14 ¼ �.25).

Applying the analysis of the psychological cost-benefitto other measures of QoL, and confining the comparisonto predictors that are significant (see Table 4), it can beshown that the net cost-benefit is favorable for sleep butunfavorable for the remaining two measures. Residents canexpect to sleep better as the positive impact of improveddwellings outweigh whatever negative impact may incur inneighbours and community facilities. On the other hand,residents can expect challenges ahead with regard to theother measures of QoL pertaining to functioning abilitiesand especially family life.

The psychological cost-benefit analysis points to anoversight in the ‘‘people-first’’ policy of urban renewal. Asnoted in Section 1.1 of this paper, one of the four people-first principles is to ensure that the ‘‘community’’ mustbenefit through upgraded facilities after urban renewal.The ‘‘community’’ here refers to the community located inand around the urban renewal district. That is, afterdemolishing the dilapidated buildings and putting up newones in their place, facilities therein must also be upgraded.Residents who benefit from the upgraded facilities wouldbe those who remain in the community or move in asnewcomers, but not those who have been relocatedelsewhere. For the latter, there is no guarantee from theexisting people-first policy that the community to whichthey have been relocated would have upgraded facilities.To summarize this part of the discussion, as the Asian

Development Bank (1995) has pointed out, the human costof involuntary resettlement is considerable, and should betaken into account in the formulation of resettlementpolicy as well as the assessment of its impact. The QoLapproach developed in the present study provides a usefulframework for addressing the human dimension ofresettlement in general, and of urban renewal in particular.The nuanced analysis of the layered impacts of the fourenvironmental predictors has revealed an urban renewaldilemma of varying severity across the QoL measures.Immediate improvement can be expected in sleep but not inthe other measures. Most at risk would be family life,where the net psychological cost-benefit index is the mostnegative. These statements are admittedly simplistic asQoL measures are multiply determined by factors many ofwhich lie outside the scope of the present research. Asshown by the regression analyses, the R2 values wererelatively small. Nonetheless the idea of psychological cost-benefit serves to bring into sharp focus the dilemma ofurban renewal and the lengthy process of adaptation that isrequired to maximize the positive impacts of relocationwhile minimizing its negative ones. A ‘‘people-first’’ urbanrenewal policy should therefore be cognizant of potentialrisks to these other aspects of QoL, and find ways ofcollaborating with social services and other relevantprofessionals to utilize the potentially positive impacts ofneighbours and community, in addition to helpingresidents improve the physical conditions of their dwell-ings. As Ng, Cook, and Chui (2001) have argued,community building is essential to the implementation ofa sustainable urban regeneration strategy for Hong Kong:‘‘Only when communities are organized and have built uptheir capacity to run their own affairs, can they contributemore meaningfully to maintaining their buildings y caringfor the local environment and quality of life y andproviding bottom-up inputs and alternative solutions tourban regeneration and development.’’ (p. 182)With regard to residents’ place belonging, the negative

results are just as informative as the positive ones. Gender,income and ownership status were unrelated to belongingwhen environmental factors were taken into account. The


negative result of ownership status may on the surfacecontradict the results of an American study that demon-strated a positive association between place attachmentand home ownership in Salt Lake City (Brown, Perkins, &Brown, 2003). On closer examination, the contradiction ismore apparent than real, because place attachment in theAmerican study referred specifically to attachments to thehome and to the block/neighbourhood, and not to the cityas a whole. Home ownership might affect attachment toplaces closer to home but not necessarily attachment to abroader category such as the wider city. Furthermore, theapparent difference could be due to cultural differences asthe situation in Hong Kong was different from that in SaltLake City. The property market in Hong Kong hadcrashed from an historical height in 1997 to low ebb by2000, reducing the market value of dwellings by over 50%,and turning tens and thousands of owners into holders of‘‘negative asset,’’ demoralizing many more as a result. Thevicissitudes of home ownership in Hong Kong could hardlybe relied upon as a pillar for place belonging, much less forsocietal integration (Ho, Ng, & Kam, 2003).

There are other cultural differences between Salt LakeCity and Holng Kong that may be responsible for thedifferent findings noted above. In North America homeownership often takes the form of owning a house as wellas the land on which the house stands, and for this reasonthe importance of home ownership is often tied to theownership of the land. In Hong Kong, by contrast, the vastmajority of residents live in multi-storeyed buildings, forwhom the sentimental importance of the land is question-able. Further, home property in Hong Kong is oftenviewed as an investment or a commodity to be bought andsold with relatively little sentimental value of home andcommunity involvement (Agnew, 1981; Ng et al., 2001;Smart & Smart, 1996). Thus, it is not surprising thatanother Hong Kong study, reported by La Grange, andMing (2001), has also found that home ownership wasunrelated to place belonging. The consistently negativefinding in these two Hong Kong studies casts doubt on the(erroneous) assumption made by the Hong Kong SARGovernment that a housing policy that encouragesproperty ownership would help to increase belongingnessto the city.

Next we turn to the positive effect of older age on placebelonging. This effect may simply indicate the cumulative,developmental nature of belongingness that accrue fromlonger, richer experiences and life-course memories (Ru-binstein & Parmelee, 1992). However, as the supplementaryanalysis has shown by adding residential length to theregression, the unique effect of age remained. Hence, theeffect of older age must also implicate other factors. Onesuch factor, as suggested by Hay’s (1998) New Zealandstudy, may be older people’s relative lack of residentialmobility to live outside Hong Kong. For older folks, theunavailability of an alternative place to make one’s homemeans that there is no alternative place to compete withHong Kong for their self-identification. This interpretation

is akin to the perceived impermeability of group boundaryin social identity theory terms (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), thatis, the belief that since one’s personal well-being is boundup with that of the membership group, one may just as wellstick with the group (or place in the present case), affirmone’s identification with and feel proud of it.Still another explanation, related to the one above, may

be found in life-course development. As Rubinstein andParmelee (1992) have pointed out, place attachment hasspecial importance for older people in their attempts tocope with the psychological and social pressures of ageing.For example, place attachment provides older people withconcrete memories for keeping the past alive and formaintaining a sense of continuity in the face of ageing.Further, by affirming their attachment to Hong Kong,older people can contrive a psychological home as a bufferagainst the insecurity of declining social status in old age.Of the four environmental predictors of place belonging,

the qualities of community (essential and non-essentialfacilities) had no impact whereas the qualities of dwellingand neighbours had. This pattern of results suggests aproximity hypothesis: the environmental situation closestto residents’ home (i.e. their dwellings and immediateneighbours) exerts greater influence than the more remotesituation (i.e. the wider community). Thus it is the physicalconditions of the home, the immediate social environmentof neighbours, and age-related experiences and psycholo-gical needs that have the strongest influence on belongingto Hong Kong, and not the wider community, ownershipstatus, income, or gender.

5. Conclusions

The housing-related environment matters considerablyin residents’ QoL and their sense of belonging to HongKong. Whilst the absolute amount of impact due to thehousing-related environment is small, suggesting otherfactors outside the present study are also involved, incomparative terms it is stronger than income on QoL andalso stronger than ownership status or age on belonging-ness. Against the benchmarks of income, ownership statusof age, the present study succeeds in demonstrating therelevance of housing-related environmental factors to twoissues (QoL and place belonging) that are important topicsin environmental social psychology. As well, because of theimportant role of housing in the individuals’ daily lives andin the socio-economic and political development of HongKong, the findings obtained herein also have applied valuesfor informing urban renewal policy.Of particular relevance to urban renewal are findings

concerning the nuanced effects of the three layers of thehousing-related environment. The effects of dwelling arecircumscribed in that they are applicable to life satisfactionand sleep but not to functioning abilities or family life.Similarly the effects of non-essential community facilitiesare circumscribed and applicable only to life satisfactionand family life. Neighbours, and especially essential


community facilities, are more pervasive in their impacts.Roughly speaking, the former two layers of housingvariables (dwelling and non-essential community facilities)are more like hardware whereas the latter two layers(neighbours and essential own facilities) are more likesoftware or social capital (Coleman, 1990; Fukuyama,1999; Putnam, 2000). To maximize the benefits ofurban renewal, it is not enough to simply relocate residentsto better dwellings or to replace existing dilapidatedbuildings with new and improved ones, because thislopsided policy can only capitalize on the benefits ofhardware alone. As the net cost-benefit analyses haveshown, the immediate benefits of hardware (due toimprovement in dwelling) over-compensate the loss ofsoftware benefits (due to uprooting of the existingneighbourhood and community) only in sleep but not inthe other QoL measures. Efforts to improve social capitalin the neighbourhood and community to which theresidents have relocated, and to help them integrate withand adapt to the new social environment, would also beessential (OECD, 2001). Such efforts require time to enactand for residents to adapt to, but should be made part ofthe urban renewal policy.

Research-wise, urban renewal and its aftermath offer anopportunity for social capital research to cover three inter-related phases in a systematic way. (1) The loss of socialcapital due to the dispersal of resident, and uprooting ofthe existing neighbourhood and community. (2) Howsocial capital may be regained and turned into use byresidents as they adapt to and seek integration with the newneighbourhood and community wherein they have beenrelocated. (3) The creation of new social capital as urbancommunities develop around new homes erected on oldsites. Central to these issues are trust, identification,reciprocity, mutual aid and leadership, all of which areamenable to and will benefit from environmental socialpsychological research.

Findings relating to place belonging point to a differentcategorisation of the housing-related environmental fac-tors. Instead of the hardware versus software categorisa-tion pertaining to QoL, here a different categorisationbased on proximity is more pertinent. Housing-relatedenvironmental factors that are proximal to residents’ home,namely, dwellings and neighbours, are more importantthan community facilities that are more distal. With respectto demographic and socio-economic variables, it is age thatproves to be more important than property ownership for agreater sense of belonging to Hong Kong. Here again, thefindings have policy implications for enhancing belonging-ness of residents living in ageing buildings and for thepolitical incorporation thesis.

Considering QoL and place belonging jointly, the resultsshow that all four housing-related environmental factorshave a role to play in either one or both of these twoobjectives. Hence, a comprehensive urban renewal policythat has both objectives at heart should incorporate all fourfactors identified in the present study.

As noted under Discussion, less than 15% of thevariance of QoL and of place belonging have beenaccounted for by all the predictors tested in the presentstudy. Whilst this is acceptable because the aim of thestudy was to test for the effects of specific housing-related environmental factors rather than to seek thefullest possible account of QoL or place belonging,there is considerable room for future research to dobetter.A number of specific suggestions for future research are

in order. The sample can be broadened beyond those livingin ageing buildings, and other predictors may be added.The generally low values of R2 point clearly to theinvolvement of other variable outside the scope of thepresent study. For example, the residents’ subjectiveevaluation of their present environmental conditions maybe affected by their expectations and a host of other factors(Michelson & van Vliet, 2002). Attitudinal factors wouldseem to be particularly relevant to place belonging, for, asshown by Felonneau (2004), an ‘‘urbanophile’’ attitude wascorrelated with a strong whereas an ‘‘urbanophobia’’attitude was correlated with a weak urban identity.Further, the 3-item measure of place belonging can beexpanded to cover other dimensions of belonging that haveemerged in the recent work of Pretty et al. (2003).Attachment to a particular neighbourhood or communitywithin Hong Kong, though not included in this report, isclearly a topic of great relevance to urban renewal becauserelocation may disrupt attachment to the immediateneighbourhood and community that in turn would,according to Brown and Perkins (1992), threaten self-definitions, undermine stability and overwhelm humanswith change, and so forth. This would be particularlyworthwhile for the understanding of the adaptation todisruptions of place attachment. Finally, as the static cross-sectional nature of the present study has provided only asnapshot of the dynamical process of place belonging overthe life-course, further longitudinal research incorporatinga narrative qualitative approach would be needed toilluminate developmental changes and subjective experi-ences. For residents who have been affected directly byurban renewal, an interesting question would be the extentto which urban renewal has made a difference to theirimage of the Hong Kong landscape, their collectivememory of the place, and their commitment as well assense of belonging to it.

Acknowledgements

The research reported herein was part of a larger projectfunded by a City University of Hong Kong grant (Project9010006). The authors thank Charles Ho and otherresearch assistants for collecting the data, the threeanonymous reviewers for their constructive comments,and Billy Lam of the Urban Renewal Authority for hisinterest in and support of the research.


References

Abeles, R. P., Gift, H. C., & Ory, M. G. (1994). Aging and quality of life.

New York: Springer.

Agnew, J. (1981). Home ownership and identity in capitalist societies. In

J. S. Duncan (Ed.), Housing and identity: Cross-cultural perspectives

(pp. 60–97). London: Croom Helm.

Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness. London, UK: Taylor &

Francis.

Asian Development Bank. (1995). Involuntary Resettlement, accessed from

http://www.adb.org.

Birren, J. E., Lubben, J. E., Rowe, J. C., & Deutchman, D. E. (Eds.).

(1991). The concept and measurement of quality of life in the frail

elderly. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2004). Self and social identity.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In

I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 279–304).

New York: Plenum Press.

Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a

revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis.

Journal of Environment Psychology, 23, 259–271.

Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986).

Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organisation.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of

American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Chow, W. S. (1988). Social adaptation in new towns: A report of a survey

on the quality of life of Tuen Mum inhabitants. Resource paper Series

no. 12. Department of Social Work and Social Administration,

University of Hong Kong.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA:

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Cook, C. C. (1988). Components of neighborhood satisfaction: Responses

from urban and suburban single-parent women. Environment and

Behavior, 20, 115–149.

Cuba, L., & Hummon, D. M. (1993). A place to call home: Identification

with dwelling, community and region. Sociological Quarterly, 34,

111–131.

Cummins, R. (1999). A psychometric evaluation of the comprehensive

quality of life scale. In L. L. Yuan, B. Yuen, & C. Low (Eds.), Urban

quality of life: Critical issues and options, (5th ed) (pp. 32–46).

Singapore: School of Building an Real Estate, National University of

Singapore.

Draper, P. (1997). Nursing perspectives on quality of life. London, UK:

Routledge.

Felonneau, M.-L. (2004). Love and loathing of the city: Urbanophilia and

urbanophobia, topological identity and perceived incivilities. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 24, 43–52.

Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the

neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38, 2125–2143.

Fox, J. (1997). Applied regression analysis, linear models and related

models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fukuyama, F. (1999). The great disruption: Human nature and the

reconstitution of social order. New York: Free Press.

Galster, G. (2001). On the nature of neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38,

2111–2124.

Gibson, D. (1998). Aged care: Old policies, new problems. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Golledge, R. G., & Stimson, R. J. (1997). Spatial behaviour. New York:

Guilford Press.

Grayson, L., & Young, K. (1994). Quality of life in cities: An overview and

guide to the literature. London, UK: The British Library.

Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Hay, R. (1998). A rooted sense of place in cross-cultural perspective.

Canadian Geographer—Geographe Canadien, 42, 245–266.

Ho, C. K., Ng, S. H., & Kam, P. K. (2003). Urban renewal: Problems of

implementation in the appropriation of properties for urban renewal.

Hong Kong Economic Journal, 137, 33–37 (in Chinese).

Hopkins, K. (1971). Housing the poor. In K. Hopkins (Ed.), Hong Kong:

The industrial colony (pp. 271–335). Hong Kong: Oxford University

Press.

Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and

sense of place. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment

(pp. 253–278). New York: Plenum Press.

James, O., & Davies, A. D. M. (1986). The Life Satisfaction Index—Well-

being: Its internal reliability and factorial composition. British Journal

of Psychiatry, 149, 647–650.

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The

foundation of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage.

Kam, P. K., Ng, S. H., & Ho, C. (2004). Urban renewal in Hong Kong:

Historical development and current issues. In A. Y. T. Leung, & E. C.

Y. Yiu (Eds.), Building dilapidation and rejuvenation in Hong Kong

(pp. 35–55). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors and City

University of Hong Kong Press.

Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place-identity as a product of environmental self-

regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 241–256.

La Grange, A., & Ming, Y. N. (2001). Social belonging, social capital and

the promotion of home ownership: A case study of Hong Kong.

Housing Studies, 16, 291–310.

Lau, S.-K. (1985). Society and politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The

Chinese University Press.

Lau, S. -K. (Ed.). (2002). The first Tung Chee-hwa administration: The first

five years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Hong Kong:

Chinese University Press.

Lawton, M. P. (1996). Quality of life and affect in later life. In C. Magai,

& S. McFadden (Eds.), Handbook of emotion, adult development and

aging. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Leitmann, J. (1999). Can city QOL indicators be objective and relevant?

Towards a tool for sustaining urban development. In L. L. Yuan,

B. Yuen, & C. Low (Eds.), Urban quality of life: Critical issues and

options (pp. 47–62). Singapore: School of Building an Real Estate,

National University of Singapore.

Leung, A. Y. T., & Yiu, C. Y. (2004). A review of building conditions in

Hong Kong. In A. Y. T. Leung, & E. C. Y. Yiu (Eds.), Building

dilapidation and rejuvenation in Hong Kong (pp. 12–33). Hong Kong:

Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors and City University of Hong Kong

Press.

Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry.

In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1–12). New

York: Plenum Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper &

Row.

McAndrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental psychology. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Michelson, W., & van Vliet, W. (2002). Theory and the sociological study

of the built environment. In R. E. Dunlap, & W. Michelson (Eds.),

Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 70–95). Westport, CONN:

Greenwood Press.

Milgram, S. (1977). The experience of living in cities. In S. Milgram (Ed.),

The individual in a social world (pp. 24–42). Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Moorer, P., & Suurmeijer, T. P. B. M. (2001). The effects of

neighbourhoods on size of social network and the elderly and

loneliness: A multi-level approach. Urban Studies, 38, 105–118.

Neugarten, B., Havighurst, R., & Tobin, S. (1961). The measurement of

life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 16, 134–143.

Ng, M. K., Cook, A., & Chui, E. W. T. (2001). The road not traveled:

A sustainable urban regeneration strategy for Hong Kong. Planning

Practice & Research, 16, 171–183.

Nordenfelt, L. (1994). Concepts and measurement of quality of life in health

care. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

http://www.adb.org


OECD. (2001). The well-being of nations: The role of human and social

capital. Paris: OECD.

Orley, J., & Kuyken, W. (Eds.). (1994). Quality of life assessment:

International perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer.

Phillips, D. R., Siu, S.-L., Yeh, A. G. O., & Cheng, K. H. C. (2005). The

impacts of dwelling conditions on older persons’ psychological well-

being in Hong Kong: The mediating role of residential satisfaction.

Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2785–2797.

Porteous, J. D. (1977). Environment and behavior: Planning and everyday

urban life. Reading, MASS: Addison-Wesley.

Pretty, G. H., Chipuer, H. M., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place

amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The

discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and

place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 23, 273–287.

Purdue, D. (2001). Neighbourhood governance: Leadership, trust and

social capital. Urban Studies, 12, 2211–2224.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American

community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rivlin, L. G. (1987). The neighbourhood, personal identity, and group

affiliations. In I. Altman, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and

community environments (pp. 1–34). New York: Plenum Press.

Rubinstein, R., & Parmelee, P. (1992). Attachment to place and the

representation of the life course by the elderly. In I. Altman, & S. M.

Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 139–163). New York: Plenum Press.

Schuessler, K. F., & Fisher, G. A. (1985). Quality of life research and

sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 129–149.

Smart, A., & Smart, J. (1996). Monster homes: Hong Kong immigration

to Canada, urban conflicts, and contested representations of space. In

J. Caulfield, & L. Peake (Eds.), City lives and city forms: Critical

research and Canadian urbanism (pp. 33–46). Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup

behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup

relations, (2nd ed) (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Verberg, N. (2000). Homeownership and politics: Testing the political

incorporation thesis. Canadian Journal of Sociology—Cahiers Cana-

diens de Sociologie, 25, 169–195.

WHOQOL Group. (1998). The World Health Organization quality of life

assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric

properties. Social Science & Medicine, 46, 1569–1585.

Yuan, L. L., Yuen, B., & Low, C. (1999). Urban quality of life: Critical

issues and options. Singapore: School of Building an Real Estate,

National University of Singapore.

people living in ageing buildings their quality of life and sense of belonging

Documents