Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79

Evaluation of relative importance of environmental issues

associated with a residential estate in Hong Kong
C.K. Chau ∗ , H.K. Yung, T.M. Leung, M.Y. Law
Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

Received 5 May 2004; received in revised form 22 January 2005; accepted 24 January 2005
Available online 17 March 2005

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between the residence and the relative importance of different environmental attributes
by focusing on a sample of residents in Hong Kong. Both discrete choice analysis and Likert-scale rating were employed to
reveal the importance and the hierarchical order of importance being used by the residents in their evaluation of six environ-
mental attributes. Our results generally showed that the residents actually evaluated the environmental attributes as what they
perceived. Our analysis revealed that neither the environmental quality of neighborhood area nor the housing estate design
exerted significant influence on the hierarchical order of importance considered by the residents. It was found that the nature
of environmental attributes exerted a significant impact. The residents were generally found to have placed greater importance
on those environmental attributes that would pose a threat to themselves rather than to the environment. Also, the residents
were shown to consider those environmental attributes that would threaten their personal health to be more important than those
would threaten their comfort. The long-term significance of this study is to enhance the understanding of different environmental
attributes associated with the housing estates. This enhanced understanding should help inform the decision making process on
prioritizing the implementation of environmental strategies within a housing estate when confronted with a limited budget.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Preference; Environmental issues; Residential housing estate; Discrete choice analysis

1. Introduction Most studies have been examining the relationship be-

Residents’ evaluations of the environmental qual-
ity of their housing environment have been subject
to considerable amount of research in recent decades.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2766 7780;
fax: +852 2774 6146.
E-mail address: beckchau@polyu.edu.hk (C.K. Chau).
tween the degree of residents’ environmental concerns
and their residential environment (Leftridge and James,
1980; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Arcury and
Christianson, 1990; Fransson and Garling, 1999).
However, the majority of these studies explored
whether individuals living in urban and rural areas had
different environmental concerns. Admittedly, the dis-
tinction between urban and rural areas had not been

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.01.006
68 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79
always clear in these studies even though it might im-
ply differences in population densities and degrees of
exposure to natural environment.
The environment of residential neighborhood ar-
eas has often been considered to exert consider-
able influence on individuals’ concerns (Buttel, 1987;
Arcury and Christianson, 1990; Jones and Dunlap,
1992; Bogner and Wiseman, 1997; Fransson and
Garling, 1999). Other studies have repeatedly shown
that some personal characteristics such as age, income
or education level do influence individual environmen-
tal concerns (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1978; Jones and
Dunlap, 1992). People living in urban and rural areas
have been found to possess different perceptions of
their surrounding environment (Leftridge and James,
1980). Residents living in urban areas have been found
to be more concerned about the environment than those
living in rural areas, in particular over local pollution
issues (Fransson and Garling, 1999). In general, the
more urbanized the residence, the greater the tendency
for an individual to acquire an environmental world-
view (Arcury and Christianson, 1990). This is proba-
bly because urban residents is more likely to experience
first-hand environmental problems as a result of more
rigorous industrial activities and higher concentrations
of people (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980).
Findings from different studies have not always been
consistent in showing that urban residents had greater
environmental concerns than rural counterparts. Rural
tertiary students were found to be more ‘perceptive’
about environmental issues than urban students (Iozzi,
1989). People living in large cities appear to have less
environmental concern as they had less interconnection
between self and nature (Schultz, 2001). On the other
hand, people living in urban areas have been found to
have no differences in environmental perception from
those living in rural areas (Howell and Laska, 1992).
Arguably, this may be due to the lack of a clear distinc-
tion between rural and urban populations and homo-
geneity in either rural or urban populations (Fortman
and Kusel, 1990).
Apart from these inconsistencies, all the studies re-
ported so far were mainly concentrated on the relation-
ship between the urban–rural residence and general en-
vironmental concerns. However, very few studies have
attempted to measure the environmental concerns in re-
lation to more specific issues, such as recycling and en-
ergy conservation. This study is intended to bridge this
gap by examining the relationship between concern for
different environmental issues and residential neigh-
borhood at two different levels: those of the housing
estate and its neighborhood. The study also examines
whether the relative importance of different environ-
mental issues being evaluated by residents are the same
as those perceived by them. The long-term significance
of this study is to enhance understanding of residents’
environmental perception and evaluation of the impor-
tance of different environmental attributes associated
with their housing estates. This enhanced understand-
ing should help inform the decision making process
on prioritizing the implementation of environmental
strategies within housing estates when confronted with
limited budgets.
1.1. Hong Kong: environment under stress
Hong Kong is a metropolitan city located in South
East Asia. Hong Kong’s administrative rule was re-
turned to China in 1997 after 150 years of British rule.
Despite the economic cutback in the past 7 years, Hong
Kong still enjoyed a relatively high gross domestic
product of US$ 23,260 per head (at a market exchange
rate of US$ 1 to HK$ 7.8). With seven million peo-
ple living in a small territory of area 1034 km2 , Hong
Kong is one of the most densely populated cities in
the world (The Economist, 2004). This extremely high
population density results in a majority of the popula-
tion living in high rise apartments, with an average of
only 15.6 m2 living space for each resident (Liu et al.,
1999). As most of the property development in Hong
Kong is concentrated in less than 15% of the territory,
the amount of green space available within the neigh-
borhoods of old urban and even new suburban districts
is very limited.
The scarcity of the land also led to some environ-
mental problems, such as lack of landfill sites for solid
waste. Currently, landfill sites are one of the primary
concerns for the Hong Kong government as they are
estimated to have only a sufficient capacity to last for
another 7–10 years (Council for Sustainable Develop-
ment, 2004). Ambient air quality in the territory is being
exacerbated by tremendous rate of economic growth
in neighboring Guangdong Province in China. The re-
cent outbreak of the contagious severe acute respiratory
symptoms in March 2003 seriously alerted the residents
to the importance of indoor air quality.
 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79
Most housing estates are located close to busy trans-
port road networks, with an average of 286.7 vehi-
cles per km of road network. This was the highest
among all the major cities in the world in 2001 (The
Economist, 2004). Hence, traffic noise and air pollution
from vehicles exhausts are also major environmental
concerns.
The scarcity of habitable land, concentrated trans-
port networks and rising environmental awareness have
posed considerable environmental challenges for the
Hong Kong Government. Faced with these challenges,
the government is currently in the process of formu-
lating a sustainable development strategy. As a first
step, the Council for Sustainable Development issued
a public consultation document entitled ‘sustainable
Development: making choices for our future’ in 2004
(Council for Sustainable Development, 2004) to en-
courage feedback from all concerns. This document is
intended to elicit responses from the public in Hong
Kong on solid waste management, renewable energy
and urban living space. It is anticipated that the re-
sponses from the community would form the basis of
discussions and aid the drafting of guidelines on the
implementation of key policy issues related to the sus-
tainable development.
2. Research method
In order to elicit the preference of individuals on
the environmental quality associated with a residen-
tial housing estate, an empirical study was designed
based upon a technique called discrete choice analysis.
Discrete choice analysis has been widely used for elic-
iting individual preferences in spatial consumer choice
modeling (Timmermans et al., 1992) and tourism
and recreation research (Haider and Ewing, 1990;
Louviere and Timmermanns, 1990).
Discrete choice analysis uses questionnaire survey
as an instrument for eliciting preference from respon-
dents. During the survey process, the respondents are
asked to choose the one they most prefer from a set of
alternative choice profiles. Each choice profile, com-
posing of a set of attributes with defined levels, is
evaluated as a whole by respondents during the sur-
vey. By analyzing the choices made by the respon-
dents, the probability of selecting a particular profile
from a set of alternatives can be computed together
69
with the relative importance of constituent attributes
(Haider and Rasid, 2002). Given that most preferred
profiles are usually selected after the decision maker
tradeoffs among different major attributes (Louviere,
1988; Louviere and Woodworth, 1983; Louviere et al.,
2000), Discrete choice analysis can be considered to
have the capability of portraying the actual decision
making process.
Apart from using discrete choice analysis for re-
vealing the environmental quality actually evaluated
by the respondents, a set of Likert-type scale questions
(1—least important to 5—most important) was also
included in our survey to elicit their perceived environ-
mental quality.
2.1. Identification of attributes
Experimental design for discrete choice analysis
started with the identification of a set of significant
attributes and their associated levels for portraying
the different environmental quality profiles of a res-
idential building. A list of significant environmental
attributes was mainly identified from the first ver-
sion of Hong Kong Building Environmental Assess-
ment Method (HKBEAM) (Centre of Environmental
Technology, 1996). HKBEAM is an environmental as-
sessment scheme developed for assessing the environ-
mental performance of buildings in Hong Kong. Apart
from the HKBEAM, other relevant literature and as-
sessment schemes currently adopted for assessing the
environmental performances of buildings in the world
were also reviewed (for instance, BREEAM-Canada,
BEPAC (Canada) and LEEDS (US)) (Cole et al., 1993;
Centre of Environmental Technology, 1996; ECD
Energy and Environment Canada, 2000; US Green
Building Council, 2000). Among all the environmen-
tal attributes, it was the intent of this study to include
only those environmental attributes that were consid-
ered to be significant from the perspective of occu-
pants and those that could be practically addressed by
building designs. Accordingly, the final list of envi-
ronmental attributes being examined in this study con-
sisted of landscaping, indoor air quality, energy con-
sumption, usage of recycling materials, indoor noise
level and water consumption. Even though landscap-
ing was not included as an individual environmental
attribute in HKBEAM, it has been included in some
of the latest environmental assessment schemes in the
70 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79

world (US Green Building Council, 2000; Cole and
Larsson, 2002; Building Research Establishment Ltd.,
2005).
Given that the performance levels defined by HK-
BEAM were developed with reference to extensive lo-
cal survey data, they should be the most appropriate
ones to be used as attribute levels in our question-
naire survey. A saving of 20% or more on operating
energy consumption level was considered to be per-
forming much better than the average standard level in
the industry. Use of 5% or more recycling materials in
building construction was considered to be much better
than the industry practice on material recycling issue.
Achieving a 20% or more reduction on annual potable
water consumption level was regarded as performing
better on the water conservation issue. On the other
hand, attaining the Level 1 of the indoor air quality be-
ing defined by the Guidance Notes for the Management
of Indoor Air Quality in Offices and Public Places in
Hong Kong (Level 1 indicates the ability to provide
good health and comfort conditions for general public)
(Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 1999) was
regarded as performing much better than the average
industry practice.
Even though indoor noise level was originally ex-
pressed in terms of dB under HKBEAM, practical dif-
ficulties existed for laypersons in distinguishing the
true difference between dB levels. In order to make
it easier for respondents to appreciate the differences,
the concept of speech intelligibility in acoustic design
was introduced. Speech intelligibility is measured by
the ability of the human auditory system to receive,
transduce and transmit to the brain speech signals so
they can correctly be perceived (Kryter, 1994). In this
study, the capability for a normal individual to hear
speech clearly at a distance of 5.6 and 3.2 m with nor-
mal voice effort was used for portraying the different
indoor noise levels. As there was no landscaping pro-
vision in HKBEAM, the two attribute levels defined in
our questionnaire were extracted from the Hong Kong
Planning Standard and Guidelines (Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, 1996a).
Table 1 shows the six examined environmental at-
tributes, in conjunction with the associated attribute
levels and experimental design codes. The design code
−1 represents the average performance level that can
be easily achieved by a regular design, where +1 rep-
resents a performance level that requires some special

Table 1
Environmental attributes and their attribute levels used in the survey
Environmental attributes Levels Design code
Landscaping Allow ≥0.5 m2 open space for each resident within the district neighborhood for +1
landscaping
Allow less than 0.5 m2 open space for each resident within the district neighborhood for −1
landscaping
Indoor air quality Incorporate building design that can achieve a level that can provide good health and +1
comfortable conditions for general public (Level 1)
Incorporate building design can only achieve a level which can provide good health for the −1
general public (Level 2)
Energy consumption Incorporate some special building design so as to achieve a 20% reduction on regular +1
operating energy consumption
Do not incorporate any building design to reduce the regular operating energy −1
consumption
Usage of recycling materials A minimum of 5% (by weight) of material used in the construction of building are +1
recycling materials.
Do not use any recycling materials in the construction of building −1
Indoor noise Incorporate special design to allow occupants to hear the speech clearly at a distance of +1
5.6 m with a normal voice effort in a living room
Do not incorporate special design to allow occupants to hear the speech clearly at a −1
distance of 3.2 m with a normal voice effort in a living room
Water consumption Incorporate special designs to achieve a 20% reduction on annual portable water +1
consumption
Do not incorporate any special design to reduce the annual portable water consumption −1
 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79 71

design in order to perform better than the average in-
dustry practice.
2.2. Experimental design/presentation of
questions
Our survey instrument consisted of two parts; Parts
A and B; Part A contained a series of Likert-scale type
questions for eliciting the respondents’ perceived en-
vironmental quality of a residential building. Part B
contained a series of choice cards specially designed
to facilitate the analysis by discrete choice analysis.
Part B also contained a series of short questions in-
tending to elicit the personal details (age, income and
education level) of the respondents. Prior to a full-scale
survey, a trial run was conducted so as to remove any
ambiguities on the content of the questionnaire design
and the method of delivering the questionnaire survey.
Initially 20 respondents, comprising building services
engineers, planners, architects and members of the gen-
eral public, were selected for our pilot study. Subse-
quent to our pilot study, methods used for describing
some environmental attributes were revised so as to
make it easier for respondents to understand.
With two levels for six attributes, a full factorial de-
sign will give rise to 64 profiles combinations (26 com-
binations). However, past experience suggested that in-
dividuals could only manage between 9 and 16 pairwise
comparisons before degradation of response quality oc-
curs (Pearmain et al., 1991). With a fractional facto-
rial design with orthogonal array incorporating only
the main effects (i.e., a design with only a fraction
of the 26 possible combination profiles considered),
eight profiles were generated. A ‘foldover’ design was
adopted such that eight more profiles were generated
in a way that these profiles were the opposite of the
original eight profiles. For instance, the attributes’ lev-
els in profile 1 were exactly the opposite of profile 9.
This design was considered “balanced”, since −1 and
+1 levels appeared an equal number of times for all
the attributes in the choice profiles so as to remove any
bias on a particular attribute. Finally, 16 hypothetical
environmental profiles were grouped into eight sets of
choice profile. The resulting fractional factorial design
matrix used to generate the choice profiles is presented
in Table 2, with the design codes −1 and +1 represent-
ing the two distinct attribute levels.
Table 3 shows a typical choice card being used in
our questionnaire survey. The survey was conducted by
face-to-face interviews in order to minimize the chance
of misinterpreting the choice questions. Respondents
were required to choose the one they preferred from
two constructed profiles for describing the environmen-
tal quality of a residential housing in each choice card.
Alternatively, they could also choose the ‘neither’ op-
tion. On the other hand, Table 4 shows a set of Likert-
type scale questions presented to the respondents for
eliciting their perception on environmental quality.

Table 2
Fractional factorial design matrix
Choice profile Landscaping Indoor air quality Energy consumption Usage of recycling Indoor noise Water
materials consumption
1 −1 −1 −1 −1 +1 +1
2 −1 −1 +1 +1 −1 −1
3 −1 +1 −1 +1 −1 +1
4 −1 +1 +1 −1 +1 −1
5 +1 −1 −1 +1 +1 −1
6 +1 −1 +1 −1 −1 +1
7 +1 +1 −1 −1 −1 −1
8 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
9 +1 +1 +1 +1 −1 −1
10 +1 +1 −1 −1 +1 +1
11 +1 −1 +1 −1 +1 −1
12 +1 −1 −1 +1 −1 +1
13 −1 +1 +1 −1 −1 +1
14 −1 +1 −1 +1 +1 −1
15 −1 −1 +1 +1 +1 +1
16 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
72 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79

Table 3
A sample choice card (profile 1 and its “foldover” design)
Environmental attributes Profile 1
Landscaping Allow an open space of less than 0.5 m2 per
resident within the district neighborhood for
landscaping
Indoor air quality Incorporate building design that can achieve a
level that can provide good health and
comfortable conditions for general public
Energy consumption Do not incorporate any special building design
to reduce the regular operating energy
consumption
Usage of recycling materials Do not incorporate any recycling materials in
construction of the building
Indoor noise Regular building design which do not
incorporate any special design to allow
occupants to hear the speech clearly at a
distance of 5.6 m with a normal voice effort in a
living room
Water consumption Incorporate special designs to achieve at least
20% reduction on annual portable water
consumption
What would you prefer? ()
Profile 2
Allow an open space of ≥0.5 m2 per resident
within the district neighborhood for landscaping
Incorporate building design that can achieve a
level that can protect the good health for the
general public only
Incorporate some special building design so as to
achieve a 20% reduction on regular operating
energy consumption
Incorporate at least 5% of total recycling
materials in the construction of building
Incorporate special acoustic design to allow oc-
cupants to hear the speech clearly at a distance of
3.2 m with a normal voice effort in a living room
Do not incorporate any special design to reduce
the annual portable water consumption
( ) or neither ( )

2.3. Data collection
In order to examine whether individuals living in
areas of different environmental qualities would eval-
uate the environmental quality of a residential hous-
ing estate differently, residents were selected from two
geographical districts in Hong Kong that represented
substantial differences in environmental qualities.
Kwun Tong was selected to represent an area of poor
environmental quality, as it is a district that carried the
highest population density and the poorest ambient air
quality in Hong Kong. Kwun Tong has comparatively
smaller green belt areas. Shatin was selected to repre-
sent an area of better environmental quality, as it is less
densely populated and with better ambient air qual-
ity. Shatin has comparatively larger green belt areas.
Table 5 summarizes the demographical characteristics
and the environmental qualities of the two selected ge-
ographical districts in Hong Kong.
One of the main aims of this study is to reveal
whether individuals living in apartments with substan-
tial differences in housing estate design will evaluate
environmental quality differently. The housing estates
developed by both private and public sectors were se-
lected to represent estates having substantial differ-
ences in housing design. In general, the housing estates
developed by the private sector tend to be better in terms
of architecture, materials, workmanship and internal

Table 4
Attributes adopted in the Likert-type scale questions
Environmental attributes Perceived level of importance (1, not important at all; 2, not so important;
3, neutral, 4, fairly important; 5, very important)
1. Landscaping 1 2 3 4 5
2. Indoor air quality 1 2 3 4 5
3. Energy consumption 1 2 3 4 5
4. Usage of recycling materials 1 2 3 4 5
5. Indoor noise 1 2 3 4 5
6. Water consumption 1 2 3 4 5
 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79
Table 5
Comparison of demographics characteristics and environmental
qualities of two selected geographical districts in Hong Kong
Characteristics Shatin Kwun Tong
Demographic characteristics
Population density (per km2 ) 9253 55077
Land uses (Source: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
1996b)
Total area (ha) 2777 388
Residential uses (% of total area) 0.15 0.58
Open space (%) 0.09 0.11
Green belt area (%) 0.35 0.12
Ambient air quality
Air pollution indexa (Source: Hong 39.9 56.4
Kong Special Administrative
Region, 2002)
a Air pollution index is provided by the Environmental Protection
Department in Hong Kong. The idea is classified into five bands in
potential effects on health and the suggested precautionary actions
are summarized below: ‘low’ at 0–25, general public are advised to
reduce physical exertion and outdoor activities; ‘medium’ at 26–50,
persons with existing heart or respiratory illnesses are advised to re-
duce physical exertion and outdoor activities; ‘high’ at 51–100, no
immediate response action is suggested, long-term effects may be ob-
served if exposed at this level persistently for months or years; ‘very
high’ at 101–200, no response action is required, ‘severe’ between
201 and 500, no response action is required.
spatial qualities. The housing estates developed by the
public sector generally had a dominant characteristic
of having more spacious common areas than those de-
veloped by the private sector of comparable property
values. For instance, the common areas within a pub-
lic sector estate accounted for about 22% of its total
gross floor area. On the contrary, the common areas
within the private housing estates accounted for only
10–20% (Chan et al., 2002). In this study, the term ‘pri-
vate residents’ was used to represent people who were
currently living in relatively less densely populated liv-
ing conditions, better quality of internal spatial design
and workmanship, but with smaller common open ar-
eas. The term ‘public residents’ was used to represent
people who were living in relatively more densely pop-
ulated living conditions, average quality of internal spa-
tial design and workmanship, but with larger common
open areas.
All the housing estates selected for our study shared
two common characteristics. Firstly, all the housing
estates selected had property values within a range of
HK$ 1.5–2.0 million (i.e., US$ 190,000–260,000) in
73
March 2003 so as to minimize the possible effect of
quality of the housing estate design on the individual
evaluation of the importance of different environmental
attributes. Secondly, the housing estates selected were
built around 1980s such that their spatial plans were
similar.
Residents living in the housing estates were selected
in a random manner. One out of five individuals pass-
ing by the podium was approached for our survey. The
respondents were selected only if they had been living
in the housing estate for no less than 2 years. The whole
survey took about 8 min to complete.
2.4. Data analysis and procedures
Discrete choice analysis is rooted from the dis-
crete choice theory (McFadden, 1974; Ben-Akiva and
Lerman, 1985), in which choices can be modeled as a
function of the attributes of the alternative profiles rel-
evant to a given choice problem. It is assumed that the
relative importance is reflected by the part-worth utili-
ties associated with each of the attributes and the choice
selected by respondents will normally have the highest
overall utility. Given that it is impossible to measure all
characteristics of a choice objectively, the overall utility
(Ui ) of choice i is considered to have both a determin-
istic component (Vi ) and a stochastic component (εi ).
Ui = Vi + εi (1)
The deterministic component (Vi ) represents a vec-
tor of attributes of the choice that can be measured. The
stochastic or random component relates to aspects that
prevent choice from being a wholly deterministic pro-
cess, as implied by the systematic component alone. It
includes idiosyncratic, transitory and a myriad of small
influences on choice whose combined effects appear
random over time and other random effects that could
result in an individual’s choice varying under identical
circumstances.
Although it is assumed that this type of choice be-
havior is deterministic on the individual level, the prob-
ability of choosing alternative i can be modeled as an
aggregate stochastic process, which one can describe
as
Prob {i chosen} = Prob {Vi + εi > Vj + εj ; ∀i, j ∈ C}
(2)
74 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79
where C is the set of all possible alternatives. If one as-
sumes that the stochastic elements of the utilities follow
a Gumbel distribution, i.e. the errors are independently
and identically distributed, the multinomial logit model
can be used and specified as
evi
Prob {i chosen} =
vj (3)
e mental attributes. The average monthly income levels
where the probability of choosing alternative i equals
the exponent of all the measurable elements of alterna-
tive i over the sum of the exponent of all measurable
elements of all alternatives j. The standard multino-
mial logit model limits the systematic component Vi to
linear-in-parameters functions, which are usually es-
timated with a maximum likelihood procedure (Ben-
Akiva and Lerman, 1985). In this study, the multino-
mial logit model was estimated with the aid of the sta-
tistical software SAS.
3. Results
3.1. Respondents’ personal characteristics
One hundred and twenty face-to-face surveys were
successfully administered with the residents living in
housing estates located in areas of different environ-
mental qualities. Half of respondents were from the
housing estates located in areas of poorer environmen-
tal qualities, with a response rate of 40.8%. The other
half came from the housing estates located in areas
of better environmental qualities, with a response rate
of 42.6%. Half of the respondents lived in the private
sector residential estates, while the other half lived in
the public sector housing estates. The relative high re-
sponse rates obtained were probably due to two specific
measures being introduced in this study. Firstly, HK$
10 (US$ 1.3) McDonald gift coupons were awarded to
those respondents that had successfully completed the
questionnaire. This was considered to be an effective
strategy for boosting the response rates. Secondly, the
respondents were randomly selected from the podium
of the residential building estates, since it was antici-
pated that individuals would be more easily accessible
and more likely to respond when they stayed in the
podiums.
Table 6 summarizes the personal characteristics of
the respondents. Over 58% of the respondents were
between 21 and 40 years old. The majority of the re-
spondents had a high school education level, while over
31.7% had a university or tertiary education level. Ar-
guably, these groups of respondents should be able to
generate more reliable results as it was expected that
they had stronger capabilities to understand the survey
method and the potential impact of different environ-
for the respondents in the two districts were found to
be comparable (US$ 1100 and 1217 for respondents
living in housing estates located in the areas of poorer
and better environmental qualities, respectively).
3.2. Empirical results—test for internal validity
and consistency
In order to ensure the usefulness of our survey re-
sults, internal validity and consistency tests were set up
for verifying whether the respondents had the capabili-
ties of understanding the discrete choice analysis tech-
nique and whether the surveys were completed seri-
ously. Internal validity was checked by testing the ratio-
nality of the response choices. Given that the foldover
design adopted would result in a profile comprising all
the better environmental qualities, it would be logical
to assume that all rational individuals would select that
particular profile. Thus, in case any respondents chose
the irrational alternative in the choice card, the corre-
sponding response data set would be dropped from our
analysis. Surprisingly, no data were discarded as they
all passed the internal validity test. 67 out of 960 data
sets were discarded because respondents selected the
‘neither’ option.
The results of the study were also tested for internal
consistency to examine whether the obtained results
were consistent with our prior expectations. In particu-
lar, the signs in the parameter estimates were checked
to ensure the validity of the results. In this study, all
the parameters were expected to carry positive signs,
as it would be logical to assume that a rational individ-
ual would prefer better environmental qualities in the
housing estates.
3.3. Evaluated environmental quality
As the response data in Table 7 could fit the indi-
vidual multinomial logit models reasonably well (Mc-
Fadden’s ρ2 > 0.2), our developed models should be
 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79 75

Table 6
Personal characteristics of respondents
Description Area of poorer Area of better Private Public
environmental quality environmental quality
Gender
Male 26 (43.3%) 32 (53.3%) 36 (60%) 23 (38.4%)
Female 34 (56.7%) 28 (46.7%) 24 (40%) 37 (61.6%)
Age (years)
<20 4 (6.8%) 3 (5%) 5 (8.3%) 2 (3.3%)
21–30 14 (23.3%) 22 (36.7%) 15 (25%) 21 (35%)
31–40 23 (38.3%) 15 (25%) 20 (33.3%) 18 (30%)
41–50 14 (23.3%) 12 (20%) 14 (23.3%) 12 (20%)
>50 5 (8.3%) 8 (13.3%) 6 (10%) 7 (11.7%)
Average respondent’s age (years) 30 30 30 30
Education level
Primary or below 12 (20%) 3 (5%) 6 (10%) 9 (15%)
Secondary 22 (36.7%) 31 (51.7%) 21 (35%) 32 (53.3%)
Degree or above 26 (43.3%) 26 (43.3%) 33 (55%) 19 (31.7%)
Average education level a a a a

Monthly income (US$)

<470 0 (0%) 2 (3.3%) 1 (1.7%) 2 (3.3%)
470–1282 18 (30%) 21 (35%) 14 (23.3%) 23 (38.8%)
1283–2564 15 (25%) 13 (21.3%) 18 (30%) 11 (18.3%)
2565–3846 5 (7.5%) 8 (13.1%) 12 (20%) 1 (1.7%)
>3846 1 (2.5%) 1 (2.5%) 1 (1.7%) 0 (0%)
Not applicable 21 (35%) 15 (26.7%) 14 (23.3%) 23 (38.8%)
Average monthly income (US$) 1101 1217 1628 811
a Represents secondary level.

able to be used for portraying the evaluation of en-
vironmental quality by different resident groups. All
the environmental attributes examined were consid-
ered to be significantly related to the environmental
quality in residential housing estates. Table 7 shows
the parameter estimates for different environmental at-
tributes. The magnitude of the parameter estimate in-
dicates the importance of the environmental attribute.
The larger the magnitude of the parameter estimate,
the more important the environmental attribute will be.
However, some parameter values are so close that they
should not be considered to be different statistically.

Table 7
Regression results from multinominal logit model
Environmental attributes Parameter estimate (relative rank order)

Area of poorer environmental quality Area of better environmental quality Private Public
Indoor air quality 1.05*(1) 1.59* (1) 1.19*
(1) 1.36* (1)
Indoor noise 0.90* (1) 0.89* (2) 0.73 (2) 1.10* (1)
Landscaping 0.55* (2) 0.97* (2) 0.79* (2) 0.59 (2)
Water consumption 0.53* (2) 0.62* (3) 0.42* (3) 0.77* (2)
Energy consumption 0.45 (2) 1.18* (2) 0.85* (2) 0.75* (2)
Usage of recycling materials 0.40 (2) 0.73 (3) 0.38 (3) 0.60* (2)
Log likelihood ratio 149.43 219.75 172.50 203.09
McFadden’s ρ2 0.24 0.36 0.28 0.32
* Indicates significant at 0.001 level, others indicate significance at 0.01 level; figures inside parenthesis indicate the relative rank orders.
76 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79
ANOVA together with a follow-up Tukey’s HSD test
were performed at 0.05 significant levels to reveal any
significant statistical differences among the importance
of various environmental attributes being evaluated by
different groups of residents. As a result, some param-
eter values were so close that they were being placed
on the same rank order.
3.3.1. Residents living in housing estates located
in areas having different environmental qualities
Residents living in areas of different environmen-
tal qualities had slightly different rank orders on the
relative importance of attributes associated with envi-
ronmental quality of their residential housing estates
(Table 7). Residents living in areas of poorer envi-
ronmental quality considered both indoor air quality
and indoor noise level to be the most important at-
tributes associated with the environmental quality of
their residential housing estates. They considered the
other four environmental attributes (landscaping, en-
ergy consumption, usage of recycling materials and
water consumption) to be of secondary importance.
Residents living in areas of better environmental qual-
ity evaluated the importance of the environmental at-
tributes in a slightly different way. Indoor air quality
was considered to be the most important environmen-
tal attribute, being followed by other attributes like in-
door noise, landscaping and energy consumption. Wa-
ter consumption and material recycling were consid-
ered to be of least importance. The difference in their
evaluation outcomes might be due to the reason that
the residents living in densely populated area with little
open space were more sensitive to disturbances caused
by noise.
3.3.2. Residents living in housing estate of
different designs
Private residents considered indoor air quality to be
the most important attribute associated with the envi-
ronmental quality of their residential housing estates.
They considered indoor noise level, energy consump-
tion, landscaping to have equal importance (Table 7).
Water consumption and usage of recycling materials
were considered to be of least importance. The hier-
archical order of importance of the environmental at-
tributes being evaluated by public residents was slightly
different from those evaluated by private residents.
Public residents considered indoor air quality and in-
door noise level to be the most important environmental
attributes, being followed by the remaining four (land-
scaping, energy consumption, recycling materials us-
age and water consumption; Table 7).
Our results showed that indoor air quality was con-
sidered to be the most important environmental at-
tribute by all residents, irrespective of whether resi-
dents were living in housing estate of different designs.
Residents living in areas of higher population density
with poorer internal spatial planning, poorer quality of
building design, had a stronger concern about indoor
noise level than residents living in less dense areas and
with a better quality in building design. This might be
due to the reason that they were already experiencing
more serious noise problem as a result of higher pop-
ulation density, poorer acoustic design and poorer use
of construction materials and workmanship.
3.4. Perceived importance
It has always been accepted that the results de-
rived from Likert-scale ratings can be used to deter-
mine the perceived importance of respondents (Flynn
et al., 1990; Verma and Pullman, 1998; Locker, 2005).
The means and standard deviations of the importance
of six environmental attributes being perceived by the
respondents living in areas with different qualities of
external environment and in apartments having differ-
ent designs are shown in Table 8. The larger the mean
value, the more important the environmental attribute
will be perceived. As before, ANOVA together with a
follow-up Tukey’s HSD test were performed at 0.05
significance levels so as to reveal the possible statis-
tical differences among their perceived importances.
The resulting rank orders for the perceived importance
of different environmental attributes are also shown in
Table 8.
In contrary with our expectation, the four groups
of respondents had almost similar rank orders for their
perceived importance of the six attributes related to en-
vironmental quality. Indoor air quality and indoor noise
level were perceived by all four groups of residents to
be the two most important environmental attributes.
The other four environmental attributes were consid-
ered to be less important than indoor air quality and
indoor noise. All the residents did not perceive any dif-
ferences in the importance among landscaping, energy
consumption, usage of recycling material and water
 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79
Table 8
Descriptive statistics showing the perceived importance of the respondents living in Shatin, Kwun Tong and private and public housing
Environmental attributes Mean (S.D.)
Area of poorer environmental
quality
Indoor air quality 4.83 (0.46)**
Indoor noise 4.53 (0.65)
Water consumption 3.42 (0.83)**
Energy consumption 3.40 (0.69)
Landscaping 3.38 (0.98)**
Usage of recycling 3.25 (0.89)**
materials
** Indicates significance at 0.01 level, otherwise significant at 0.05 level.
# Indicates the relative rank order being evaluated by the four different resident groups.
consumption. This is possibly because the respondents
were either unable to differentiate their importance or
actually did not perceive any differences in their im-
portance.
In comparing the results listed in Tables 7 and 8,
the rank orders of the attributes associated with envi-
ronmental quality being perceived by different groups
of residents were similar to those actually being evalu-
ated despite minor discrepancies. However, there is no
consensus as to whether the results from actual choice
will be the same as those from individual’s perception
in different contexts (Verma and Pullman, 1998).
4. Discussion
This work represents a novel application of discrete
choice analysis to reveal the relative importance and the
hierarchical order of importance applied by a sample of
the residents in Hong Kong in the evaluation of differ-
ent environmental attributes associated with residential
housing estates. The use of discrete choice analysis en-
abled us to portray the actual decision making process
of the residents better as the empirical design forced
them to tradeoff among different major attributes dur-
ing their evaluation. Also, this study reported a suc-
cessful methodology of exploring how the residents
made decisions that involved tradeoff among six dif-
ferent environmental attributes simultaneously. Most
important of all, this study helped to reveal the per-
ception of the residents on different environmental is-
sues in one of the most densely populated cities in the
world.
77
Relative rank
order#
Area of better environmental Private Public
quality
4.67 (0.57) 4.80 (0.48)** 4.70 (0.56) 1
4.03 (0.84) 4.25 (0.75)** 4.32 (0.83) 2
3.52 (0.87) 3.50 (0.89)** 3.43 (0.81) 3
3.70 (0.72) 3.58 (0.72)** 3.52 (0.72) 3
3.65 (0.88) 3.73 (0.95)** 3.30 (0.87) 3
3.37 (0.94) 3.35 (0.90)** 3.27 (0.94) 3
The findings of this study should enhance under-
standing of an individual’s environmental perception
and evaluation of the importance of different environ-
mental attributes associated with their housing estates.
The analysis revealed that neither the environmental
quality of neighborhood area nor the housing estate
design exerted significant influence on the hierarchical
order of importance being considered by the residents.
On the contrary, it was found that the nature of envi-
ronmental attributes exerted a significant impact.
The residents in Hong Kong were generally found to
have placed greater importance on those environmen-
tal attributes that would pose a threat to themselves
than to the environment. This observation may possi-
bly be explained by resorting to some theories devel-
oped in environmental psychology, particularly those
devoted to personal attitudinal differences on environ-
mental perceptions. In this regard, personal threat the-
ory is probably best for explaining the hierarchical or-
der of importance placed on different environmental
attributes by the residents. Personal threat theory pos-
tulates that individuals will place more emphasis on the
environmental issues that potentially results in greater
personal consequences. Hence, an individual’s envi-
ronmental concern will generally follow a hierarchical
order, i.e. concern for self, concern for others and con-
cern for biosphere (Schultz, 2001), as a person will be
expected to value himself/herself to be more impor-
tant than others or the environment. This reinforced
some earlier findings that individuals would be more
concerned with those aspects of environmental quality
that pose a threat to individual’s health or well being
(Van Liere and Dunlap, 1978; Black et al., 1985; Gould
78 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79
et al., 1988; Hopper and Neilsen, 1991; Baldassare and
Katz, 1992).
The results from the study confirmed that the res-
idents in Hong Kong considered those environmental
attributes that would threaten their personal health to
be more important than those that would threaten their
comfort. This was shown by the observation that in-
door air quality was consistently considered by all four
groups of respondents to be more important than indoor
noise despite the fact that both issues may cause ad-
verse health effect (World Health Organization, 1990;
Jones, 1999). Indoor air quality was always perceived
as their immediate health hazard, whereas indoor noise
was only regarded as a threat to their comfort rather
than to their health under most of the controlled indoor
residential environment.
This study has provided an insight into understand-
ing the impact of residents’ preference associated with
particular environmental attributes in housing estate
environments. This understanding should provide in-
sights for policy makers to formulate a holistic strat-
egy for allocating limited community resources in the
most effective and efficient manner by focusing more
on those environmental attributes that are currently ne-
glected. The weightings of importance of different en-
vironmental attributes obtained from this study should
also be useful in the development of voluntary resi-
dential building assessment schemes. The successful
integration of public preferences into these schemes is
likely to attract more public support. Hitherto, there
is no unanimously accepted protocol being recom-
mended for incorporating public opinions into the de-
cision making process in relation to environmental is-
sues. More studies should be encouraged in this direc-
tion to resolve this issue.
Acknowledgment
This work was financially supported by the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University through the Research
Grant No. Z-03H.
References
Arcury, T.A., Christianson, E.H., 1990. Environmental worldview in
response to environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988
compared. Environ. Behav. 22, 387–407.
Baldassare, M., Katz, C., 1992. The personal threat of environmen-
tal problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environ.
Behav. 24, 602–616.
Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S., 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory
and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Black, J.S., Stern, P.C., Elworth, J.T., 1985. Personal and contextual
influences on household energy adaptations. Appl. Psychol. 70,
3–21.
Bogner, F.X., Wiseman, M., 1997. Environmental perception of rural
and urban pupils. J. Environ. Psychol. 17, 111–122.
Building Research Establishment Ltd., 2005. EcoHomes—The En-
vironmental Rating for Homes, The Guidance.
Buttel, F.H., 1987. New directions in environmental sociology. Annu.
Perform. Rev. Sociol. 13, 465–488.
Centre of Environmental Technology Limited HK-Beam, 1996. An
Environment Assessment for Air Conditioned Office Premises,
Version 1/96: New Offices and Version 2/96: Existing Offices.
Centre for Environmental Technology, Hong Kong.
Chan, E.H.W., Tang, B.S., Wong, W.S., 2002. Density control and
the quality of living space: a case study of private housing devel-
opment in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 26 (2), 159–175.
Cole, R.J., Larsson, N., 2002. GB Tool User Manual, CANMET En-
ergy Technology Centre, Natural Resources Canada and iiSBE.
Cole, R.J., Rousseau, D., Theaker, I.T., 1993. Building Environmen-
tal Performance Assessment Criteria: Version 1—Office Build-
ings. The BEPAC Foundation, Vancouver.
Council for Sustainable Development, July 2004. Sustainable devel-
opment: making choices for our future, An Invitation and Re-
sponse Document.
ECD Energy and Environment Canada, 2000. BREEAM Green leaf
for new buildings: rating summary, ECD Energy and Environ-
ment, Canada, Toronto.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A., Flynn,
E.J., 1990. Empirical research methods in operations manage-
ment. J. Operations Manage. 9, 250–284.
Fortman, L., Kusel, J., 1990. New voices, old beliefs: forest environ-
mentalism among new and longstanding rural residents. Rural
Sociol. 55, 214–232.
Fransson, Garling, 1999. Environmental concern: conceptual defi-
nitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Environ.
Psychol. 19, 369–382.
Gould, L.C., Gardner, G.T., DeLuca, D.R., Tiemann, A., Doob, L.W.,
Stolwijik, J.A.J., 1988. Perceptions of Technological Risks and
Benefits. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Haider, W., Ewing, G.O., 1990. A model of tourist choices of hypo-
thetical Caribbean destinations. Leis Sci. 12, 33–47.
Haider, W., Rasid, H., 2002. Eliciting public preferences for mu-
nicipal water supply options. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 22,
337–360.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 1999. Indoor Air Quality
Management Group. Guidance Notes for the Management of In-
door Air Quality in Offices and Public places. IAQ Management
Group, Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2002. Air Quality in
Hong Kong, Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Planning Department,
1996a. Hong Kong Planning Standard Guidelines, Hong Kong.
 C.K. Chau et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 67–79
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Town Planning Board,
1996b, Outline Zoning Plan.
Hopper, J.R., Neilsen, J.M., 1991. Recycling as altruistic behavior:
normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a
community recycling program. Environ. Behav. 24, 134–144.
Howell, S.E., Laska, S.B., 1992. The changing face of the environ-
mental coalition: a research note. Environ. Behav. 24, 134–144.
Iozzi, L.A., 1989. What research says to educator. Environ. Educ. 20
(1), 3–9.
Jones, A.P., 1999. Indoor air quality and health. Atmos. Environ. 33,
4535–4564.
Jones, R.E., Dunlap, R.E., 1992. The social bases of environmental
concern: have they changed over time? Rural Sociol. 57, 28–47.
Kryter, K.D., 1994. The Handbook of Hearing and the Effects of
Noise, Physiology, Psychology and Public Health.
Leftridge, A., James, R.K., 1980. A study of perceptions of environ-
mental issues of urban and rural high school students. Environ.
Educ. 12, 3–7.
Liu, E., Wu, S., Lee, J.C., June 1999. Housing standards of private
dwellings, Research and Library Services Division, Legislative
Council Secretariat.
Locker, T., 2005. The perceived importance of price as one hotel
selection dimension. Tourism Manage. 26, 529–537.
Louviere, J.J., 1988. Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint
Analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2000. Stated Choice Meth-
ods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Louviere, J.J., Timmermanns, H., 1990. Stated preference and choice
models applied to recreation research: a review. Leis Sci. 12,
9–32.
79
Louviere, J.J., Woodworth, G., 1983. Design and analysis of sim-
ulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach
based on aggregate data. J. Mark Res. 20, 350–366.
McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice
behavior. In: Zamembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–142.
Pearmain, D., Swanson, J., Kroes, E., Bradley, M., 1991. Stated Pref-
erence Techniques: A Guide to Practice. Steer Davies Gleave,
Hague Consulting Group.
Schultz, P.W., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern
for self, other people, and the biosphere. Environ. Psychol. 21,
327–339.
The Economist, 2004. Pocket World in Figures.
Timmermans, H., Borgers, A., van der Waerden, P., 1992. Choice
experiments versus revealed choice models: a before-after study
of consumer spatial shopping behavior. Prof. Geogr. 44, 406–416.
US Green Building Council, 2000. Buildings: Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design, Environmental Building Rating Sys-
tem Criteria. Version 2.0, LEED.
Van Liere, K.D., Dunlap, R.E., 1978. Moral norms and environmental
behavior: an application of Schwartz’s norm-activation model to
yard burning. Appl. Social Psychol. 8, 174–188.
Van Liere, K.D., Dunlap, R.E., 1980. The social bases of environmen-
tal concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical
evidence. Public Opin. Q. 44, 181–197.
Verma, R., Pullman, M., 1998. An analysis of the supplier selection
process. Omega Manage. Sci. 26 (6), 739–750.
World Health Organization, 1990. Indoor Environment: Health As-
pects of Air Quality, Thermal Environment, Light and noise.
United Nations Environmental Programme.