CUHK
News Centre

A telephone survey was conducted from 19 to 21 August 2014 by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong to study the public views on residential land supply and the level of property prices of Hong Kong.  738 respondents aged 18 or above were successfully interviewed, with a response rate of 45.0%.  The sampling error is + or –3.61% at a confidence level of 95%.

Major findings are summarized as follows:

The survey found that an overwhelming majority (90.4%) of respondents thought the current level of property prices are too high, only 0.4% of the respondents felt otherwise.  6.6% said that the current level was appropriate.  Regarding their predictions of property prices in the coming year, two-fifths of them (42.5%) thought that the price level would remain at the current level.  37.3% predicted a rise and 11.0% predicted a fall.  Among those expecting a rise (275 respondents)  , 12.4%, 54.2%, 20.4%, and 6.2% thought that the property prices would increase by less than 5%, 5-<10%, 10-<20%, and at least 20% in the next year respectively.  And among those predicting a fall (81 respondents), 9.9%, 48.1%, 24.7%, and 13.6% thought the decrease would be in the ranges of less than 5%, 5-<10%, 10-<20%, and at least 20% respectively.

In the survey, respondents were asked about their opinion on increasing residential land supply.  Among five ways of increasing residential land supply, expediting urban renewal was supported by a larger proportion (33.1%) of the respondents.  25.8% opted for converting non-residential land for residential use, 19.8% chose acquiring private land (excluding those for New Territories small houses) in the New Territories, 7.3% considered land reclamation outside Victoria Harbor, and 4.6% opted for increasing the density of development in residential land.

Concerning the impacts of increasing residential land supply, over half (55.1%) of the respondents accepted the impacts on ways of living and community network of the residents concerned, while 36.3% thought these impacts are  “unacceptable” or “highly unacceptable”;  41.6% said it’s “acceptable” or “highly acceptable” to increase the density of development, while more than half of the respondents (51.5%) considered it  “unacceptable or “highly unacceptable”.  Less than one-third (32.9%) of the respondents accepted  the effects on natural environment posed by boosting residential land supply, while 59.6% found it “unacceptable” or “highly unacceptable”.