Search

Lack of homeowner participation in housing management (free riding) has rendered the management of many apartment buildings in Hong Kong ineffective. Proper apartment-building management depends on the voluntary contributions of individual homeowners. Individual homeowners are likely to free-ride on the management efforts of others because they consider the benefits of good housing management to be common goods. Apart from incentives such as subsidies offered by public entities and stricter law enforcement against homeowners that neglect building care, researchers have claimed that communitarian solutions may also work to tackle housing-management problems. In particular, there has been growing interest in the use of social capital, which is regarded as an asset of trust, reciprocity and cooperation, to foster a participatory culture among individual property owners. Empirical study of whether social capital plays a necessary role in housing management has been lacking. This study examines the linkage between social capital and homeowner participation in housing management in Hong Kong. The findings of this study have significant policy and practical implications. In addition to financial incentives or disincentives, public administrators can work to build a sense of community to achieve sustainable management of the existing housing stock in Hong Kong.

Abstract: Previous studies on housing management collectivism have conventionally suggested that perceptions of efficacy play a significant role in predicting resident participation. Efficacy beliefs were presented in two dimensions: self-efficacy and collective (or group) efficacy. The former refers to an individual's belief about his ability to influence the collective outcome, while the latter refers to an individual's belief about the group's ability to realize the collective good. The present study re-examines and goes beyond this two-dimensional view. It proposes that, apart from self and collective efficacies, an individual's perception of the ability of an intermediary to achieve the collective good (i.e., proxy efficacy) also matters. By adapting the collective interest model, which has commonly been used to explicate political participation and environmental activism, this study empirically explores the factors affecting how actively an individual homeowner participates in multi-owned housing (MOH) management. The explanatory analysis is based on the findings of a structured questionnaire survey in Hong Kong. In brief, apart from the value of the collective good and the selective benefits and costs of participation, individual residents' perceptions of self, group and proxy efficacies are significant determinants of their participation behaviour. These findings have far-reaching policy and practical implications for MOH governance. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Management of apartment buildings is never straightforward because of the need for collective homeowner action. Mancur Olson suggests that a rational individual will not participate in collective action which provides no positive net benefit for him or her. Based on this premise, it would seem that rationality drives homeowners to free-ride on others’ efforts and that, as a result, no collective action will take place. However, some homeowners do actively participate in housing management, and it is worthwhile to examine why some participate and others do not. Building on the wide-ranging applications of the collective interest model (CIM) in explaining political participation and environmental activism, this paper expands its relevance to the arena of housing management. The explanatory analysis which is based on the findings of a structured questionnaire survey in Hong Kong corroborates the central propositions of the CIM and provides a theoretical account of housing management activism. In brief, housing management activism is a function of beliefs about personal and group efficacy, the value of the collective good, and the selective benefits and costs of participation. These findings have far-reaching implications for the formulation of government policies promoting homeowners’ active involvement in housing management in Hong Kong and other megacities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-building initiatives strive to involve residents as the drivers of the change process, involving them in an array of activities including collective action efforts. Recent evaluations of many of these initiatives, however, suggest that developing the levels of resident involvement needed in such efforts is challenging. This study examines the neighborhood conditions that are related to whether and how much residents become involved in individual activism and collective action efforts. A random-digit-dial phone survey of 460 residents in 7 distressed neighborhoods suggested that while demographic variables were relatively unimportant, resident perceptions of neighborhood readiness (i.e., hope for the future and collective efficacy) and capacity for change (i.e., social ties and neighborhood leadership), and the level of neighborhood problems were strongly related to whether and how much residents were involved in individual and collective action efforts. Moreover, different elements of these neighborhood conditions were more or less important depending on the type and level of resident involvement. For example, while perceptions of neighborhood problems was the strongest predictor of whether an individual became involved at all, perceived strength of neighborhood leadership was the strongest predictor of an individual’s level of activity. The implications of these findings for practitioners and scientists are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]