“simpa quality of home life indicators” findings announcement september 15, 2004

““SIMPA Quality of Home Life Indicators”SIMPA Quality of Home Life Indicators”

Findings AnnouncementFindings Announcement

September 15, 2004

SIMPA Quality of Home Life Indicators

BackgroundBackground

• Commissioned by SIMPA, an appliance brand under Towngas

• Conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong.

• The research instrument designed entirely by the POP Team after consulting Towngas /SIMPA

• Fieldwork operation and data analysis were conducted independently by the POP Team.


Research ObjectiveResearch Objective

• Investigate the quality of Hong Kong people’s home life, particularly satisfaction levels with various materialistic and non-materialistic aspects of their home life.

• Discover what are the drivers for satisfaction level and sense of well-being in home life.


SIMPA Quality of Home Life IndicatorSIMPA Quality of Home Life Indicator

• First-of-its-kind indicator to offer quantitative reading and insights into the Quality of Home Life (QoHL) led by Hong Kong people - an area seldom studied in the past.

• All indicators are constructed scientifically using self-assigned ratings and weightings.

• Possibility to develop into a yearly survey to keep track of any changes in QoHL in Hong Kong.


Research MethodologyResearch Methodology


Contact informationContact information

Date of survey: August 17-21, 2004

Target population: Cantonese-speaking population of HK aged 18 or above

Survey method: Telephone survey with interviewers

Sample size: 515 successful cases

Response rate: 62.7%

Sampling error: Less than 2.2%


Summary of FindingsSummary of Findings


A)A) Self-Assessment onSelf-Assessment on Home Life Quality Home Life Quality


Satisfaction rating with Satisfaction rating with home sizehome size

3%1% 1%

4% 4%

33%

11%13% 13%

5%

14%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean: 6.35Standard error: 0.10

[N = 509]


Satisfaction rating with Satisfaction rating with Personal spacePersonal space at home at home

4%

0%2%

5% 5%

27%

12% 12%

15%

5%

13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 506]


Satisfaction rating with Satisfaction rating with Home entertainment and hi-tech facilitiesHome entertainment and hi-tech facilities

2%1% 1%

4%5%

21%

13%

16%

20%

7%

11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 501]


Satisfaction rating with Satisfaction rating with Kitchen and Bathroom appliancesKitchen and Bathroom appliances

1%0%

2%

4%

7%

21%

12%

18% 19%

5%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 504]


6.24

6.35

6.47

6.65

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

Personal space athome

(N=506)

Home size (N=509)

kitchen and bathroomappliances

(N=504)

Entertainment and hi-tech facilities

(N=501)

Satisfaction ratings –Satisfaction ratings –Mean for 4 materialistic aspectsMean for 4 materialistic aspects


Satisfaction rating with Satisfaction rating with Activities and time spent with family Activities and time spent with family

membersmembers

1% 0%1%

2%4%

17%

10%

16%

24%

11%

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 484]


Satisfaction rating with Satisfaction rating with Family members’ care / attention / loveFamily members’ care / attention / love

0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

11% 11%

15%

27%

15%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 488]


Satisfaction rating with Satisfaction rating with Activities within community areaActivities within community area

3%

0%1%

5% 6%

25%

18%

15%17%

4%5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 495]


Satisfaction rating withSatisfaction rating with neighbours neighbours

3%

1%

3%

8%6%

29%

16%

12% 12%

4%6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 499]


5.726.03

7.17 7.68

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Neighbour(N=499)

Activities withincommunity area

(N=495)

Activities and timewith family

(N=484)

Care among familymembers(N=488)

Satisfaction ratings –Satisfaction ratings –Mean for 4 non-materialistic aspectsMean for 4 non-materialistic aspects


1%0%

1% 2%

5%

21%

15%

21%23%

4%

9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Overall satisfaction rating with Overall satisfaction rating with Materialistic aspect of home lifeMaterialistic aspect of home life


[N = 504]


Overall satisfaction rating withOverall satisfaction rating withNon-materialistic aspect of home lifeNon-materialistic aspect of home life

0% 0% 1%3% 2%

26%

13%

21%19%

6%

9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 493]


Importance weight allocated toImportance weight allocated toMaterialistic aspectMaterialistic aspect

0% 0% 1%

11%

17%

41%

17%

7%4%

0% 0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[N = 485]


Importance weight allocated toImportance weight allocated toNon-materialistic aspectNon-materialistic aspect


[N = 485]

0% 0%

4%7%

17%

41%

17%

11%

1%0% 0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Quality of Home Life Indicator (QoHL)Quality of Home Life Indicator (QoHL) concepts & formula behind concepts & formula behind

*Overall rating (Mean) on materialistic aspect = 6.68*Overall rating (Mean) on non-materialistic aspect = 6.68

*Importance of materialistic vs. non-materialistic aspect= 5.1:4.9

[Valid base=465]Formula for calculating the Overall rating of QoHLOverall rating of QoHL:

= (Satisfaction with materialistic aspect x weight factor A) + (Satisfaction with non-materialistic aspect x weight factor

B)

= 3.41+3.33 (i.e.weighted satisfaction ratings for each aspect)

= 6.74


Overall Rating of QoHLOverall Rating of QoHL

0% 0% 0%1%

4%

17% 18%

23%22%

9%

5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Rating

Mean: 6.74

Standard error: 0.75



QoHL cross-tabulation analysisQoHL cross-tabulation analysis

• A statistically higher rating of QoHL is observed for the following demo sub-groups:

Average: 6.74

– Gender: Female (6.93)– Marital status: Married people (6.91)– Occupation: Housewife (7.03)– Household income: Highest income group

i.e. $30k or above (7.26)


B) Home Life Related B) Home Life Related Supplementary QuestionsSupplementary Questions


The most effective way to improve QThe most effective way to improve QoHL – Home Size oHL – Home Size

Personal spaceowned

18%

Others4%

Don't know/Hard to say

8%Home size

44%Quality of

community27%

[N = 504]


Entertainmentequipment and

appliances18%

Others3%

Don't know/Hardto say12%

Kitchen andbathroom

appliances44%

Computer/technology-

related facilities24%

[N = 497]

The most effective way to improve QoHL The most effective way to improve QoHL – Kitchen & Bathroom appliances – Kitchen & Bathroom appliances


Most enjoyable moments at homeMost enjoyable moments at home40% 40%

36%

32%

20% 19%

13%10%

2% 2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

[N = 511]


Preferred dining at home or outside?Preferred dining at home or outside?


7%Outside

13%

At home80%

[N = 513]


Reason for preferring to dine at homeReason for preferring to dine at home

Healthier46%

Others2%

Warmer/Closer/More

comfortable24%


1%

Cooking athome is fun

9%Can save

money18%

[N = 412]

DK/HS7%

Athome80%

Outside13%


Time spent with family members Time spent with family members at homeat home

• On a typical weekday: 4.7 hrs/day (N=473)

• On a typical weekend: 7.1 hrs/day (N=454)

Dining with family members in a weekDining with family members in a week• Dine at home: 4.8 days/week (N=477)• Dine outside: 1.2 days/week (N=455)


Non-materialistic satisfaction rating v.Non-materialistic satisfaction rating v.s. Frequency of dining at homes. Frequency of dining at home

6.25

6.86

5.96

6.16.2

6.36.46.56.66.76.86.9

0-3 (N=122)

4-7 (N=341)

5.99

7.00

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

0 (N=25)

7 (N=146)

Frequency of dining at home

Sat

isfa

ctio

n r

atin

g


Overall QoHL v.s. most enjoyable actiOverall QoHL v.s. most enjoyable activities at homevities at home

6.31

6.49 6.56.61

6.98 6.997.04

7.17

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

Taking a bath (N=65)

Listening to music (N=95)

Sleeping (N=148)

Watching TV (N=163)

Dining with family (N=195)

Playing with kids (N=94)

Chatting with family (N=185)

Family Cooking (N=47)

Private Time

Family Interaction


C) ConclusionC) Conclusion


• HK passes the mark for overall QoHL (6.74), but more can be done.

• As human beings, we all enjoy participating in personal and individualized activities

• But we achieve a higher level of satisfaction when spending time interacting and bonding with family members

• Home cooking and dining with family would drive a higher level of satisfaction in our home lives

Home cooking and dining with family Home cooking and dining with family improve QoHLimprove QoHL


Project Director CHUNG Ting-yiu, Robert

Project Manager PANG Ka-lai, Karie

Project Executive CHAN Ka-man, Carmen

Data Analyst TSOI Pui-shing, Tony

HKU POPHKU POPResearch Team MembersResearch Team Members

HKU POPHKU POPResearch Team MembersResearch Team Members


Special thanks to:Special thanks to:Special thanks to:Special thanks to:

Dr L K Lam Cindy, HKU

Mr Leung Kwok Fai, Q.E. Hospital

* For their professional and valuable advice on the research instrument. All faults therewith, however, are entirely HKU POP’s.


Survey findings soon be available at http://hkupop.hku.hk


Thank you


AppendixAppendixAppendixAppendix


Demographics ofDemographics ofRespondentsRespondents

Demographics ofDemographics ofRespondentsRespondents


• Gender:• Female (52%), Male (48%)

• Age Group:• 18-20: 5%• 21-29: 17%• 30-39: 24%• 40-49: 23%• 50-59: 13%• 60 or above: 19%

• Education Attainment:• Primary or below: 21%• Secondary: 56%• Postgraduate or above: 23%


• Occupation:• Executives and professionals (22%)• Clerical and service workers (19%)• Production workers (13%)• Students (7%)• Housewives (19%)• Others (19%)

• Marital Status:• Married (67%)• Single (31%)• Divorced (1%)• Widowed (1%)

• Monthly Household Income (HK Dollar)• Below $8,000: 22%• $8,000 -$14,999: 29%• $15,000 - $29,999: 26%• $30,000 or above: 23%

“simpa quality of home life indicators” findings announcement september 15, 2004

Documents