1. sports
2. table tennis and ping-pong

Issues and Answers on the Third Runway for
Hong Kong International Airport
(22 March 2015)
Executive)Summary)
This survey tested both the issue of airport expansion and the process of consultation on this
issue. The survey found that a majority of respondents support letting the courts settle
environmental permit disputes first, before proceeding with adding a third runway. A
majority also supports Hong Kong authorities settling issues of air routing through the very
crowed skies of the Pearl River Delta region with mainland authorities first. And while many
times cooperation with the mainland is pitted against local court proceedings, in this case
most regard these issues differently. Majorities disagree on the government proposal to fund
the expansion with loans guaranteed by the government. Majorities prefer that further
efficiency measures be taken prior to proceeding with expansion plans.
As with many things in Hong Kong, there are clear differences of views by those under age
30 and those over age 60. There are also significant gaps in views between those whose
family incomes are over $100,000 per month and those whose families earn less. The
wealthiest and older respondents tend to support expansion of the airport over various
obstacles. On some issues women differ with men, and the difference is not a matter of
women being less decisive in their responses (typically the case for many issues; women tend
to respond significantly more often with no comment or don’t know than men). While a bare
majority of men support withdrawal of the proposal, nearly two thirds of women support
withdrawal. Women also are more critical of the government backing loans for the airport
than men. Even for many respondents who appear in the majority of their responses as more
supportive of the government, and who oppose withdrawing the planned expansion, agree
that a settlement needs to be reached with Mainland authorities on air route conflicts (32%
who oppose withdrawal support reaching an air route agreement first). If the government
cites significant disagreement on a public policy issue as a reason not to act on some matters,
this is clearly a case where it takes a different stance. It appears from the results of this
survey that most of the public is not convinced, on the merits, that the proposed action of
adding a third runway needs to be taken at this time or in this fashion.
2
Table of Contents
)
Executive)Summary).................................................................................................................................)2!
Background)................................................................................................................................................)6!
Table!1.!
Do!you!agree!to!the!statement!
“The!Chief!Executive!and!the!Executive!Council!should!not!move!the!third!runway!project!
forward!before!the!court!has!made!the!decision!whether!the!issue!of!environmental!permit!
is!invalid”!....................................................................................................................................................................!6!
Chart!of!Table!1.!
Do!you!agree!to!the!
statement!“The!Chief!Executive!and!the!Executive!Council!should!not!move!the!third!
runway!project!forward!before!the!court!has!made!the!decision!whether!the!issue!of!
environmental!permit!is!invalid”!.....................................................................................................................!7!
Table!2!Agree!to!await!court!decision!BY!Age!group!...............................................................................!7!
Table!3!Agree!to!await!court!decision!BY!Education!...............................................................................!8!
Table!4!!Agree!to!await!court!decision!BY!Family!income!per!month!.............................................!8!
Table!4!!Agree!to!await!court!decision!BY!Family!income!per!month!.............................................!9!
Table!5!!Q2.!
Do!you!agree!the!
statement!“The!Chief!Executive!and!the!Executive!Council!should!not!move!the!third!
runway!project!forward!before!a!blackOandOwhite!agreement!has!been!made!between!
Hong!Kong!and!Chinese!authorities!on!easing!the!air!route!conflict.”!.............................................!9!
Table!5!!Q2.!
Do!you!agree!the!
statement!“The!Chief!Executive!and!the!Executive!Council!should!not!move!the!third!
runway!project!forward!before!a!blackOandOwhite!agreement!has!been!made!between!
Hong!Kong!and!Chinese!authorities!on!easing!the!air!route!conflict.”!...........................................!10!
Table!6!!Agree!runway!not!advance!until!air!route!conflict!settled!BY!Age!................................!10!
Table!7!!Agree!runway!not!advance!until!air!route!conflict!settled!BY!Education!...................!11!
Table!8!!Agree!runway!not!advance!until!air!route!conflict!settled!BY!Family!income!..........!11!
Chart:!Table!8!!Agree!runway!not!advance!until!air!route!conflict!settled!BY!Family!income
!.......................................................................................................................................................................................!12!
Table!9!!Q3.!
Do!you!agree!with!the!Hong!Kong!Government!
decision!to!become!guarantor!of!the!Airport!Authority!and!to!finance!the!third!runway!
project!so!as!to!bypass!the!oversight!by!the!Legislative!Council?!...................................................!12!
Chart!of!Table!9!!Q3.!
Do!you!agree!with!the!Hong!Kong!
Government!decision!to!become!guarantor!of!the!Airport!Authority!and!to!finance!the!third!
runway!project!so!as!to!bypass!the!oversight!by!the!Legislative!Council?!..................................!13!
Table!10!!Agree!HK!Government!guarantee!Airport!Authority!loans!BY!Age!............................!13!
Table!11!!Agree!HK!Government!guarantee!Airport!Authority!loans!BY!Education!...............!14!
Table!12!!Agree!HK!Government!guarantee!Airport!Authority!loans!BY!Family!income!......!14!
Chart!Table!12!Agree!HK!Government!guarantee!Airport!Authority!loans!BY!Family!income
!.......................................................................................................................................................................................!15!
Table!13!Q4.!
Do!you!agree!to!charge!airport!passengers!with!airport!development!tax!so!
as!to!finance!the!third!runway?!......................................................................................................................!15!
Table!14!!Charge!passengers!development!tax!to!finance!runway!BY!Sex!..................................!16!
3
Table!15!!Charge!passengers!development!tax!to!finance!runway!BY!Age!.................................!16!
Chart!of!Table!15!!Charge!passengers!development!tax!to!finance!runway!BY!Age!................!17!
Table!16!!Charge!passengers!development!tax!to!finance!runway!BY!Education!....................!17!
Table!17!!Charge!passengers!development!tax!to!finance!runway!BY!Family!income!...........!18!
Table!18!Q5.!
Do!you!agree!“The!Hong!Kong!Government!and!the!Airport!Authority!have!presented!
accurate!and!thorough!information!on!the!third!runway!project!to!the!public!........................!19!
Table!19!!Agree!HK!Government!&!Airport!Authority!provided!accurate!information!BY!
Age!...............................................................................................................................................................................!19!
Table!20!!Agree!HK!Government!&!Airport!Authority!provided!accurate!information!BY!
Education!..................................................................................................................................................................!20!
Table!21!Agree!HK!Government!&!Airport!Authority!provided!accurate!information!BY!
Family!income!........................................................................................................................................................!20!
Chart!of!Table!21!Agree!HK!Government!&!Airport!Authority!provided!accurate!
information!BY!Family!income!........................................................................................................................!21!
Table!22!Q6.!
Do!you!agree!that!“The!Hong!Kong!Government!and!the!Airport!Authority!have!consulted!
the!public!on!the!third!runway!project!thoroughly.”!.............................................................................!21!
Table!23!!Agree!HK!Government!&!Airport!Authority!consulted!public!thoroughly!BY!Age
!.......................................................................................................................................................................................!22!
Table!24!!Agree!HK!Government!&!Airport!Authority!consulted!public!thoroughly!BY!
Education!..................................................................................................................................................................!22!
Chart!Table!24!!Agree!HK!Government!&!Airport!Authority!consulted!public!thoroughly!BY!
Education!..................................................................................................................................................................!23!
Table!25!!Agree!HK!Government!&!Airport!Authority!consulted!public!thoroughly!BY!
Income!........................................................................................................................................................................!23!
Table!26!Q7.
!On!the!basis!of!the!above!information,!do!you!agree!or!
disagree!with!the!following:!““Due!to!the!costObenefit!and!conservation!concerns,!I!would!
prefer!the!TwoORunway!option.”!....................................................................................................................!24!
Table!27!!Agree!to!prefer!TwoORunway!option!BY!Sex!........................................................................!25!
Table!28!!Agree!to!prefer!TwoORunway!option!BY!Age!........................................................................!25!
Table!29!!Agree!to!prefer!TwoORunway!option!BY!Education!..........................................................!26!
Table!30!!Agree!to!prefer!TwoORunway!option!BY!Family!Income!.................................................!26!
Chart!of!Table!30!!Agree!to!prefer!TwoORunway!option!BY!Family!Income!...............................!27!
Table!31!!Q8.!
,
Do!you!agree!that!“The!Airport!
Authority!should!focus!on!improving!the!efficiency!of!current!runways!and!should!not!
consider!building!a!new!runway!before!our!current!runways!are!fully!utilized?!“!.................!27!
Chart!of!Table!31!!Q8.!
,
Do!you!agree!that!“The!Airport!
Authority!should!focus!on!improving!the!efficiency!of!current!runways!and!should!not!
consider!building!a!new!runway!before!our!current!runways!are!fully!utilized?!“!.................!28!
Table!32!!Agree!focus!on!improving!runway!efficiency!BY!Sex!........................................................!28!
Table!33!!Agree!focus!on!improving!runway!efficiency!BY!Age!.......................................................!28!
Chart!of!Table!33!!Agree!focus!on!improving!runway!efficiency!BY!Age!......................................!29!
Table!34!!Agree!focus!on!improving!runway!efficiency!BY!Education!..........................................!29!
Table!35!!Agree!focus!on!improving!runway!efficiency!BY!Family!income!.................................!30!
Table!36!Q9.!
Overall,!do!you!agree!that!the!Hong!Kong!Government!should!withdraw!the!third!runway!
project!after!considering!all!above!factors?!...............................................................................................!31!
Table!37!Agree!HK!Government!should!withdraw!3rd!runway!project!BY!Sex!..........................!31!
Table!38!Agree!HK!Government!should!withdraw!3rd!runway!project!BY!Age!.........................!32!
4
Table!39!Agree!HK!Government!should!withdraw!3rd!runway!project!BY!Education!............!32!
Table!39!Agree!HK!Government!should!withdraw!3rd!runway!project!BY!Education!............!33!
Table!40!!Correlation!of!Q1!Agree!delay!for!court!decision!BY!Agree!withdraw!proposal!..!33!
Table!41!!Correlation!of!Q2!Agree!on!agreement!with!China!authorities!on!air!route!
conflicts!first!BY!Agree!withdraw!proposal!...............................................................................................!34!
Demographics).........................................................................................................................................)35!
Gender!........................................................................................................................................................................!35!
Education!BY!Gender!...........................................................................................................................................!35!
Gender!distribution!by!Education!level!.......................................................................................................!35!
Age!...............................................................................................................................................................................!35!
What!is!your!educational!standard!?!What!year!of!schooling!did!you!finish?!
!.............................................................................................................................................................................!36!
Recoded!Education!(used!for!analysis)!.......................................................................................................!36!
Distribution!of!Education!level!by!Age!........................................................................................................!36!
Ages!by!Level!of!Education!...............................................................................................................................!37!
What!is!your!approximate!monthly!family!income?!
!........!37!
Recoded!Monthly!Family!Income!...................................................................................................................!37!
Income!BY!Age!group!..........................................................................................................................................!38!
Income!distribution!BY!Education!level!......................................................................................................!38!
)
)
5
Background)
A survey report commissioned by Greenpeace (HK), Friends of the Earth(HK), Dolphin
Conservation Society, Conservancy Association, World Wildlife Fund (HK), Victor Leung
and Albert Lai, ,
(
)
(
conducted by the Centre for the Advancement of Social
Science Research at the Hong Kong Baptist University. Data analyzed and this report
produced by Professor Michael DeGolyer of HKBU.
)
The telephone survey of 617 people who are Permanent Residents of Hong Kong, randomly
selected by the next birthday method, was conducted 10-18 March 2015. After determining
interviewees were residents of the household age 18 or above whose birthday will be coming
up soonest, and who are also permanent residents of Hong Kong, interviewees were read the
following statement introducing the issue:
,
The Airport Authority of Hong Kong is planning to build the third runway for the airport.
Experts have concluded that the new runway will affect air quality and noise pollution. Huge
damage on marine ecology because of the reclamation would further reduce the number
Chinese White Dolphins. Although the Director of Environment has issued the
Environmental Permit, green groups have applied for judicial review based on the mistakes
and omissions found in the Environmental Impact Assessment process. This may lead to an
overhaul of the permit.
Table 1 contains the results of the first question asked (see chart next page). A majority of
respondents agreed that the third runway decision should await the outcome of the court case
challenging the environmental permit. Agreement tended to rise with education and income,
except at the post-graduate level and those with family incomes over $100,000 per month.
Younger groups agree more strongly on awaiting the outcome of the court case (See Table 2
below).
Table)1.)
Do)you)agree)
to)the)statement)“The)Chief)Executive)and)the)Executive)Council)should)not)move)the)
third)runway)project)forward)before)the)court)has)made)the)decision)whether)the)issue)of)
environmental)permit)is)invalid”1)
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
98
256
136
57
70
%
16
41
22
9
11
1
Results are rounded off to the nearest whole number following guidelines of the World Association of Public
Opinion Research. A random survey of this size (617 persons) has a range of error of +/- 4 points at the 95
percent confidence interval.
6
Chart)of)Table)1.)
Do)
you)agree)to)the)statement)“The)Chief)Executive)and)the)Executive)Council)should)not)
move)the)third)runway)project)forward)before)the)court)has)made)the)decision)whether)
the)issue)of)environmental)permit)is)invalid”)
No Comment
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Table)2)Agree)to)await)court)decision)BY)Age)group2)
18-20
11
Strongly Agree
70
Agree
11
Disagree
Strongly Disagree 4
4
No Comment
total
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
95.86 with
24
21-30
35
47
9
3
6
100
31-40
12
61
15
7
5
100
41-50
21
39
25
9
6
100
51-60
11
36
24
16
14
100
61-70
13
24
34
8
21
100
71-90
10
36
27
7
20
100
total
16
42
22
9
11
100
df p ≤ 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
2
Chi-square is a statistical measure of the strength of association between variables. The nearer to zero, the
stronger the probability that the distribution of responses is not by chance. Normally p ≤ 0.5 is the upper limit
accepted, meaning there are only 5 chances in 100 that the distribution of responses is mere chance.
7
Table)3)Agree)to)await)court)decision)BY)Education)
0 to
P6
9
Strongly
7-9 F1F3
11
Agree
28
35
Agree
20
28
Disagree
9
11
Strongly
Disagree
35
15
No Comment
total
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
77.39 with
20
10-12
F4-F6
12
13-15 Some
univ
19
16 University
grad
23
17-18 Postgrad
10
total
49
24
4
44
24
7
42
19
11
42
23
23
42
22
9
12
100
6
100
6
100
3
100
11
100
16
df p ≤ 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
Agreement tends to rise with family income except among those whose family income is
$100,000 and up per month. (See chart next page). Older age tends to be associated with
lower income levels. (See Demographics at end of report.)
Table)4))Agree)to)await)court)decision)BY)Family)income)per)month)
None
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
20,00029,999
16
30,00039,999
15
40,00059,999
21
60,00099,999
28
100,000+
total
8
<500019,999
15
14
17
37
32
3
40
19
8
43
22
9
45
22
6
49
17
7
43
16
10
34
27
24
42
22
9
10
12
6
3
2
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
Strongly Disagree
19
19
No
Comment
total
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square = 55.06
with
24
df p = 0.0003
8
Table)4))Agree)to)await)court)decision)BY)Family)income)per)month)
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
100,000+
60,000-99,999
40,000-59,999
30,000-39,999
20,000-29,999
<5000-19,999
None
0
The division of opinion appears to be about the same on question 2 of the survey, asking
about the conflict in air routes currently experienced in the Pearl River Delta region.
Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Macau and Hong Kong all have airports, making the airspace
congested. Hong Kong International Airport also has routing complexities caused by the
mountainous terrain surrounding the airport, particularly toward the south of the runway. As
with the court case, a majority of about the same size agrees these route conflicts should be
settled before a third runway is built. However, as Tables 6-8 show, the composition of the
majority on the second question is different, with far less difference among age groups,
educational levels and family income over the second question than with the first.
Table)5))Q2.)
Do)
you)agree)the)statement)“The)Chief)Executive)and)the)Executive)Council)should)not)move)
the)third)runway)project)forward)before)a)blackLandLwhite)agreement)has)been)made)
between)Hong)Kong)and)Chinese)authorities)on)easing)the)air)route)conflict.”)
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
110
246
163
43
55
%
18
40
26
7
9
9
Table)5))Q2.)
Do)
you)agree)the)statement)“The)Chief)Executive)and)the)Executive)Council)should)not)move)
the)third)runway)project)forward)before)a)blackLandLwhite)agreement)has)been)made)
between)Hong)Kong)and)Chinese)authorities)on)easing)the)air)route)conflict.”)
No Comment
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
There is not as strong of an association with age as in Q1, though younger groups tend to
agree more as in Q1. But those over age 30 tend to divide more equally than in Q1.
Table)6))Agree)runway)not)advance)until)air)route)conflict)settled)BY)Age)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
18-20
19
57
17
2
6
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
52.23 with
24
21-30
35
40
16
3
6
100
31-40
17
37
37
3
5
100
41-50
21
41
24
9
6
100
51-60
14
37
31
10
8
100
61-70
13
34
28
9
16
100
71-90
10
42
29
3
15
100
total
18
40
27
7
9
100
df p = 0.0007
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
10
Table)7))Agree)runway)not)advance)until)air)route)conflict)settled)BY)Education)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No
Comment
total
0 to
P6
10
7-9
F1-F3
10
10-12
F4-F6
12
13-15
Some univ
20
16 University
grad
27
17-18
Post-grad
16
total
32
29
7
36
31
10
47
27
4
47
26
4
37
24
7
36
26
16
40
26
7
22
14
10
4
5
6
9
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
51.81 with
20
18
df p = 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
Table)8))Agree)runway)not)advance)until)air)route)conflict)settled)BY)Family)income)
None
Strongly Agree
Agree
20,00029,999
17
30,00039,999
20
40,00059,999
25
60,00099,999
28
100,000+
total
6
<500019,999
14
15
18
44
34
44
26
38
26
41
26
40
24
40
22
36
32
41
27
2
5
10
7
5
5
15
7
15
12
9
7
5
5
2
8
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Comment
total
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
35.74 with
24
df p = 0.0581
11
Chart:)Table)8))Agree)runway)not)advance)until)air)route)conflict)settled)BY)Family)income)
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
100,000+
60,000-99,999
40,000-59,999
30,000-39,999
20,000-29,999
<5000-19,999
None
0
At this point the survey shifted from legal issues affecting the runway decision to costing
matters. There is strong disagreement on the government’s decision to bypass legislative
allocation and fund the expansion via government-guaranteed financing. Nearly two thirds
(64%) opposed the means of funding while support shrank to 27% and strong support
dropped to the lowest among the questions asked. (Chart next page).
1400
2000
Airport Authority has estimated the construction cost for the third runway will be 140 billion
dollars. Some views have found that the cost might eventually end up at 200 billion. The
Airport Authority is seeking the Hong Kong Government as guarantor so as to borrow loans
from banks. This means the Airport Authority will bypass the Legislative Council and turn all
Hong Kong public into guarantors.
Table)9))Q3.)
Do)you)agree)with)the)Hong)Kong)
Government)decision)to)become)guarantor)of)the)Airport)Authority)and)to)finance)the)
third)runway)project)so)as)to)bypass)the)oversight)by)the)Legislative)Council?))
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
33
136
258
137
53
%
5
22
42
22
9
12
Chart)of)Table)9))Q3.)
Do)you)agree)with)the)Hong)
Kong)Government)decision)to)become)guarantor)of)the)Airport)Authority)and)to)finance)
the)third)runway)project)so)as)to)bypass)the)oversight)by)the)Legislative)Council?))
Strongly Agree
No Comment
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
While those under age 30 most strongly disagree, there is less difference by age than before.
Table)10))Agree)HK)Government)guarantee)Airport)Authority)loans)BY)Age)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
18-20
4
9
60
19
8
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
58.95 with
24
21-30
3
12
52
31
3
100
31-40
2
32
46
15
5
100
41-50
7
17
47
23
6
100
51-60
7
28
36
22
6
100
61-70
7
22
31
21
19
100
71-90
2
32
29
20
17
100
total
5
22
42
22
9
100
df p ≤ 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
13
Table)11))Agree)HK)Government)guarantee)Airport)Authority)loans)BY)Education)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No
Comment
total
0 to
P6
3
7-9
F1-F3
3
10-12
F4-F6
4
13-15
Some univ
5
16 University
grad
7
17-18
Post-grad
13
total
22
30
20
28
42
17
29
37
20
20
59
12
17
41
30
13
48
19
22
42
22
25
11
10
4
4
6
9
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
64.18 with
20
5
df p ≤ 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
No income group shows a majority supporting government backing of loans.
Table)12))Agree)HK)Government)guarantee)Airport)Authority)loans)BY)Family)income)
None
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No
Comment
total
20,00029,999
2
30,00039,999
6
40,00059,999
2
60,00099,999
7
100,000+
total
3
<500019,999
5
14
5
23
37
16
27
41
21
21
42
27
23
42
24
19
48
24
21
45
26
31
36
19
23
42
23
21
7
7
5
7
2
2
7
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
41.85 with
24
df p = 0.0134
14
Chart)Table)12)Agree)HK)Government)guarantee)Airport)Authority)loans)BY)Family)income)
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
100,000+
60,000-99,999
40,000-59,999
30,000-39,999
20,000-29,999
<5000-19,999
None
0
A much smaller majority (54%) than that opposed to the government guarantee of loans
(64% opposed) object to a use tax from airport users. This implies that if plans are to
proceed, more find it less objectionable to use a tax on airport passengers to fund expansion.
Table)13)Q4.)
Do)you)agree)to)charge)airport)passengers)with)airport)
development)tax)so)as)to)finance)the)third)runway?)
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
50
194
219
117
37
No Comment
%
8
31
35
19
6
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Agree
Disagree
15
For the first time, women tended to more strongly disagree with this proposal (no significant
statistical difference by gender on previous questions).
Table)14))Charge)passengers)development)tax)to)finance)runway)BY)Sex)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
Male
11
35
30
16
7
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
16.06 with
4
Female
6
28
40
21
5
100
total
8
31
36
19
6
100
df p = 0.0029
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
Male
Female
total
While those under 30 still more strongly objected than other age groups, only the 21-30 age
group approached previous levels of disagreement. (Chart next page.)
Table)15))Charge)passengers)development)tax)to)finance)runway)BY)Age)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
18-20
2
30
43
15
9
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
52.34 with
24
21-30
6
15
37
35
7
100
31-40
5
41
37
17
0
100
41-50
9
35
35
18
2
100
51-60
13
32
33
18
4
100
61-70
11
28
35
15
12
100
71-90
2
41
29
17
12
100
total
8
32
35
19
6
100
df p = 0.0007
16
Chart)of)Table)15))Charge)passengers)development)tax)to)finance)runway)BY)Age)
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
Table)16))Charge)passengers)development)tax)to)finance)runway)BY)Education)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No
Comment
total
0 to
P6
7
7-9
F1-F3
11
10-12
F4-F6
4
13-15
Some univ
9
16 University
grad
10
17-18
Post-grad
10
total
33
33
13
38
29
18
35
42
13
25
37
22
28
34
24
42
32
16
32
36
19
13
4
6
7
5
0
6
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
28.90 with
20
8
df p = 0.0898
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
17
As with the previous question, the highest income group showed the least disagreement.
However, unlike the government loan guarantee question, this time a majority of highest
income persons supported a user tax. If the third runway is to be financed, a user fee is a less
objectionable means to more respondents.
Table)17))Charge)passengers)development)tax)to)finance)runway)BY)Family)income)
None
Strongly Agree
Agree
20,00029,999
7
30,00039,999
8
40,00059,999
7
60,00099,999
9
100,000+
total
3
<500019,999
5
19
8
36
37
36
38
30
37
29
38
30
34
24
40
42
25
32
36
10
14
24
19
23
24
14
19
15
7
2
6
5
3
0
5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Comment
total
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
40.61 with
24
df p = 0.0184
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
100,000+
60,000-99,999
40,000-59,999
30,000-39,999
20,000-29,999
<5000-19,999
None
0
Having addressed cost issues, the survey turned to the decision-making process as it
concerned information relayed to the public and input from the public. A plurality (49%)
disagree that the government and Airport Authority have presented accurate and thorough
information to the public about the third runway project. Older and less educated
respondents (see tables below) show much higher levels of no comment on this question.
18
Table)18)Q5.)
Do)you)agree)“The)Hong)Kong)Government)and)the)Airport)Authority)have)
presented)accurate)and)thorough)information)on)the)third)runway)project)to)the)public))
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
34
174
223
78
108
%
6
28
36
13
18
Strongly Agree (6%)
No Comment (18%)
Agree (28%)
Strongly Disagree (13%)
Disagree (36%)
Table)19))Agree)HK)Government)&)Airport)Authority)provided)accurate)information)BY)Age)
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
8
6
3
6
4
6
7
6
Strongly Agree
21
21
34
30
31
24
37
29
Agree
49
41
48
39
35
24
20
36
Disagree
25
7
12
14
12
8
13
Strongly Disagree 13
9
7
8
13
16
34
27
17
No Comment
total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
58.62
with
24
df p ≤ 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
19
Table)20))Agree)HK)Government)&)Airport)Authority)provided)accurate)information)BY)Education)
0 to
7-9
10-12
13-15
16 University 17-18
total
P6
F1-F3 F4-F6
Some univ grad
Post-grad
6
5
6
6
6
5
Strongly 4
Agree
28
26
33
26
27
29
28
Agree
25
42
36
43
36
36
36
Disagree
7
6
7
17
20
6
13
Strongly Disagree
36
21
20
7
12
23
18
No
Comment
total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
48.09 with
20
df p = 0.0004
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
Table)21)Agree)HK)Government)&)Airport)Authority)provided)accurate)information)BY)
Family)income)
None
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No
Comment
total
20,00029,999
4
30,00039,999
7
40,00059,999
3
60,00099,999
5
100,000+
total
6
<500019,999
3
8
5
40
24
3
31
33
9
26
37
17
21
43
14
26
48
14
24
27
26
44
32
7
30
36
13
26
23
16
15
9
17
8
16
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
50.21 with
24
df p = 0.0013
20
Chart)of)Table)21)Agree)HK)Government)&)Airport)Authority)provided)accurate)
information)BY)Family)income)
)
)
)
)
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
100,000+
60,000-99,999
40,000-59,999
30,000-39,999
20,000-29,999
<5000-19,999
None
0
Despite lack of a majority deeming government and AA information on the project being less
than accurate and thorough, the results of Table 22 (Question 6) show a majority disagree
that the project was thoroughly consulted with the public.
Table)22)Q6.)
Do)you)agree)that)“The)Hong)Kong)Government)and)the)Airport)Authority)have)
consulted)the)public)on)the)third)runway)project)thoroughly.”))
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
31
178
252
87
69
%
5
29
41
14
11
No Comment (11%)
Strongly Disagree (14%)
Strongly Agree (5%)
Agree (29%)
Disagree (41%)
21
The differences by age reappear for those under 30, but differences are less than before by
education and income group. (See Table 24 and 25.)
Table)23))Agree)HK)Government)&)Airport)Authority)consulted)public)thoroughly)BY)Age)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
18-20
2
23
51
21
4
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
79.55 with
24
21-30
1
15
44
32
7
100
31-40
5
34
51
7
3
100
41-50
8
31
42
14
6
100
51-60
4
38
38
11
10
100
61-70
7
24
36
11
22
100
71-90
3
32
27
10
27
100
total
5
29
41
14
11
100
df p ≤ 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
Table)24))Agree)HK)Government)&)Airport)Authority)consulted)public)thoroughly)BY)
Education)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No
Comment
total
0 to
P6
7
7-9
F1-F3
4
10-12
F4-F6
5
13-15
Some univ
1
16 University
grad
5
17-18
Post-grad
13
total
25
25
7
28
42
10
39
39
10
24
48
24
26
45
17
29
36
13
29
41
14
36
17
8
4
7
10
11
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
83.09 with
20
5
df p ≤ 0.0001
22
Chart)Table)24))Agree)HK)Government)&)Airport)Authority)consulted)public)thoroughly)BY)
Education)
)
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
Table)25))Agree)HK)Government)&)Airport)Authority)consulted)public)thoroughly)BY)Income)
None
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
20,00029,999
4
30,00039,999
1
40,00059,999
4
60,00099,999
5
100,000+
total
6
<500019,999
3
10
5
32
34
5
37
31
11
16
47
20
34
42
16
27
49
17
33
31
24
36
39
10
30
40
15
14
7
3
7
5
11
100
100
100
100
100
100
Strongly Disagree
23
17
No
Comment
total
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
54.76 with
24
df p = 0.0003
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
100,000+
60,000-99,999
40,000-59,999
30,000-39,999
20,000-29,999
<5000-19,999
None
0
23
The final part of the survey explored attitudes toward trade-offs and environmental effects,
with the following statement read out to the respondents:
18
$470
9
$1360
26
Airport Authority forecasts that the Third Runway will yield $47 billion more economic
benefit than expanding the Two-Runway system in 18 years time. The Third Runway
construction will cost at least $136 billion, which could mean forgoing about 260,000
new public housing units. Meanwhile, experts said the Third Runway will be harmful to
marine ecology and the survival of Chinese White Dolphins.
Given the costs and environmental impact mentioned in the statement, a plurality of 49%
preferred the current two-runway system.
Table) 26) Q7.
)On)the)basis)of)the)above)information,)do)you)agree)
or)disagree)with)the)following:)“ Due)to)the)costLbenefit)and)conservation)concerns,)I)
would)prefer)the)TwoLRunway)option. )
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
84
215
179
53
86
%
14
35
29
9
14
No Comment (14%)
Strongly Agree (14%)
Strongly Disagree (9%)
Agree (35%)
Disagree (29%)
24
Women showed a majority preferring the two-runway system, and those under age 30 very
strongly preferred it. (See Table 28 below and chart next page.)
Table)27))Agree)to)prefer)TwoLRunway)option)BY)Sex)
Male Female total
14
13
14
Strongly Agree
30
39
35
Agree
33
26
29
Disagree
6
9
Strongly Disagree 12
12
16
14
No Comment
total
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
14.55 with
4
df p = 0.0057
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
Male
Female
total
Table)28))Agree)to)prefer)TwoLRunway)option)BY)Age)
18-20 21-30 31-40
21
31
12
Strongly Agree
49
49
34
Agree
17
13
36
Disagree
1
7
Strongly Disagree 6
8
6
12
No Comment
total
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
66.39 with
24
41-50
12
34
29
14
11
100
51-60
12
29
34
11
14
100
61-70
6
30
34
7
23
100
71-90
10
32
32
5
20
100
total
14
35
29
8
14
100
df p ≤ 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
25
Table)29))Agree)to)prefer)TwoLRunway)option)BY)Education)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No
Comment
total
0 to
P6
7
7-9
F1-F3
8
10-12
F4-F6
11
13-15
Some univ
19
16 University
grad
18
17-18
Post-grad
6
total
25
33
9
35
32
6
41
29
6
35
25
5
35
29
10
29
26
26
35
29
8
26
19
14
17
7
13
14
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
47.74 with
20
14
df p = 0.0005
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
Table)30))Agree)to)prefer)TwoLRunway)option)BY)Family)Income)
None
Strongly Agree
Agree
20,00029,999
15
30,00039,999
15
40,00059,999
10
60,00099,999
26
100,000+
total
5
<500019,999
13
14
14
34
34
43
20
33
32
37
22
42
30
35
22
19
48
36
29
5
7
6
9
6
12
14
8
23
17
14
16
11
5
7
14
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Comment
total
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
47.16 with
24
df p = 0.0032
26
Chart)of)Table)30))Agree)to)prefer)TwoLRunway)option)BY)Family)Income)
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
100,000+
60,000-99,999
40,000-59,999
30,000-39,999
20,000-29,999
<5000-19,999
None
0
Question 8 compared the current efficiency of the two runway Hong Kong system with the
two runway system of Heathrow, and asked whether respondents would prefer further efforts
to improve throughput before embarking on adding runways. The following statement was
read to respondents, then Q8 was asked. (See chart next page.)
The number of aircraft and number of passengers using the Hong Kong Airport is 80% of
two-runway London Heathrow Airport. Cargo handled were half of the designed capacity.
Experts have found other ways to increase air traffic movement capacity such as adding air
routes, terrain removal of two hills in Northeastern Lantau and to replace a new air traffic
control system. Such enhancement measures would be less expensive than building the
third runway and has far less impact to the environment.
Table)31))Q8.)
,
Do)you)agree)that)“The)
Airport)Authority)should)focus)on)improving)the)efficiency)of)current)runways)and)should)
not)consider)building)a)new)runway)before)our)current)runways)are)fully)utilized?)“)
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
145
270
114
31
57
%
24
44
18
5
9
27
Chart)of)Table)31))Q8.)
,
Do)you)agree)
that)“The)Airport)Authority)should)focus)on)improving)the)efficiency)of)current)runways)
and)should)not)consider)building)a)new)runway)before)our)current)runways)are)fully)
utilized?)“)
No Comment (9%)
Strongly Disagree (5%)
Strongly Agree (24%)
Disagree (18%)
Agree (44%)
A strong majority of women preferred increases in efficiency over added runways at this
time, while a slightly less strong majority of men concurred. The differences by age (Table
33, chart next page) also were less than with previous questions.
Table)32))Agree)focus)on)improving)runway)efficiency)BY)Sex)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
Male
24
39
23
7
7
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
15.19 with
4
Female
23
48
15
3
11
100
total
24
44
19
5
9
100
df p = 0.0043
Table)33))Agree)focus)on)improving)runway)efficiency)BY)Age)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
18-20
25
53
13
4
6
100
table contents: percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
58.09 with
24
21-30
41
44
9
1
4
100
31-40
25
51
17
2
5
100
41-50
28
40
15
9
6
100
51-60
19
42
26
6
6
100
61-70
15
43
17
5
20
100
71-90
12
46
24
3
15
100
total
24
44
18
5
9
100
df p = 0.0001
28
Chart)of)Table)33))Agree)focus)on)improving)runway)efficiency)BY)Age) )
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
Table)34))Agree)focus)on)improving)runway)efficiency)BY)Education)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No Comment
total
0 to
P6
13
7-9
F1-F3
18
10-12
F4-F6
23
13-15
Some univ
26
16 University
grad
29
17-18
Post-grad
19
total
35
20
6
46
18
6
47
20
2
51
12
4
42
19
5
36
19
19
44
19
5
26
100
13
100
8
100
7
100
5
100
6
100
9
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
54.96 with
20
24
df p ≤ 0.0001
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
Even a majority of the highest income group (along with all other income groups) agrees that
efficiency gains should come prior to expansion.
29
Table)35))Agree)focus)on)improving)runway)efficiency)BY)Family)income)
None
Strongly Agree
Agree
20,00029,999
25
30,00039,999
23
40,00059,999
27
60,00099,999
35
100,000+
total
11
<500019,999
24
19
24
50
23
43
15
47
20
44
17
44
19
36
14
37
29
43
19
3
3
1
7
3
10
12
5
13
14
7
8
7
5
3
8
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Comment
total
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
35.16 with
24
df p = 0.0661
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
100,000+
60,000-99,999
40,000-59,999
30,000-39,999
20,000-29,999
<5000-19,999
None
0
Having considered a number of aspects regarding the building of the third runway, and being
provided with additional details on various options, the final question of the survey asked the
respondents, having taken into account the various issues raised in the survey, whether they
thought the government should withdraw the proposal. About a third of respondents wanted
to government to proceed with building the third runway despite costs, impacts or
alternatives while a majority, 57%, supported withdrawal of the current proposal.
30
Table)36)Q9.)
Overall,)do)you)agree)that)the)Hong)Kong)Government)should)withdraw)the)third)
runway)project)after)considering)all)above)factors?)
Group
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
Count
116
237
158
54
52
%
19
38
26
9
8
No Comment
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Table)37)Agree)HK)Government)should)withdraw)3rd)runway)project)BY)Sex)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
19.08
with
4
Male
20
32
31
12
6
100
Female
18
44
21
6
10
100
total
19
38
26
9
8
100
df p = 0.0008
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
Male
Female
total
31
Those under age 50 were most strongly in support of withdrawal.
Table)38)Agree)HK)Government)should)withdraw)3rd)runway)project)BY)Age)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No Comment
total
18-20
19
51
21
4
6
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
55.08 with
24
21-30
43
37
15
3
3
100
31-40
19
41
24
8
8
100
41-50
17
42
25
12
4
100
51-60
15
36
31
10
8
100
61-70
15
29
29
11
16
100
71-90
15
37
25
7
15
100
total
19
38
26
9
8
100
df p = 0.0003
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-90 total
Only those with post-graduate education or less than Primary 6 education showed majorities
disagreeing with withdrawing the proposal. (Chart next page.)
Table)39)Agree)HK)Government)should)withdraw)3rd)runway)project)BY)Education)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No
Comment
total
0 to
P6
10
7-9
F1-F3
15
10-12
F4-F6
13
13-15
Some univ
24
16 University
grad
26
17-18
Post-grad
16
total
26
25
15
43
26
6
47
25
7
36
27
6
39
23
9
19
39
19
38
25
9
25
10
8
7
4
6
8
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
60.47 with
20
19
df p ≤ 0.0001
32
Table)39)Agree)HK)Government)should)withdraw)3rd)runway)project)BY)Education)
)
100
No Comment
90
80
Strongly Disagree
70
Disagree
60
Agree
50
40
Strongly Agree
30
20
10
total
17-18 Post-grad
16 University grad
13-15 Some univ
10-12 F4-F6
7-9 F1-F3
0 to P6
0
There was, for the first time, no significant difference among respondents on this issue by
income level.
The first two questions of the survey raised issues of rule of law and coordination with
mainland authorities. These are currently regarded as polarizing issues in Hong Kong. The
rule of law is often pitted in popular media against mainland influence. However, in the case
of the third runway, there is far less polarization than might be expected. Table 40, for
example, shows that among those who disagree on withdrawing the proposal (those who
support the government, that is), over a third support waiting for the court to decide. And
among those who support withdrawal, only 18% also do not want to wait for the court case to
be settled. A measure of how responses to one question align with responses to another,
Spearman rank correlation, shows a rather weak correlation among the responses (Spearman
rank correlation 0.519). If all who disagreed on withdrawal also disagreed on delay, the
Spearman correlation would be 1.
Table)40))Correlation)of)Q1)Agree)delay)for)court)decision)BY)Agree)withdraw)proposal)
Agree withdraw
Agree delay
83
Disagree delay 18
total
100
Disagree withdraw
36
64
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
115.6 with
1
df p ≤ 0.0001
total
65
35
100
Similarly, on Question 2, those who disagree on withdrawal (pro-government supporters)
actually show only slightly fewer who also say an agreement with mainland authorities on air
route conflicts is needed first. And those who support withdrawal show just 19% who
33
disagree on Hong Kong-mainland China agreement coming first. Spearman rank correlation
is slightly stronger than with Question 1, but not by much (Spearman rank correlation 0.578).
The usually strongly polarized groups disputing priority of “rule of law” over Mainland
China considerations, in the case of the third runway, show much more willingness to solve
various outstanding issues, whether they concern letting local courts proceed or whether it
involves Hong Kong authorities negotiating with mainland authorities. This indicates that
criticism of the third runway would likely be less subjected to political pressures from Hong
Kong-Mainland China disputes, if submitted to the Legislative Council, than might be
expected. The disagreement over the third runway appears to be more focused on the
funding arrangements and whether alternatives have been fully examined and issues properly
settled.
Table)41))Correlation)of)Q2)Agree)on)agreement)with)China)authorities)on)air)route)
conflicts)first)BY)Agree)withdraw)proposal)
Agree agreement needed
Disagree agreement needed
total
Agree withdraw
81
19
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
128.8 with
1
Disagree withdraw
32
68
100
total
64
34
100
df p ≤ 0.0001
34
Demographics)
Gender)
Group Count %
Male
281
46
Female 336
54
Education)BY)Gender)
Years Male Female
0-6
6
15
7-9
10
13
10-12 24
23
13-15 14
12
16
39
32
17-18 6
4
total 100
100
total
11
12
23
13
36
5
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
15.04 with
5
df p = 0.0102
Gender)distribution)by)Education)level)
Male
Female
total
0 to
P6
26
74
100
7-9 F1F3
40
60
100
10-12 F4F6
46
54
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
15.04 with
5
Age)
Group
18-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-90
Count
53
68
59
127
140
86
59
13-15 Some
univ
49
51
100
16 University
grad
51
50
100
17-18 Postgrad
55
45
100
total
46
54
100
df p = 0.0102
%
9
11
10
21
24
15
10
)
35
What)is)your)educational)standard)?)What)year)of)schooling)did)you)finish?)
)
EJFU
3J R SUNPFU n l d
UNPFU (
UNPFU )
UNPFU
UNPFU
UNPFU ,
UNPFU 7( .
7) /
7 0
7
B: 7RUP
(V EJFU a i (
7, B: 7RUP
8UFI F J a c q w v g r p ((
7- B: 7RUP , (V EJFU a e () 9NLM HMRR LUFI F J
7. B: 7RUP . 8UFI F J B4 8UFI F J C C NYJUVN 7UJVMPF
:D6 r p (
C NYJUVN (V EJFU
RSMRPRUJ l o t u f (
C NYJUVN ) I EJFU
NRU
l b o t u f (,
C NYJUVN 8UFI F J
lrp
m r p (=FV JU 5JLUJJ s r p (.
M5% 5JLUJJ h r p (/
4R
((
)
)
.
,
.
0
,-
a
((.
))
,)
(
(,
)
%
%
(
(
(
(
(
0
(
(0
/
)
)
)(/
).
(
)
Recoded)Education)(used)for)analysis))
8UR S
$.$0
( $()
( $(,
((.$(/
4R
-0
.)
(
/(
)(/
(
((
()
)
(
,
Distribution)of)Education)level)by)Age)
(/$)
$.$0
( $()
( $(,
((.$(/
R F
,(
/
)
(
)($
(
(
(
.)
(
FG J HR J V1 JUHJ
4MN$VT FUJ 2 )-,%
($
)
/
(0
(
,(
(
(
($,
(
).
()
0
0
(
R 4R P BR F
NM
I S
,($.
)(
)(
(
%
-($.
)/
()
(
()
(
.($0
(
,
.
)0
(
R F
((
()
)
(
,
(
(
36
Ages)by)Level)of)Education)
0 to P6
(/$)
)($
($
)
($,
,($(,
-($.
.($0
(
R F
(
FG J HR J V1
4MN$VT FUJ 2
7-9 F1-F3
10-12 F4-F6
(0
(
,
.
/
(0
),
(
))
(,
((
)
(
(
JUHJ R 4R P BR F
)-,%
NM
13-15 Some univ
16 University grad
)((
/
(0
(/
(
,
(
)
)
(
)
))
.
/
(
I S
%
4R
-)
0
(
(
)
,
(
0
.
.
))
(
(0
.
(
(
What)is)your)approximate)monthly)family)income?)
8UR S
R J
JVV MF
,
,
0 000
(
( 000
(,
(0 000
)
) 000
),
)0 000
000
,
0 000
0 000
,
,0 000
-0 000
.
.0 000
/
/0 000
0
00 000
(
F I S
J VJ R F V JU
R F
0
()
(
))
)
(,
(
(
17-18 Post-grad
)
(
(
)
,
,
/
,
/
(
,
)
)
(
(
(
,0
(
()
((
,0
/-
Recoded)Monthly)Family)Income)
Group
Count %
None
62
12
<$5,000-19,999 86
16
$20,000-29,999 81
15
$30,000-39,999 86
16
$40,000-59,999 99
19
$60,000-99,999 58
11
$100,000+
59
11
)
)
37
Income)BY)Age)group)
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60
None
0
2
0
1
7
<$5,000-19,999 27
10
15
6
17
$20,000-29,999 18
15
16
16
18
$30,000-39,999 16
22
13
19
20
$40,000-59,999 18
35
31
22
11
$60,000-99,999 11
10
7
22
11
$100,000+
9
7
18
14
17
total
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square = 258.0 with
36
df p ≤ 0.0001
61-70
25
29
16
10
16
3
1
100
71-90
64
19
6
10
0
0
2
100
total
12
16
16
16
19
11
11
100
Income)distribution)BY)Education)level)
None
0-6
7-9
1012
1315
16
1718
total
20,00029,999
11
15
36
30,00039,999
6
11
37
40,00059,999
1
9
19
60,00099,999
0
3
16
100,000+
total
32
15
16
<500019,999
26
20
26
0
2
7
11
11
24
11
14
7
16
14
17
12
13
26
0
14
1
30
1
28
2
53
4
53
10
63
17
37
5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
table contents: Percent of Column Total
Chi-square =
181.3 with
30
df p ≤ 0.0001
38