Housing Well-being of Young Adults in Guangzhou: Conceptualisation, Characteristics, and Mechanisms

Abstract

Global ubiquitous urban youth housing difficulties have become prominent following the neoliberal turn and the global financial crisis, exacerbating housing inequality and deprivation. Chinese young residents in large cities encounter housing challenges akin to those of their international peers, navigating the complexities of the private rental sector and the constraints on social housing, leading to a growing trend of prolonging their residence with parents into adulthood. The housing issues of young people are closely intertwined with their marital and reproductive choices, settlement arrangements, and states of happiness and health, constituting significant factors affecting their holistic development.

Recognising the youth demographic as a pivotal engine for high-quality development, the professional youth segment has been progressively assimilated into the social housing framework. Nonetheless, existing housing policies and planning exhibit challenges in addressing the youth housing issues. China’s housing policy and planning adhere to a centralised design and local execution model, wherein ineffective policy experimentation yields ongoing policy ambiguities and a propensity for symbolic implementation and goal displacement. Housing policy and planning evaluations predominantly concentrate on broad macroeconomic material and fiscal metrics, which are rudimentary and inadequate for capturing the nuanced essence and varied facets of youth housing. Research centred on youth housing and development has been thus imperative for realising national initiatives such as ‘livable cities for all’ and ‘youth development-oriented cities’, aligning with the forefront of international housing studies.

Amartya Sen, advocates for the Capability Approach, posits well-being as the normative evaluative space for measuring human development, transcending the traditional policy focus on opulence and utility. In the housing domain, prevailing policy evaluations, steered by welfare economics and utilitarianism, have prioritised ‘well-having’ or ‘well-feeling’ rather than ‘well-being’. Applying the capability approach to the housing arena faces dual challenges. First, who and how to derive a set of housing-related-capabilities and -functionings; and second, how to reconcile the traditional and capability-oriented assessments.

Given the theoretical and empirical gaps on the issue of youth housing and related development, this paper took the young adults in Guangzhou as the unit of analysis, constructed an analytical framework for youth housing well-being, and conducted corresponding characteristic and mechanism analyses. The study revolved around three core questions: 1) What constitute the concept of housing well-being as a heuristic tool to understand housing and the related development aspects of young adults, and how could the lists be developed? (Chapter Four); 2) Using housing well-being as a conceptual tool, what are the basic characteristics of housing and related developments of young adults in Guangzhou, China? (Chapter Five); 3) Do housing capabilities of young people affect their housing functionings, which further associate with their developmental functionings? (Chapter Six)

Chapters 4 through 6 addressed the three central research inquiries, respectively. Chapter 4 articulated the operational definition of housing well-being of young adults in Guangzhou (response to the first research question). Chapter 5 examined the characteristics of youth housing and development in response to the second research question. Chapter 6 explored two sets of relationships (response to the third research question): 1) how young adults’ housing capabilities affect their housing functionings and 2) how young adults’ housing situations associates with their development functionings.

The conclusions are as follows:
1) The top-down paradigm of housing policymaking has led to coordination challenges between central mandates and local practices. Symbolic implementation and goal displacement have been observed. A nuanced understanding of the situation and dilemma surrounding youth housing and development has been imperative.

2) The conceptualisation of housing well-being responds to what housing- and development-related capabilities and functionings of young adults in Guangzhou entail. It offers an inclusive and simulated-participatory analytical framework for housing policy and planning, merging traditional and the capability-oriented perspectives.

3) Key findings on the characteristics (with cross-sectional data) of housing well-being: ①Certain vulnerable demographic attributes generally fared poorly in housing well-being and its sub-dimensions. ②Differences in housing well-being between central and peripheral areas were modest. ③Residents of CH, commercial apartments, and social housing have scored higher in housing well-being. Residents of CH/FPH in ORCs and self-built housing in urban villages fared worse, but benefited from their locations.

4) Regarding the housing pathways of young adults in Guangzhou have been categorised into three types, based on diverse personal attributes, parental support, and life statuses.

5) Individual agency within housing capability significantly positively affected all dimensions of housing functioning, whereas personal economic ability notably impacted certain dimensions of housing functioning. The influences of housing capability on housing functioning varied across different types of parental support. There were differentiated correlations between certain dimensions of housing capability and housing functioning, and specific dimensions of development functioning.

6) By adopting a holistic framework that emphasises the interplay of ‘people-housing-land-facility-finance’, the study offers customised housing policy and planning strategies for different youth housing pathways. These include affordable and secure rental options for youth in the Type I housing pathway; differentiated formula for youth in the Type II housing pathway, and personalised support for specific youth in the Type III housing pathway.

The major theoretical contributions are threefold. Firstly, the study derives a normative evaluative framework of housing well-being, advancing the theoretical and empirical discussions pertaining to the application of the CA to the realm of housing. Secondly, the contribution lies in the methodological attempts made to address the conceptualisation and evaluation of housing well-being. Thirdly, the study delves into the characteristics of, and the intricate nexus between housing and development of young adults.

The practical significances are manifested in three principal dimensions. First, delving into the young adults as the unit of analysis, it complements the information base of existing housing policies and planning, which are traditionally focused on the macro level. Second, the research facilitates an equitable and inclusive orientation of housing policy-making that has prioritised (young) talents in key enterprises or public institutions. Third, this article proposes a feasible and locally grounded framework for housing policy-making that strives to facilitate human flourishing with housing policy intervention.

Date of Award	30 Aug 2024
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	City University of Hong Kong
Supervisor	Wanyang HU (Supervisor), Yuting Liu (External Supervisor) & Yung YAU (External Co-Supervisor)