See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283330448

Understanding Travel Constraints Among the Elderly in Hong Kong: A

Comparative Study of the Elderly Living in Private and in Public Housing

Article  in  Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · October 2015

DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2015.1084975

CITATIONS READS

30 503

3 authors:

Kam Hung Xue Bai

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
80 PUBLICATIONS   2,520 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   720 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jiaying Lu
Zhejiang University
20 PUBLICATIONS   992 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

cruise tourism View project

Chengdu Mental Health Project (CMHP) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xue Bai on 13 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing

ISSN: 1054-8408 (Print) 1540-7306 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20

Understanding Travel Constraints among the

Elderly in Hong Kong: A Comparative Study of the
Elderly Living in Private and in Public Housing

Kam Hung, Xue Bai & Jiaying Lu

To cite this article: Kam Hung, Xue Bai & Jiaying Lu (2015): Understanding Travel Constraints
among the Elderly in Hong Kong: A Comparative Study of the Elderly Living in Private and in
Public Housing, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2015.1084975

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1084975

Published online: 29 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wttm20

Download by: [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] Date: 11 November 2015, At: 03:59
 Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2015
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 1054-8408 print / 1540-7306 online
DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2015.1084975

UNDERSTANDING TRAVEL CONSTRAINTS AMONG

THE ELDERLY IN HONG KONG: A COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF THE ELDERLY LIVING IN PRIVATE AND
IN PUBLIC HOUSING
Kam Hung
Xue Bai
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015

Jiaying Lu

ABSTRACT. This study aims to test the influence of constraints on travel of the elderly in Hong
Kong and to compare perceived travel constraints of Hong Kong seniors in public and in private
housing based on the hierarchical leisure constraints model. Face-to-face questionnaire interviews were
conducted from December 2013 to April 2014. A total of 415 participants completed the interview
successfully. Despite sharing the similar factor structure of the leisure constraints model, the two
groups varied significantly in travel behavior, six constraint items, and seven regression paths.

KEYWORDS. Travel constraints, seniors, Hong Kong, public housing

INTRODUCTION will decrease gradually from 12% in 2011 to

The world population is rapidly aging, and
the Hong Kong population is not exempt from
this trend. The aging population (aged 65 years
and over) in Hong Kong is expected to continue
to surge over the next two decades and reach
30% by 2041 because of declining fertility and
longer life expectancy (Hong Kong Census and
Statistics Department, 2012a). For the same
period, the Hong Kong Census and Statistics
Department (2012a) also projected that the pro-
portion of the population under 15 years of age
9% in 2041. The increasingly aging population
has been a concern of the Hong Kong govern-
ment and a number of efforts have been
initiated to help the elderly age successfully.
For instance, the community support services
offered by non-government organizations
(NGOs) supervised by the Social Welfare
Department, such as the “district community
centers for the elderly”, “neighborhood centers
for the elderly”, and “social centers for the
elderly”, provide leisure activities to meet the
leisure needs of the elderly. Moreover, the

Kam Hung is Associate Professor, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR (E‑mail: kam.hung@polyu.edu.hk).
Xue Bai is Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong SAR (E‑mail: xuebai@polyu.edu.hk).
Jiaying Lu is Associate Professor, Department of Tourism Management, Zhejiang University, China
(E‑mail: jiaying_lu@zju.edu.cn).
Address correspondence to: Jiaying Lu, Department of Tourism, Zhejiang University, Administration
building 605-3, Zijin'gang campus, 310058 Hangzhou, China.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Ada Lam, Sofia Yau, Irene Choi, Rico Leung, and Karl
Chau for their assistance with the data collection.
1
 2 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Elderly Commission also launched an “Elder
Academy”, which has a wide network of pri-
mary and secondary schools, and even univer-
sities, to provide lifelong learning for older
people. Despite these efforts, the relatively
high depression and suicide rates among the
elderly in Hong Kong indicate the need to re-
evaluate the effectiveness of existing service
policies for the elderly, including leisure
services.
The elderly, who have deficiencies in various
aspects of life, such as deteriorating health,
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
deceased significant others, neglect of family
members, and lack of financial support, may
find adapting to life in old age difficult.
Problems such as depression, suicide, and life
dissatisfaction are more likely to occur if these
needs of the elderly are not addressed. Although
the elderly (aged 60 years and over) comprise
21.2% of the total population in Hong Kong
(Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department,
2014a), Hong Kong has a relatively high sui-
cide rate among the elderly (Chiu et al., 2004).
Therefore, Yip et al. (2003) referred to the
elderly in Hong Kong as a high-risk group and
urged all parties to invest extra effort to help the
elderly in need. In a comparative study on hap-
piness among the elderly (Chan & Lee, 2006),
the elderly who reside in Beijing were happier
than their counterparts in Hong Kong. The
elderly in Hong Kong were also found to
experience high emotional distress and to only
have access to small networks. Tsai, Chung,
Wong, and Huang (2005) compared the preva-
lence of and risk factors for the depressive
symptoms among the elderly residents of nur-
sing homes in Taiwan and Hong Kong. They
found that the elderly in Hong Kong show sig-
nificantly more depressive symptoms than those
in Taiwan. Yip and Tan (1998) compared sui-
cide behaviors in Hong Kong and Singapore
and revealed that among the elderly in both
cities the suicide rates increased with age at
approximately four to five times the average
rate. The authors highlighted the need to
address not only the economic and health-
related well-being of the elderly, but also their
emotional and psychological requirements.
Therefore, promoting positive aging and help-
ing the elderly live life to the full are essential
tasks of elderly care service departments. Well-
structured community services are necessary to
help the elderly cope in their communities.
Community services include not only traditional
social welfare services, but also leisure and
travel services.
The Housing Authority in Hong Kong pro-
vides public rental housing for families on low
incomes, and 45.8% of the population live in
public housing (Hong Kong Census and
Statistics Department, 2014b). The majority of
the elderly in Hong Kong experience financial
problems because of the lack of retirement plans
and protection. According to recent statistics
(Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department,
2012b), the total proportion of the elderly popu-
lation (aged 60 years and over) in Hong Kong is
nearly 20%. However, 38% of them live in
public housing provided by the government
because of financial constraints (GovHK,
2014). This number is estimated to increase as
the proportion of elderly people in the popula-
tion increases. A projected increase in nuclear
families will result in more old persons living
alone, contributing to the rising demand in pub-
lic housing for the elderly (Chi & Chui, 1999).
Therefore, more attention should be paid to the
well-being of the elderly who live in public
housing to help them achieve life satisfaction
in old age. To help the elderly in public housing
achieve healthy aging through travel, we should
first understand the constraints posed by travel,
the status quo of travel behavior among the
elderly in public housing, and the relationship
between various constraints and travel behavior
of the elderly.
Certain studies (see for example Chi &
Chou, 2000; Chou & Chi, 2001) investigated
the effects of financial strain on depressive
symptoms among the elderly in Hong Kong,
and found that the experience of financial
strain can cause depression. This finding
implies that older people living in public
housing may be more likely to be depressed
because of their financial constraints.
However, whether the elderly with a different
economic status will be constrained in the
same way with regard to travel is unclear.
Such information is important in arranging
travel services for the elderly in Hong Kong,
 Hung, Bai, and Lu
as the needs of the elderly may not be homo-
geneous because of their different profiles.
Several researchers have determined that the
travel constraints of the elderly are signifi-
cantly influenced by their socio-economic
conditions (Dong & Chick, 2012; Nimrod,
2008; Nyaupane & Andereck, 2008). By con-
trast, others have suggested that these socio-
economic variables are less effective determi-
nants of the travel constraints of seniors, who
may receive support and care from their chil-
dren (Hsu & Kang, 2009). The current study
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
provides empirical evidence to compare the
travel constraints of the elderly living in pub-
lic housing and those living in private hous-
ing. This study is expected to help policy
makers identify the factors that inhibit travel
among the elderly living in different types of
housing. Using this information, travel service
can be offered accordingly to different groups
of the elderly to enhance their satisfaction in
later life. Understanding the travel constraints
of the elderly residing in public housing in
Hong Kong may clarify the travel behaviors
of the elderly living in other countries who
experience the same economic disadvantages.
Future studies may perform cross-cultural
comparisons to enhance our knowledge
regarding this topic in the international con-
text. This study serves as a stepping stone in
such a direction.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Leisure Constraints
Leisure constraints have served as important
“lenses” which have helped us understand lei-
sure behavior (Godbey, Crawford, & Shen,
2010). They refer to factors that prevent people
from forming leisure preferences, engaging in
various leisure activities, and enjoying leisure
experiences (Jackson, 2005). Crawford and
Godbey (1987) first introduced the hierarchical
leisure constraint theory, which was later
expanded by Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey
(1991) and Jackson, Crawford, and Godbey
(1993). The theory posited that leisure con-
straints can be reduced to three categories (i.e.
3
intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural),
which are encountered in a sequential manner.
Leisure participation can be achieved only when
each constraint level is successfully negotiated.
According to Crawford et al. (1991), the most
powerful constraints are intrapersonal because
they shape the leisure preferences of indivi-
duals, and also account for their will power.
These constraints refer to the internal psycholo-
gical states and attributes, such as lack of inter-
est, stress, depression, anxiety, religiosity, and
self-efficacy. Interpersonal constraints are often
the result of social interaction, social obliga-
tions, and the inability to find partners to parti-
cipate in the desired activity. Interpersonal
issues affect both preferences and participation.
Finally, structural constraints are perceived
externally and reflect time, availability, and
resources that facilitate the participation of an
individual in a desired activity. Structural con-
straints interrupt the relationship between lei-
sure preferences and activity participation
(Jackson, 1993).
Since its inception, the hierarchical leisure con-
straints model has served as a theoretical frame-
work in numerous leisure and tourism studies
(Godbey et al., 2010; Hung & Petrick, 2010;
Lai, Li, & Harrill, 2013; Nyaupane & Andereck,
2008). Overall, previous work has provided pre-
liminary support for the existence of the three
distinct categories, although the importance of
items and dimensions varies significantly depend-
ing on the situations and/or study population
(Funk, Alexandris, & Ping, 2009; Hung &
Petrick, 2010; Lee & Tideswell, 2005;
Nyaupane, Morais, & Graefe, 2004; Pennington-
Gray & Kerstetter, 2002). Furthermore, mixed
findings were reported regarding the linear hier-
archical order of constraints (Gilbert & Hudson,
2000; Samdahl & Jekubovich, 1997; Walker,
Jackson, & Deng, 2007).
A body of research that considered the con-
straint differences based on socio-demographic
factors, such as gender, age, life stage, income,
education, and cultural background, has
emerged in the past decade. Shaw, Henderson,
and Jackson (2005) suggested that females are
more constrained than males in their leisure
lives, particularly by intrapersonal constraints.
Nyaupane and Andereck (2008) revealed the
 4 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
difference in structural constraints of cost and
time by age group for leisure travelers.
Alexandris and Carroll (1997) found that the
perception of all three constraint dimensions
were significantly higher among less-educated
than educated individuals regarding participa-
tion in recreational sports. These findings were
consistent with the results of Dong and Chick
(2012). They investigated leisure constraints in
six Chinese cities, and found that income was
positively related to constraints including lack
of money and transportation. The results also
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
highlighted that perceived constraints must be
understood in a cultural context. Walker et al.
(2007) also found significant differences in lei-
sure constraints between Canadian and main-
land Chinese university students. These results
indicate that major constraints may be experi-
enced differently across the general population.
Travel Constraints of the Elderly
Although travel constraints have been
actively studied in tourism, relatively little
investigation has been conducted into the con-
straints specific to seniors (Kazeminia, Del
Chiappa, & Jafari, 2015). Blazey (1992)
reported that health, energy, disability, and a
perception of age appeared to constrain the
retired traveler from the United States (US).
To discern the differences between Canadian
older adults who travel and those who do not,
Zimmer, Brayley, and Searle (1995) showed
that age, education, and number of mobility
problems were salient constraints affecting tra-
vel. Fleischer and Pizam (2002) noted that time
and income were determinants of travel deci-
sions of Israeli seniors with travel constraints. In
particular, increasing time and income as one
approaches retirement increased the number of
vacation trips and their duration. Decreased
income after retirement along with a decreased
health status reduced vacation travel. Similarly,
Nyaupane, McCabe, and Andereck (2008)
revealed that American seniors aged 75 years
and over were mainly constrained by health
issues, whereas the younger age group
(59 years old or younger) was more constrained
by money and time. These studies confirmed
that the senior market is not heterogeneous in
vacation behavior. In a qualitative study of tra-
vel perceptions of retirees in the US conducted
by Nimrod (2008), diverse constraints on the
ability of retirees to travel were identified,
such as limited income, health limitations, car-
egiving burden, and lack of traveling partners.
Based on a content analysis of narratives of
seniors on Tripadvisor, Kazeminia, Del
Chiappa, and Jafari (2015) suggested that intra-
personal causes have little effect on the travel
decisions of seniors. Interpersonal barriers
(absence of partners) can hinder the preference
and likelihood of seniors to travel, whereas
structural barriers such as lack of money can
result in modification of travel patterns. Based
on a study of travel behavior of seniors in
Taiwan, two key constraints were identified,
namely lack of travel capacity and lack of sui-
table travel suppliers (Huang & Tsai, 2003). For
Japanese seniors, the main reason for not travel-
ing is lack of time. Lee and Tideswell (2005)
explored the travel restraints of Korean seniors,
and found that their own beliefs and perceptions
of others about being “too old” to travel acted
as a psychological barrier to travel, although
real physical, financial, and practical constraints
were few. In a survey of Chinese seniors,
Xiang, Banning-Taylor, Alexander, and Picton
(2014) identified five constraints relating to
international travel, namely own factors, exter-
nal factors, habits, consumer attitudes, and
safety concerns. Own factors (i.e. health condi-
tions, economic conditions, hobbies, and leisure
time) were ranked as the most salient barriers.
Overall, existing studies tend to focus more on
the constraints of travel frequency and duration
than travel destination preference. Research
conducted in developed countries showed that
Westerners were more susceptible to structural
barriers (e.g. time, budget, mobility), whereas
their Asian counterparts reported more intraper-
sonal (e.g. feeling guilty) or interpersonal (find-
ing a partner) reasons as the main barriers. The
literature has not thoroughly addressed the
effect of housing conditions on the travel con-
straints and travel patterns of seniors. The Hong
Kong Census and Statistics Department (1995)
reported that the percentage of expenditure on
travel was the same for residents in private and
 Hung, Bai, and Lu
in public housing. However, compared with the
occupants of public housing, private housing
residents spend more money on foreign trips.
Choi and Tsang (2000) conducted a market
segmentation study of outbound travel exclu-
sively among the Hong Kong private housing
residents. The results provided a profile of these
travelers by activity type (i.e. sightseeing, out-
door sports, entertainment and outdoor activ-
ities, and visiting of friends/relatives). Reece
(2004) investigated the differences between
senior and non-senior travelers and concluded
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
that housing type (e.g. house, apartment, and
mobile home) affected the leisure travel demand
of the aging population. Another research indi-
cated that seniors living in houses were signifi-
cantly more likely to travel to South Carolina
for leisure than those living in other types of
housing. To recapitulate, although the number
of studies on travel constraints has increased,
research conducted into the constraints that may
prevent seniors from traveling is limited.
Participating in leisure activities has long been
identified as an effective way to improve life
satisfaction in later life (Chen, 2001; Nimrod,
2008). Understanding travel, which is a type of
leisure activity, particularly among those whose
resources are scarce, is likely to help plan ser-
vices to improve these individuals' well-being in
later life. They lack retirement plans and suffer
from deteriorating health because of financial
disadvantages. Understanding the travel con-
straints and behaviors of the elderly living in
public housing compared with their private
housing counterparts may help them achieve
life satisfaction in old age. The systematic ana-
lysis of travel constraints of Asian seniors using
the typology from the hierarchical model of
leisure constraints is likely to facilitate the
understanding of travel of the elderly and the
difficulties that they encounter. Based on such
an analysis, corresponding policies and assis-
tance can be offered to the elderly in need.
Moreover, significant variability of constraints
exists based on socio-demographic factors. Few
studies have explored the linkage between
housing conditions and travel constraints.
Thus, the purposes of this study is to test the
influence of constraints on travel among the
elderly in Hong Kong and to compare perceived
5
travel constraints between Hong Kong seniors
in public and in private housing based on the
hierarchical leisure constraints model. The fol-
lowing null hypotheses (Hs) were proposed and
tested in the current study:
H1: There is no significant difference in the
perceived travel constraints between
seniors living in public housing and
seniors living in private housing.
H2: There is no significant difference in the
travel behaviors between seniors living
in public housing and seniors living in
private housing.
H3: There is no significant difference in the
influence of travel constraints on the
travel behaviors of seniors living in pub-
lic housing and seniors living in private
housing.
RESEARCH METHODS
A purposive sampling strategy was used to
recruit elderly respondents from both public and
private housing. Invitation letters were either
e-mailed or posted to a number of District
Community Centers for the Elderly (DECCs),
Neighborhood Centers for the Elderly (NCEs),
and other institutions related to aging. Four
DCCEs and NCEs and one institute from the
three districts of Hong Kong (i.e. Hong Kong
Island, Kowloon, and New Territories) agreed
to participate in the study. The liaison person
from the participating center provided assis-
tance in contacting the participants for face-to-
face on-site administration of the survey. The
primary inclusion criteria for the selection of
participants included (1) ≥ 60 years of age, (2)
being a resident of Hong Kong at the time of
the survey, and (3) possessing unimpaired cog-
nitive abilities.
A questionnaire was designed for the pur-
pose of this study. It comprised a set of socio-
demographic items relating to the participants,
an instrument to assess the travel constraints
of the participants, and questions about their
 6 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
travel behavior in the past year and over the
last three years. The respondents were asked
to report their socio-demographic characteris-
tics, such as age, gender, educational level,
employment status, type of housing, and
health status. Educational attainment was mea-
sured according to their level of schooling,
ranging from no formal education, primary
education only, secondary education years
1–3, secondary education years 4–7, to higher
diploma or above. Their employment status
was measured according to whether they
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
were working full-time or part-time, whether
they were students, retirees, homemakers, or
“other”. The type of housing was measured
according to whether they were living in a
public or a private flat. Medication status
(i.e. need medication or not) and self-care
capabilities (i.e. completely capable, need
some assistance, fully dependent on others)
were used to assess their health status.
An adapted version of Constraints of Cruising
Scale developed by Hung and Petrick (2010) was
used to assess travel constraints because of its
satisfactory reliability and validity. As the original
scale was developed to measure constraints in
cruising, the wording of several items was mod-
ified to better serve the measuring purpose of this
study. The scale was translated from English into
Chinese with the assistance of a bilingual scholar.
In particular, this measure includes four factors,
namely “intrapersonal constraints” (e.g. I cannot
travel because I am in poor health), “interpersonal
constraints” (e.g. I experience difficulty in finding
someone to accompany me on my travel), “struc-
tural constraints” (e.g. I cannot travel because of
family obligations), and “not an option” (e.g.
Traveling is not part of my family’s lifestyle).
Twenty-two items were included in the measure
with seven items in the “intrapersonal constraints”
dimension, four items in “interpersonal con-
straints”, six items in “structural constraints”,
and five items in “not an option”. The respondents
were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed
or disagreed with the reasons we provided, and
their responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree).
Measure of travel behavior in the tourism
literature is inconsistent. In the review of travel
behavior measures used in the past, Chow and
Murphy (2011) identified two common issues in
these measures: (1) travel intention has fre-
quently been used to predict travel behavior,
and (2) domestic travel is measured most fre-
quently to evaluate actual travel behavior.
Different scales of measurement were also
used by different scholars including a dichoto-
mous scale (Baloglu & Shoemaker, 2001), a 3-
point categorical scale (Kelly, 1980), a 5-point
Likert scale (Inbakaran, Jackson, and Zhang
(2007), a 6-point categorical scale (Ajzen &
Driver, 1991), a 7-point scale (Ryu & Han,
2010), and a 9-point semantic differential scale
(Pizam & Calantone, 1987). To avoid different
interpretations of point scales in this study, the
respondents were asked to report the actual
number of trips (both local and outbound trips)
that they had taken in a year, as well as over the
last three years. The respondents were asked to
recall the trips they had made in each category.
Other measures of travel behavior were incor-
porated into the questionnaire to gain a holistic
understanding of the elderly in public and in
private housing. These variables include travel
purpose, companion, travel mode, duration,
expenditure, and transportation. To facilitate
the understanding of the elderly using these
measures, four measurement scales (i.e.
“never”, “seldom“, “sometimes”, and “always”)
were used based on the results of the pilot test.
Verbal consent to participate in the study was
sought from all respondents after they had read
the information sheet describing the purpose of
the study. We decided to conduct face-to-face
questionnaire interviews rather than self-admi-
nistered questionnaire surveys because many
older respondents either have poor vision or
have received hardly any education. To ensure
that the wording of the questionnaire and the
manner in which each question was structured
were appropriate for obtaining an understanding
of older people, 15 pilot interviews were con-
ducted prior to the major round of data collec-
tion. We observed the facial expressions and
reactions of the participants while they
responded to our questions. Based on our obser-
vations, we made some minor but necessary
amendments to the questionnaire. Five under-
graduate students from the Faculty of Health
and Social Sciences at a university in Hong
 Hung, Bai, and Lu
Kong assisted in the data collection. After sev-
eral rounds of training, they were all clearly
informed of the objectives and purposes of the
study before they went to collect the data.
Meetings and supervision sessions were fre-
quently held during the course of data collection
from December 2013 to April 2014. About 520
eligible participants were approached, but only
415 participants with less than 5% of responses
missing completed the interview successfully.
The data analyses were conducted using
SPSS 20 and AMOS 20. Frequency and
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
descriptive analyses were first conducted to
understand socio-demographic characteristics
and health status of the respondents, as well as
to identify their travel constraints, travel beha-
vior, and life satisfaction. An independent-sam-
ple t-test in SPSS and invariance testing in
structural equaltion modeling (SEM) were
further conducted to test the measurement and
model difference between the elderly partici-
pants living in public and in private flats.
FINDINGS
Descriptive statistics were first performed to
understand the demographics of the elderly in
both private and public housing (Table 1).
Although a comparison of the sampling charac-
teristics with population census is desirable, no
available statistics can be found for comparison.
Nevertheless, the following description reflects
the profile of the elderly in both public and
private housing in this current study. Although
the average age of the elderly in public and in
private housing was similar (72.46 years old for
public housing and 69.66 years old for private
housing), the gender distribution of the two
groups was different. More females (63.2%)
from public housing were recruited, whereas
more males (60.6%) were represented in the
private housing data. Just as in public housing
(57.5%), most respondents living in private
housing were retired (73.7%). More home-
makers were reported among the elderly in pub-
lic housing (34.2%) than in private housing
(13.9%). In general, the education level among
the elderly in private housing was higher than
that of their counterparts in public housing. The
7
number of illiterate elderly people in public
housing (51.3%) was much higher than that of
those living in private housing (20.4%). With
regard to education, less than 1% of elderly
people living in public housing had a higher
diploma or above, whereas 27% of the elderly
living in private housing were educated to this
level. Despite these differences, the majority of
elderly people living in public and in private
housing needed to take medication on a regular
basis, although the percentage among the
elderly in public housing (65.8%) was higher
than that in private housing (54%). Although
most elderly people in both groups were fully
capable of living on their own without help
from others, the proportion was higher in pri-
vate housing (94.9%) than in public hous-
ing (88.6%).
For the construct of travel constraints, the
study adopted the measurement scale developed
by Hung and Petrick (2010) because of its
satisfactory reliability and validity. Considering
that the original measure was developed to mea-
sure the constraints regarding cruising, the mea-
surement items were modified to respond to the
context of this study. Some items were deleted
because to their low contribution to the factor
structure based on factor loadings, resulting in a
12-item factor structure for travel constraints in
this study. A four-factor structure was derived in
the final measure of travel constraints, and three
measurement items were retained in each factor.
The reliability and validity of constraint mea-
surement scales were tested with the data from
public housing, private housing, and all the
elderly. In all cases, the Cronbach’s alphas of
all constructs were larger than 0.7, demonstrat-
ing satisfactory reliability of the measurement
scale of travel constraints (Table 2). Given that
a factor loading (1.005) greater than 1 was
observed for the constraint item “Can’t travel
because I have a low activity capacity”, further
checking was conducted to examine if an item
is abnormal in the construct. According to
Jöreskog (1999, p. 1), “a common misunder-
standing is that the coefficients in the comple-
tely standardized solution must be smaller than
one in magnitude and if they are not, something
must be wrong. However, this need not be so.”
Although a negative residual variance of the
 8 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 1. Comparison of Demographic and Travel Characteristics of the Elderly Living in Public
and in Private Housing

Frequency Percentage (%) Average

All Public Private All Public Private All Public Private

housing housing housing housing housing housing

Housing type (228) (187) (55) (45)

Age (years) 71.39 72.46 69.66
Gender
Male 191 84 83 46 36.8 60.6
Female 224 144 54 54 63.2 39.4
Employment status
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015

Working 25 12 13 6 5.3 9.5

Part-time 9 6 1 2.2 2.6 .7
Student 5 1 3 1.2 .4 2.2
Retired 268 131 101 64.6 57.5% 73.7
Homemaker 25.8 78 19 25.8 34.2 13.9
Educational background
None 160 117 28 38.6 51.3 20.4
Primary school 119 85 22 28.7 37.3 16.1
F1–3 secondary school 66 33 15.9 8.3 24.1
F4–7 secondary school 25 16 6 2.2 11.7
Higher diploma/Above 44 2 37 10.6 .9 27.0
Medication status
Take medication 257 150 74 61.9 65.8 54
No medication 158 78 63 38.1 34.2 46
Need help from others or
independent
Fully independent 377 202 130 90.8 88.6 94.9
Partly helped by others 35 23 7 8.4 10.1 5.1
Fully dependent 3 3 0 .7 1.3 0
Travel behavior
Number of trips taken in one year (before recording) 1.32 1.17 1.65
Number of trips taken in three years (before recording) 3.35 2.96 4.09
Number of trips taken in one year (after recording) 2.15 1.98 2.48
Number of trips taken in three years (after recording) 3.18 1.49 3.71

corresponding item signified an inappropriate
factor model for the data, a positive residual
variance greater than one factor loading was
acceptable (Jöreskog, 1999). The residual var-
iance of the measurement item was found to be
positive in the current study.
Travel behavior was mainly measured
according to frequency of travel, with other
supplementary measures including travel pur-
pose, companion, travel mode, duration, expen-
diture, and transportation. For frequency of
travel, the respondents were asked to report
the number of their trips, both locally and inter-
nationally, in one year and three years respec-
tively. In the aggregated data, the elderly took
1.32 trips in a year and 3.35 trips in three years
(see Table 1). The data were recorded on a 5-
point Likert scale for two reasons: (1) to ensure
the consistency of the data as the definition of
frequent travel may vary among the elderly, and
(2) to be compatible with SEM for model test-
ing. After data recording, “1” refers to “no
trips,” “2” refers to “one trip”, “3” refers to
“two trips”, “4” refers to “three trips”, and “5”
refers to “four or more trips” . The Cronbach’s
alphas of travel behavior construct in aggre-
gated public and private housing data were all
above 0.7, demonstrating satisfactory reliability
of the measurement.
The convergent validity of measurement
scales was assessed with the predictive power
of each item on its assigned factors by using
 Hung, Bai, and Lu 9

TABLE 2. Final Measurement Scales

Measures All Public housing Private housing

Cronbach’s Factor Mean Cronbach’s Factor Mean Cronbach’s Factor Mean

alpha loading alpha loading alpha loading

Travel constraints
Intrapersonal .888 .878 .925
Can’t travel because I am in poor .947 2.55 .929 2.80 .947 2.14
health (C2)
Can’t travel because I have low .992 2.51 1.005 2.73 .992 2.15
activity capacity (C3)
Can’t go on long travels because .639 2.53 .614 2.70 .639 2.30
of sea sickness/motion
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015

sickness (C4)
Interpersonal .795 .829 .808
Hate dining with unfamiliar .774 2.53 .845 2.49 .774 2.55
people who are on the same
tour (C8)
Difficult to find someone to .780 2.55 .800 2.59 .780 2.42
accompany me (C9)
Cannot communicate well with .710 2.67 .729 2.69 .710 2.55
strangers (C11)
Structural .767 .740 .792
Difficult to find time to travel .821 2.39 .888 2.34 .821 2.39
(C12)
Cannot travel because of my job .758 2.11 .712 2.08 .758 2.10
(C13)
Cannot travel because of family .611 2.33 .520 2.23 .611 2.37
obligations (C14)
Not an option .891 .881 .909
My family and friends do not .690 3.00 .650 3.21 .690 2.53
travel (C20)
Traveling is never a leisure .952 2.77 .959 2.93 .952 2.49
activity option for me (C21)
Traveling is not part of my .941 2.90 .934 3.05 .941 2.61
family’s lifestyle (C22)
Travel behavior .810 .793 .783
Number of trips taken in one year .899 2.15 .911 1.98 .899 2.48
Number of trips taken in three .751 3.18 .771 1.49 .751 3.71
years

t-tests (Bollen, 1989). All items in the final
measure had statistically significant contribu-
tions to their underlying construct, suggesting
adequate convergent validity of the measure-
ment scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Marsh
& Grayson, 1995). The correlations among the
constructs were further examined to establish
the discriminant validity of measurement scales.
Table 3 shows less than 0.85 correlations
among the constructs for aggregated public
and private housing data, implying satisfactory
discriminant validity of the measures (Kline,
2005).
An independent sample t-test was con-
ducted on the final measures to understand
the differences between the elderly living in
public and in private housing. The results are
shown in Tables 4 and 5. The descriptive
statistics of public and private housing sug-
gested that both groups of the elderly did not
encounter many constraints in their travel. In
fact, among the 12 travel constraint items,
only two constraint items (C20 and C22)
scored more than 3 for the elderly in public
housing, whereas all constraints scored under
3 among the elderly in private housing. This
 10 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

result suggests that the elderly in Hong Kong,

1
5
regardless of which type of housing they live

−.541***
in, are not constrained much in their travel.

1
4
The independent sample t-test further tested
the differences among these constraint mea-
Private housing

.333***
−.315***
sures between the elderly living in public and

1
3
in private housing. Six constraint items (C2,
C3, C4, C20, C21, and C22) performed sig-

.784***
.504***
−.335***
nificantly differently between the groups. The
1
2

elderly living in public housing were more

constrained regarding travel than the elderly
living in private housing.
.621***
.355***
.425***
−.323***
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015

The results of the independent sample

1

t-test suggested a statistically significant dif-

ference between the two groups of elderly
1
5

people in terms of their travel frequencies

TABLE 3. Correlations of Final Measurement Scales

in both one year (t = 2.356, α = 0.019) and

−.556***

three years (t = 2.612, α = 0.009). The

1
4

elderly living in private housing tended to

Public housing

be more active travelers than those living in

−.074
.033
1
3

public housing with a higher total number of

trips taken in both the one-year (public hous-
.214***
−.240***

ing = 1.17; private housing = 2.96) and the

−.137
2

three-year durations (public housing = 1.65;

private housing = 4.09). However, the local
.323***

and outbound trips statistics revealed a dif-

.115*

−.150*
.124
1

ferent picture. The elderly in public housing

took more local trips than their private hous-
Note. *Test result significant at .05 level; ***test result significant at .01 level.

ing counterparts (1 year: t = 2.472,

1
5

α = 0.014; 3 years: t = 3.369, α = 0.001),

−.569***

whereas the elderly living in private housing

1
4

traveled outside Hong Kong more frequently

than the elderly living in public housing
(1 year: t = –5.226, α = 0.000; 3 years:
−.114***
.112*

t = –5.600, α = 0.000).
1
3
All

Additional independent sample t-tests were

performed on the other measures of travel beha-
.333***
.342***
−.277

vior, and the results revealed both similarities

2

and differences between the groups

(see Table 5). More of the elderly in private
.469***

.285***
−.247***

housing were motivated to travel for fun

.039
1

(t = –5.600, α = 0.000), work (t = –2.287,

α = 0.023), shopping/sightseeing (t = –2.823,
Intrapersonal constraints
Interpersonal constraints

α = 0.005), religious purposes (t = –2.418,

Structural constraints

α = 0.016), and study exchange (t = –2.404,

α = 0.017) than their counterparts in public
Travel behavior
Not an option

housing. However, no difference was observed

Measures

between the groups in terms of visiting friends/

relatives as the travel purpose. Compared with
the elderly living in public housing, the elderly
 Hung, Bai, and Lu 11

TABLE 4. Final Measurement Scales

Measures Public housing Private housing Independent

samples t-test

Mean Standard Mean Standard t Signifficance

deviation deviation

Travel constraints
Intrapersonal
Can’t travel because I am in poor health (C2) 2.80 1.338 2.14 1.189 −4.925 .000
Can’t travel because I have low activity 2.73 1.309 2.15 1.210 −4.348 .000
capacity (C3)
Can’t go on long travels because of sea sickness/ 2.7 1.307 2.30 1.251 −2.927 .004
motion sickness (C4)
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015

Interpersonal
Hate dining with unfamiliar people who are on the 2.49 1.105 2.55 1.137 .562 .574
same tour (C8)
Difficult to find someone to accompany me (C9) 2.59 1.262 2.42 1.199 −1.228 .220
Cannot communicate well with strangers (C11) 2.69 1.218 2.55 1.271 −1.000 .318
Structural
Difficult to find time to travel (C12) 2.34 1.248 2.39 1.165 .396 .693
Cannot travel because of my job (C13) 2.08 1.109 2.10 .965 .171 .865
Cannot travel because of family obligations (C14) 2.23 1.228 2.37 1.118 1.123 .262
Not an option
My family and friends do not travel (C20) 3.21 1.203 2.53 1.092 −5.560 .000
Traveling has never been a leisure activity 2.93 1.282 2.49 1.079 −3.518 .000
option for me (C21)
Traveling is not part of my family’s lifestyle (C22) 3.05 1.241 2.61 1.140 −3.433 .001
Travel behavior
Number of trips taken in one year (T1) 1.17 1.887 1.65 1.865 2.356 .019
Number of trips taken in three years (T3) 2.96 3.914 4.09 4.223 2.612 .009

living in private housing were more likely to
travel with their spouse (t = –6.404, α = 0.000),
children/family (t = –2.847, α = 0.005), and
colleagues (t = –2.509, α = 0.013), and tended
to choose the “transportation + hotel” package
(t = –4.883, α = 0.000) or arrange trips on their
own (t = –3.435, α = 0.001). With regard to
travel duration, more of the elderly living in
public housing went on day trips (t = 3.799,
α = 0.000), whereas more of the elderly in
private housing took longer holidays (five days:
t = –4.521, α = 0.000: six days: t = –2.259,
α = 0.025; seven days or more: t = –7.246,
α = 0.000). Similar patterns were observed in
travel expenditure, in which the elderly living in
public housing tended to spend less than the
elderly living in private housing (HK$ 100–
HK$ 500: t = 4.725, α = 0.000; HK$ 4001 or
more: t < ˗3, α < 0.01). Finally, the elderly
living in private housing were more likely to
travel by plane than the elderly living in public
housing (t = –10.796, α = 0.000), but their
usage of other modes of transportation remained
similar.
Invariance testing in SEM was adopted to
test the measurement and model difference
between the elderly living in public and in
private housing (Figure 2). The test was per-
formed in the analysis of moment structures
(AMOS). Constructing a baseline model is a
prerequisite for invariance testing across the
two groups. To accomplish this task, the struc-
tural model was first tested with the pooled
sample. Root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA) (0.083), normed fit index (NFI)
(0.920), and comparative fit index (CFI) (0.939)
indicated that the hypothesized model had an
acceptable fit for the aggregated data. The base-
line model was then tested separately with the
public and private housing groups. RMSEA
 12 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 5. Comparing Travel Behaviors of the Elderly Living in Public and in Private Housing

Measures All Public housing Private housing Independent samples

t-test

Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard t Significance

deviation deviation deviation

Number of trips taken

Number of local trips taken in 0.51 1.283 0.65 1.442 0.35 1.038 2.472 0.014*
one year
Number of local trips taken in 1.22 2.529 1.58 2.856 0.78 1.981 3.369 0.001***
three years
Number of outbound trips taken 0.80 1.245 0.52 1.108 1.14 1.318 −5.226 0.000***
in one year
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015

Number of outbound trips taken 2.13 3.062 1.37 2.596 3.04 3.333 −5.600 0.000***
in three years
Travel purpose
Fun 2.86 1.386 2.53 1.470 3.25 1.162 −5.576 0.000***
Work 1.07 0.402 1.03 0.228 1.12 0.540 −2.287 0.023*
Visiting friends/relatives 1.61 1.110 1.55 1.079 1.69 1.145 −1.286 0.199
Shopping/Sightseeing 1.91 1.303 1.75 1.250 2.11 1.341 −2.823 0.005***
Religious 1.11 0.470 1.05 0.292 1.17 0.616 −2.418 0.016*
Study exchange 1.04 0.257 1.01 0.093 1.07 0.366 −2.404 0.017*
Others 1.03 0.268 1.04 0.295 1.02 0.231 0.518 0.605
Travel companion
Alone 1.25 0.776 1.31 0.872 1.18 0.636 1.761 0.079
Spouse 2.19 1.413 1.80 1.292 2.66 1.414 −6.404 0.000***
Friends 1.66 1.169 1.59 1.136 1.74 1.205 −1.259 0.209
Children/Family 1.79 1.238 1.64 1.170 1.98 1.293 −2.847 0.005***
Colleagues 1.11 0.499 1.05 0.347 1.18 0.630 −2.509 0.013*
Strangers 1.02 0.254 1.03 0.280 1.02 0.219 0.409 0.683
Other 1.04 0.345 1.07 0.420 1.02 0.219 1.550 0.122
Travel mode
All inclusive 2.16 1.391 2.06 1.370 2.29 1.408 −1.732 0.084
Transportation + hotel package 1.30 0.848 1.11 0.535 1.53 1.074 −4.883 0.000***
Own arrangements 1.88 1.314 1.68 1.230 2.13 1.374 −3.435 0.001***
Other 1.03 0.289 1.03 0.280 1.04 0.300 −0.389 0.697
Travel duration
Day trip 1.65 1.142 1.84 1.258 1.43 0.938 3.799 0.000***
2 days 1.34 0.821 1.37 0.884 1.29 0.736 0.989 0.323
3 days 1.33 0.859 1.38 0.928 1.27 0.764 1.322 0.187
4 days 1.28 0.779 1.21 0.708 1.36 0.852 −1.895 0.059
5 days 1.59 1.130 1.36 0.922 1.87 1.289 −4.521 0.000***
6 days 1.19 0.656 1.12 0.550 1.27 0.759 −2.259 0.025*
7 days or more 1.47 1.037 1.14 0.582 1.88 1.296 −7.246 0.000***
Travel expenditure (HK$)
100–500 1.60 1.159 1.82 1.299 1.32 0.887 4.725 0.000***
501–1000 1.36 0.884 1.43 0.957 1.28 0.781 1.778 0.076
1001–2000 1.22 0.702 1.20 0.671 1.26 0.739 −0.856 0.393
2001–3000 1.16 0.612 1.12 0.558 1.20 0.671 −1.223 0.222
3001–4000 1.14 0.581 1.10 0.508 1.19 0.658 −1.470 0.143
4001–5000 1.21 0.725 1.10 0.517 1.35 0.899 −3.328 0.001***
5001–6000 1.15 0.621 1.05 0.341 1.28 0.828 −3.556 0.000***
6001–7000 1.15 0.621 1.06 0.388 1.27 0.805 −3.273 0.001***
7001–8000 1.07 0.426 1.00 0.000 1.16 0.624 −3.397 0.001***
8001–9000 1.10 0.498 1.02 0.209 1.21 0.691 −3.645 0.000***
>9000 1.34 0.932 1.05 0.395 1.70 1.230 −6.919 0.000***
Transportation
Coach 2.12 1.382 2.16 1.412 2.06 1.347 0.690 0.490

(Continued )
 Hung, Bai, and Lu
TABLE 5. (Continued)
All Public housing
Measures
Mean Standard Mean
deviation
Plane 2.18 1.411 1.57
Cruise 1.10 0.468 1.07
Ferry/Boat 1.19 0.636 1.18
Cycling 1.01 0.163 1.01
Other 1.14 0.588 1.12
Notes. *Test result significant at .05 level; *** test result significant at .01 level.
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
(public housing: 0.079; private housing: 0.083),
NFI (public housing: 0.909; private housing:
0.920), and CFI (public housing: 0.945; private
housing: 0.939) consistently suggested that the
model had an acceptable fit for each sample
group. This result implied a similar factor struc-
ture across the two groups of public and private
housing these elderly people live in. Therefore,
the hypothesized model provided a basic struc-
ture for the subsequent invariance tests.
Following the baseline model confirmation,
invariance testing was performed on all struc-
tural and measurement coefficient estimates (β)
to examine if the regression paths performed
equivalently across the public and the private
housing groups the elderly live in. All regres-
sion paths in the public housing group were
first forced to be invariant with the private
housing group in the test, and the correspond-
ing change of chi-square and degree of free-
dom (df) was recorded. The two groups
significantly vary from each other in their
regression paths (Δχ2 = 61.957; Δdf = 12).
Therefore, subsequent efforts were made to
identify which path(s) caused the variance.
Each regression path was forced to be invariant
across the two groups, and the change of chi-
square and degree of freedom was recorded
accordingly. As a result, seven regression
paths were found to be variant across the two
groups, as follows: (1) travel constraints →
travel behavior (Δχ2 = 21.372; Δdf = 1); (2)
structural constraints → travel constraints
(Δχ2 = 4.907; Δdf = 1); (3) not an option →
travel constraints (Δχ2 = 9.182; Δdf = 1); 4)
“Can’t afford long time traveling because of
13
Private housing Independent samples
t-test
Standard Mean Standard t Significance
deviation deviation
1.114 2.93 1.381 −10.796 0.000***
0.392 1.14 0.544 −1.562 0.119
0.612 1.20 0.665 −0.442 0.659
0.199 1.01 0.103 0.153 0.878
0.565 1.16 0.616 −0.556 0.579
sea sickness/motion sickness” → intrapersonal
constraints (Δχ2 = 4.33; Δdf = 1); 5) “Hate
dining with unfamiliar people who are on the
same tour → interpersonal constraints
(Δχ2 = 6.868; Δdf = 1); 6) “Difficult to find
time to travel → structural constraints
(Δχ2 = 6.974; Δdf = 1); and (7) “Cannot travel
because of family obligations” → structural
constraints (Δχ2 = 7.019; Δdf = 1).
Table 6 and Figure 1 record the test results
across public and private housing. Both simi-
larities and differences are reflected in the
results presented in the Table and the Figure.
Although the majority of the regression paths
in the tested model were not variant across the
two groups, the data also revealed some dif-
ferences in the two groups on seven regres-
sion paths. Although the standard regression
weight of “structural constraints → travel
constraints” was negative among the public
housing group (β = −0.050; t = −0.562), posi-
tive value was found in the private housing
group (β = 0.758; t = 5.654). Additionally, the
standardized regression weights of “travel
constraints → travel behavior” of the public
housing group (β = −0.780, t = −3.704) was
approximately twice that in the private hous-
ing group (β = −0.396; t = −3.653), indicating
that the travel behavior of the elderly living in
public housing was more affected by their
travel constraints than the travel behavior of
their private housing counterparts. Additional
investigation of the study results suggested
that the variance of travel behavior of the
elderly living in public housing was as high
as 60.8% and was explained by travel
 14 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 6. Hypothesis Test Results

Regression paths Pooled data Public housing Private housing Invariance

testing

Standard Critical Standard Critical Standard Critical Δχ2 Δdf

path ratio path ratio path ratio
coefficient (t-value) coefficient (t-value) coefficient (t-value)

Travel constraints → Travel behavior −.690 −6.567 −.780 −3.704 −.396 −3.653 21.372 1
Structural constraints → Travel constraints .218 3.164 −.050 −.562 .758 5.654 4.907 1
Not an option → Travel constraints .737 6.219 .704 2.572 .539 4.793 9.182 1
Can’t go on long travels because of sea .639 16.152 .614 11.266 .755 12.598 4.33 1
sickness/motion sickness (C4) →
Intrapersonal Constraints
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015

Hate dining with unfamiliar people who .774 12.683 .845 10.729 .764 8.101 6.868 1
are on the same tour (C8) →
Intrapersonal constraints
Difficult to find time to travel (C12) → .821 10.568 .888 6.229 .752 7.979 6.974 1
Structural constraints
Cannot travel because of family .611 10.568 .520 6.229 .776 7.979 7.019 1
obligations (C14) → Structural
constraints

FIGURE 1. Tested Model

C2 C3 C4 C8 C9 C11 C12 C13 C14 C20 C21 C22

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Structural Not an option

constraints constraints constraints

β = .533 (3.364) β = .218 (3.164)

β = .444 (3.219) β = .737 (6.219)

Travel
constraints

β = –.690 (–7.336)

Travel
behavior

T1 T3

Notes. t-values are stated in parenthesis; public: public housing; private: private housing. The full forms of measurement
items are available in Table 4.
 Hung, Bai, and Lu 15

FIGURE 2. Invariance Testing

C2 C3 C4 C8 C9 C11 C12 C13 C14 C20 C21 C22

Public: β = .614 (11.266) Public: β = .845 (10.729) Public: β = .888 (6.229) Public: β = .520 (6.229)
Private: β = .755 (12.598) Private: β = .764 (8.101) Private: β = .752 (7.979) Private: β = .776 (7.979)

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Structural Not an option

constraints constraints constraints

Public: β = –.050 (–.562)

Private: β = .758 (5.654)

Public: β = .704 (2.572)

Private: β = .539 (4.793)

Travel
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015

constraints

Public: β = –.780 (–3.704)

Private: β = –.396 (–3.653)

Travel
behavior

T1 T3

Notes. t-values are stated in parenthesis; the bold paths are significantly different across the two groups (public housing
versus private housing). The full forms of measurement items are available in Table 4.

constraints, whereas a variance of travel beha- were found between public rental tenants and
vior of only 15.7% was explained by travel the rest of the population. The discrepancies
constraints among the elderly living in private have increased over decades, and the public
housing. housing group had a lower social economic
status than its private housing counterpart.
As for travel behaviors, the study results
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS indicate that housing type has an important
influence on travel behaviors. More specifically,
This study sought to gain a deeper under- elderly people living in private housing are
standing of how housing types are related to more likely to take more outbound trips and
the travel constraints and travel behavior of the fewer local trips, travel for fun, go shopping/
elderly in Hong Kong. Identifying travel con- sightseeing, go on a religious and study
straints of seniors was considered to be essential exchange, travel with their spouse, children/
for the quality of life of the older population. family, and colleagues, choose “transportation
With respect to sample demographics, our ana- + hotel” package or arrange their own trips, take
lyses suggest that the informants living in pub- longer holidays, spend more money on travel,
lic and in private housing are largely and travel by plane. This finding was consistent
homogeneous except for education level and with Reece (2004), revealing that housing type
employment status. According to the Hong serves as an important predictor of travel
Kong Census and Statistics Department (2011, demand among seniors. He suggested that hous-
2006, 2001), significant differences in educa- ing type may represent unmeasured income
tion, employment, income, and place of birth derived from homeowner equity. This finding
 16 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
was also different from the finding of Hsu and
Kang (2009), who found that income was a less
effective market segment variable of Chinese
mature travelers, as children were expected to
provide for the well-being of their parents. To
promote outbound travel among the elderly in
public housing, low-cost travel services may be
provided to entice the elderly to visit neighbor-
ing cities in Pearl River Delta such as
Guangzhou, Macao, and Foshan.
Through a factor analysis, four types of tra-
vel constraints were identified in this study. The
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
first three categories were the leisure constraint
typologies described by Crawford et al. (1991).
The fourth category, “not-an-option”, repre-
sented antecedent constraints, which was related
to a general lack of interest in travel. These
types of constraints were also identified in pre-
vious research (Hung & Petrick, 2012; Lu &
Campbell, 2008). By testing the constraint beha-
vior model, this study provided further evidence
of the influence of travel constraints on actual
travel frequency, which was consistent with pre-
vious research (Fleischer & Pizam, 2002; Funk
et al., 2009). The four dimensions systemati-
cally categorized the 12 constraint items for
easy analysis of the difficulties that the elderly
encountered in travel. Although the elderly from
both public and private housing were not con-
strained much with regard to travel, the overall
influence of constraints on travel in both groups
was statistically significant. This result was par-
ticularly true for the elderly who lived in public
housing, and whose travel was mainly affected
by the “not-an-option” constraint. To be speci-
fic, travel was more likely to be a habit and
lifestyle among family and friends of the elderly
in private housing, which facilitated the latter's
travel decisions, whereas travel was less likely
among the elderly living in public housing
because of their disadvantaged economic stand-
ing and the high expenses involved in travel.
In order to cultivate the travel habit among the
elderly living in public housing, travel exhibitions
or gatherings within the community may be
offered to promote the benefits of travel and entice
them to join tours with their families/friends, who
may also receive benefits (e.g. discounted price).
Additionally, social activities may be provided for
eldery residents in public housing prior to, during,
and after trips to help them find a suitable travel
partner. Some local tours are organized by travel
agencies; however, the meeting places are incon-
venient for the elderly with health or mobility
concerns. In this case, a pick-up service can be
provided for the elderly to facilitate their travel.
Moreover, tour itineraries should be comprehen-
sively reviewed with the input of elderly people to
determine if the current tour products satisfy their
particular needs. The travel needs of the elderly in
Hong Kong, particularly those living in low-
income districts, have not been extensively
explored. Therefore, whether the needs of the
elderly in Hong Kong differ from those of their
Western counterparts and whether their needs can
be met by existing tour services remains
unknown. Qualitative methods will be useful in
gauging the preliminary understanding of the tra-
vel needs of the elderly. In their study on senior
travelers in Québec, Hung and Petrick (2009, p.
670) concluded that “traditional group tour for-
mula in which a large number of travelers are
packed in a bus and follow the exact itinerary
with limited flexibility might not be applicable
in today’s marketplace”. In contrast to the stereo-
types of images of the elderly, the elderly in
today’s marketplace may seek a unique travel
experience that provides educational and learning
opportunities. Tours with flexibility and privi-
leged access to restricted areas, such as the back-
stage of theaters, are usually appreciated. Further
studies must be conducted to determine if Asian
senior travelers have the same pursuits in their
travel experience.
Using invariance testing, the efficacy of the
constraint behavior model was compared between
seniors in public and private housing. The model
fit was acceptable for the individual data, as well
as pooled data. This result further verified the
applicability of the hierarchical model to the
elderly in the Asian context. Both invariance test-
ing and independent sample t-test revealed simi-
larities and differences between the two groups.
Despite sharing the similar factor structure of the
hypothesized model, the two groups varied sig-
nificantly in travel behavior, six constraint items,
and seven regression paths. The results were con-
sistent with other studies, confirming that senior
markets were not homogeneous (Hsu & Kang,
2009). Given the different circumstances, elderly
 Hung, Bai, and Lu
people living in public and in private housing are
distinct with regard to the type of travel con-
straints they encounter. For instance, at measure-
ment factor level, structural constraints had more
of an influence on the overall constraints in the
private housing group, whereas “not-an-option”
had more of an influence on the overall constraints
in the public housing group than in the private
housing group. Interestingly, structural constraints
contributed negatively to the overall experience of
travel constraints of the elderly in public housing.
In other words, as the elderly in public housing
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
encountered fewer structural constraints, they
were likely to experience more overall travel con-
straints. A further investigation using a qualitative
approach such as interviews may help to discover
the reasons underlying this phenomenon.
However, the two groups also shared similarities
in their interpersonal constraints and structural
constraint items, as well as some regression
paths in the hypothesized model. Therefore, the
heterogeneity of the elderly should be interpreted
with caution, and the heterogeneity should not be
over generalized to all dimensions of the travel
constraints of elderly without considering all the
details. To design travel services for elderly peo-
ple with different profiles, considering both simi-
larities and differences among the elderly and
customizing the services to the elderly in need
are important.
Although travel constraints explained 60.8%
variance of travel behavior among the elderly in
public housing, the explanation power was weak
in the context of private housing with only
15.7% variance explained. The results show
that the travel behavior of the elderly living in
public housing is more affected by their travel
constraints than the travel behavior of their pri-
vate housing counterparts. This result may sug-
gest that elderly people living in private housing
are more capable of adopting constraint negotia-
tion strategies than their public housing counter-
parts. Given the potential interrelationship
between motivation, constraint, negotiation, and
participation, to understand the influence of con-
straints on the travel behavior of seniors requires
the investigation of all these factors (Hubbard &
Mannell, 2001; Jackson, 2005). Previous studies
suggested other influencing variables of travel
behavior such as travel motivation (Kim &
17
Chalip, 2004), travel experience (Petrick, 2004),
and perceived value (Duman & Mattila, 2005).
Hung and Petrick (2012) applied the motivation–
opportunity–ability (MOA) model in cruise deci-
sion making, incorporating constraints as one of
three key factors in travel motivation and self-
efficacy into the alternative decision-making
model. The integration of constraints with other
variables may enhance our understanding of tra-
vel behavior of the elderly, and help to explain
more variance of travel behavior among the
elderly.
CONCLUSION
The Hong Kong population is aging, and
this trend will continue over the next few
decades. Previous studies noted that problems
of depression and suicide are prevalent among
the elderly in Hong Kong. As such, the need
to re-examine the effectiveness of existing
services is necessary, particularly in leisure
services that can decrease these problems and
increase quality of life. Participating in leisure
activities including travel has long been iden-
tified as an effective method to improve life
satisfaction. This study aimed to examine con-
straints on travel and travel behavior of the
elderly living in both public and private hous-
ing. The comparison between the elderly in
public housing and those living in private
housing revealed not only heterogeneity, but
also similarities between the two groups. By
applying the leisure constraint models in an
Asian context, this study clarified the con-
straints on travel the elderly experience and
the improvements needed in service providers
to better meet the needs of the elderly.
This study has several limitations. Firstly, the
interviews could have been conducted with the
elderly living in both public and private housing
prior to implementing the survey. The integra-
tion of qualitative and quantitative approaches
would further serve to refine the constraint
items and increase the context specificity of
the measure. Secondly, this study only investi-
gated the travel constraints of the elderly with-
out examining other factors that may influence
their travel behaviors. Hence, future studies
 18 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
could analyze these unexplored factors (e.g.
travel needs, motivations, and cognitive ages)
to gain a holistic understanding of travel in later
life. Nevertheless, this study is the first attempt
to understand the travel behaviors of the elderly
living in low-income districts.
FUNDING
This work was supported by The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University [grant numbers A-PK55 and G-YM03]
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1991). Prediction of leisure
participation from behavioral, normative, and control
beliefs: An application of the theory of planned beha-
vior. Leisure Sciences, 13(3), 185–204. doi:10.1080/
01490409109513137
Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (1997). Demographic differ-
ences in the perception of constraints on recreational sport
participation: Results from a study in Greece. Leisure
Studies, 16(2), 107–125. doi:10.1080/026143697375449
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural
equation modeling in practice: A review and recom-
mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,
103(3), 411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Baloglu, S., & Shoemaker, S. (2001). Prediction of senior
travelers’ motorcoach use from demographic, psycho-
logical, and psychographic characteristics. Journal of
Travel Research, 40(1), 12–18. doi:10.1177/
004728750104000103
Blazey, M. A. (1992). Travel and retirement status. Annals
of Tourism Research, 19(4), 771–783. doi:10.1016/
0160-7383(92)90066-X
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent
variables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Chan, Y., & Lee, R. P. (2006). Network size, social sup-
port and happiness in later life: A comparative study of
Beijing and Hong Kong. Journal of Happiness Studies,
7(1), 87–112. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-1915-1
Chen, C. (2001). Aging and life satisfaction. Social
Indicators Research, 54(1), 57–79. doi:10.1023/
A:1007260728792
Chi, I., & Chou, K.-L. (2000). Financial strain and depres-
sive symptoms among Hong Kong Chinese elderly: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Gerontological Social
Work, 32(4), 41–60. doi:10.1300/J083v32n04_05
Chi, I., & Chui, E. (1999). Ageing in Hong Kong.
Australasian Journal on Ageing, 18(2), 66–71.
doi:10.1111/aja.1999.18.issue-2
Chiu, H., Yip, P., Chi, I., Chan, S., Tsoh, J., Kwan, C., &
Caine, E. (2004). Elderly suicide in Hong Kong–A
case-controlled psychological autopsy study. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 109(4), 299–305.
doi:10.1046/j.1600-0447.2003.00263.x
Choi, W. M., & Tsang, C. K. L. (2000). Activity based
segmentation on pleasure travel market of Hong Kong
private housing residents. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 8(2), 75–97. doi:10.1300/J073v08n02_06
Chou, K.-L., & Chi, I. (2001). Financial strain and depres-
sive symptoms in Hong Kong elderly Chinese: The
moderating or mediating effect of sense of control.
Aging & Mental Health, 5(1), 23–30. doi:10.1080/
13607860020020609
Chow, I., & Murphy, P. (2011). Predicting intended and
actual travel behaviors: An examination of Chinese
outbound tourists to Australia. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 28(3), 318–330. doi:10.1080/
10548408.2011.563166
Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing
barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9(2),
119–127. doi:10.1080/01490408709512151
Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A
hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences,
13(4), 309–320. doi:10.1080/01490409109513147
Dong, E., & Chick, G. (2012). Leisure constraints in six
Chinese cities. Leisure Sciences, 34(5), 417–435.
doi:10.1080/01490400.2012.714702
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective
factors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tourism
Management, 26(3), 311–323. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2003.11.014
Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (2002). Tourism constraints
among Israeli seniors. Annals of Tourism Research,
29(1), 106–123. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00026-3
Funk, D. C., Alexandris, K., & Ping, Y. (2009). To go or
stay home and watch: Exploring the balance between
motives and perceived constraints for major events: A
case study of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(1), 41–
53. doi:10.1002/jtr.v11:1
Gilbert, D., & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand con-
straints: A skiing participation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27(4), 906–925. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383
(99)00110-3
Godbey, G., Crawford, D. W., & Shen, X. S. (2010).
Assessing hierarchical leisure constraints theory after two
decades. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 111–134.
GovHK. (2014). Hong Kong: The facts. Retrieved
December 12, 2014, from http://www.gov.hk/en/
about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/housing.pdf
Hong Kong Census & Statistics Department. (1995). 1994/
1995 household expenditure survey & the rebasing of
the consumer price indices. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Census and Statistics Department.
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2001). 2001
population census one percent sample dataset. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department.
 Hung, Bai, and Lu
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2006).
2006 population by-census one percent sample dataset.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Census and Statistics
Department.
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2011).
2011 population by-census one percent sample dataset.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Census and Statistics
Department.
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2012a).
Hong Kong population projections 2012-2041.
Retrieved January 4, 2013, from http://www.censtatd.
g o v. h k / pr e s s _r e l e a se / p r e s s R e l e a s e D e t a i l . j s p ?
charsetID=1&pressRID=2990
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2012b).
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
2011 population census: Interactive data dissemination
service. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from http://itable.
censtatd.gov.hk/UI/Report/Report.aspx?lang=en-US
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2014a).
Population by age group and sex. Retrieved
December 12, 2014, from http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/
hkstat/sub/sp150.jsp?tableID=002&ID=
0&productType=8
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2014b).
Population by type of housing. Retrieved December 12,
2014, from http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/srh/
index.jsp
Hsu, C. H., & Kang, S. K. (2009). Chinese urban mature
travelers’motivation and constraints by decision auton-
omy. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(7),
703–721. doi:10.1080/10548400903284537
Huang, L., & Tsai, H.-T. (2003). The study of senior
traveler behavior in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 24
(5), 561–574. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00008-6
Hubbard, J., & Mannell, R. C. (2001). Testing competing
models of the leisure constraint negotiation process in a
corporate employee recreation setting. Leisure Sciences,
23(3), 145–163. doi:10.1080/014904001316896846
Hung, K., & Petrick, J. F. (2009). How do we get baby
boomers and future seniors on motorcoaches? Tourism
Analysis, 14, 665–675.
Hung, K., & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Developing a measure-
ment scale for constraints to cruising. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(1), 206–228. doi:10.1016/j.
annals.2009.09.002
Hung, K., & Petrick, J. F. (2012). Testing the effects of
congruity, travel constraints, and self-efficacy on travel
intentions: An alternative decision-making model.
Tourism Management, 33(4), 855–867. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2011.09.007
Inbakaran, R., Jackson, M. S., & Zhang, J. (2007).
Utilizing the theory of planned behaviour to predict
pro-tourism behaviour in differing segments of
(Australian) rural communities. Paper presented at the
CAUTHE Conference: Past Achievements and Future
Challenges, Sydney, Australia.
19
Jackson, E. L. (1993). Recognizing patterns of leisure
constraints: Results from alternative analyses. Journal
of Leisure Research, 25, 129–129.
Jackson, E. L. (2005). Leisure constraints research:
Overview of a developing theme in leisure studies. In
E. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure. State College,
PA: Venture publishing.
Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1993).
Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 15
(1), 1–11.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coef-
ficient be. The help-file of the LISREL program. Retrieved
December 15, 2014, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lis
rel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.
pdf
Kazeminia, A., Del Chiappa, G., & Jafari, J. (2015).
Seniors’ travel constraints and their coping strategies.
Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 80–93. doi:10.1177/
0047287513506290
Kelly, J. R. (1980). Outdoor recreation participation: A
comparative analysis. Leisure Sciences, 3(2), 129–
154. doi:10.1080/01490408009512931
Kim, N.-S., & Chalip, L. (2004). Why travel to the FIFA
World Cup? Effects of motives, background, interest,
and constraints. Tourism Management, 25(6), 695–707.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.011
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
Lai, C., Li, X., & Harrill, R. (2013). Chinese outbound
tourists’ perceived constraints to visiting the United
States. Tourism Management, 37, 136–146.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.01.014
Lee, S. H., & Tideswell, C. (2005). Understanding atti-
tudes towards leisure travel and the constraints faced
by senior Koreans. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11
(3), 249–263. doi:10.1177/1356766705055716
Lu, J., & Campbell, M. J. (2008). The nature and hetero-
geneity of perceived constraints of using the trans
Canada trail for hiking/walking. Leisure/Loisir, 32(1),
183–201. doi:10.1080/14927713.2008.9651405
Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent variable
models of multitrait-multimethod data. In R. Hoyle
(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues
and applications. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Nimrod, G. (2008). Retirement and tourism themes in
retirees’ narratives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35
(4), 859–878. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2008.06.001
Nyaupane, G. P., & Andereck, K. L. (2008).
Understanding travel constraints: Application and
extension of a leisure constraints model. Journal of
Travel Research, 46(4), 433–439.
Nyaupane, G. P., McCabe, J. T., & Andereck, K. L.
(2008). Seniors' travel constraints: Stepwise logistic
regression analysis. Tourism Analysis, 13(4), 341–
354.
 20 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Nyaupane, G. P., Morais, D. B., & Graefe, A. R. (2004).
Nature tourism constraints: A cross-activity compari-
son. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 540–555.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). Are loyal visitors desired visitors?
Tourism Management, 25(4), 463–470. doi:10.1016/
S0261-5177(03)00116-X
Pennington-Gray, L. A., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2002). Testing
a constraints model within the context of nature-based
tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 40(4), 416–423.
Pizam, A., & Calantone, R. (1987). Beyond psycho-
graphics—Values as determinants of tourist behavior.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 6(3),
177–181. doi:10.1016/0278-4319(87)90052-1
Reece, W. S. (2004). Are senior leisure travelers different?
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 03:59 11 November 2015
Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 11–18. doi:10.1177/
0047287504265507
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Predicting tourists’ intention
to try local cuisine using a modified theory of reasoned
action: The case of New Orleans. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 27(5), 491–506. doi:10.1080/
10548408.2010.499061
Samdahl, D. M., & Jekubovich, N. J. (1997). A critique of
leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and under-
standings. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 430.
Shaw, S. M., Henderson, K. A., & Jackson, E. L. (2005).
Gender analysis and leisure constraints: An uneasy
alliance. In E. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure
(pp. 23–34). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Tsai, Y.-F., Chung, J. W. Y., Wong, T. K. S., & Huang, C.-
M. (2005). Comparison of the prevalence and risk
factors for depressive symptoms among elderly nursing
home residents in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
View publication stats
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20,
315–321. doi:10.1002/gps.1281
Walker, G. J., Jackson, E. L., & Deng, J. (2007). Culture
and leisure constraints: A comparison of Canadian and
mainland Chinese university students. Journal of
Leisure Research, 39(4), 567–590.
Xiang, L., Banning-Taylor, M., Alexander, P. B., & Picton,
C. (2014). Demands and constraints on Chinese elderly
people traveling abroad: Based on a market survey of
middle-aged and elderly people in Beijing. Tourism
Tribune, 29(9), 35–43.
Yip, P. S., Chi, I., Chiu, H., Chi Wai, K., Conwell, Y., &
Caine, E. (2003). A prevalence study of suicide idea-
tion among older adults in Hong Kong SAR.
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(11),
1056–1062. doi:10.1002/gps.1014
Yip, P. S. F., & Tan, R. C. E. (1998). Suicides in Hong
Kong and Singapore: A tale of two cities. International
Journal of Social Psychiatry, 44(4), 267–279.
doi:10.1177/002076409804400403
Zimmer, Z., Brayley, R. E., & Searle, M. S. (1995).
Whether to go and where to go: Identification of impor-
tant influences on seniors’ decisions to travel. Journal
of Travel Research, 33(3), 3–10. doi:10.1177/
004728759503300302
SUBMITTED: March 7, 2015
FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:
July 31, 2015
ACCEPTED: August 14, 2015
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY