UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA

DOES HONEYCOMB HOUSING

CONFLICT
WITH FENG SUI BELIEFS?
A RANDOM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY IN JOHOR JAYA,
A PREDOMINANTLY CHINESE TOWNSHIP

Mohd Peter Davis, Bukryman Sabri and Nurizan Yahaya

Universiti Putra Malaysia

A Report Commissioned by RENEWED DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

12C Metropolis Tower, Johor Bahru.

Report Published
13 April 2006

Survey Team from UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA at Taman Johor Jaya, 26 March 2006
UNIVERSITI
PUTRA Does Honeycomb Housing conflict
MALAYSIA
with Feng Sui Beliefs?
A random household survey in Johor Jaya,
a predominantly Chinese township

Mohd Peter Davis, Bukryman Sabri and Nurizan Yahaya

Universiti Putra Malaysia
Serdang, Selangor

IN BRIEF Honeycomb Housing is a new Malaysian innovation from Arkitek M. Ghazali in

collaboration with Universiti Putra Malaysia and offers an affordable and
environmentally friendly alternative to terrace housing. It is gaining wide support from
potential house buyers in exhibitions, amongst housing professionals at seminars and
now the Sarawak Government for the Ninth Malaysia Plan. However, Developers are
concerned that the departure from rectangular shaped building lots to triangular
housing compounds, which link up to form hexagonal cul-de-sacs then honeycomb
communities, is too radical and may conflict with Feng Sui beliefs. If true, this cultural
objection may deter Chinese house buyers, a major section of the Housing market. To
test this serious commercial risk a pioneering Developer (Renewed Group based in
Johor Baru) commissioned the University to conduct a random household survey
comparing as fairly as possible a RM220,000 Honeycomb house with an equivalent
RM220,000 Terrace house in a predominantly Chinese township.

The simple and novel 3 day survey of 150 households randomly selected from about
9000 households comprising Johor Jaya, revealed over 1000 potential customers for
the Honeycomb house compared to fewer than 300 for the Terrace house. Although
50% of the Chinese in Johor Jaya agreed that the Honeycomb house conflicted with
Feng Sui beliefs, only 33% said they would consult a Feng Sui expert before buying
such a house. Whilst the Honeycomb house had particular appeal to Malays (84% of
Malays, 56% of Chinese and 58% of Indian respondents preferred the RM220,000
Honeycomb house) there was little resistance amongst the Chinese residents in Johor
Jaya. The potential buyers of the Honeycomb house were 352 Chinese, 364 Malays
and 294 Indians.

The concern of Developers that Honeycomb housing conflicts with Feng Sui is
largely unfounded. The Chinese, Malays and Indians will buy Honeycomb houses
in strong preference to terrace houses.

13 April 2006

Contact: Mohd Peter Davis

Visiting Scientist Office Tel: 603-8946-8545
Institute of Advanced Technology H/p: 012-335-1938
Universiti Putra Malaysia mohd_peter@hotmail.com i
UNIVERSITI
PUTRA Does Honeycomb Housing conflict
MALAYSIA
with Feng Sui Beliefs?

A random household survey in Johor Jaya,

a predominantly Chinese area

Mohd Peter Davis, Bukryman Sabri and Nurizan Yahaya

Universiti Putra Malaysia

INTRODUCTION Universiti Putra Malaysia, in close collaboration with Arkitek M. Ghazali, has recently
published a book “Thermal comfort Honeycomb housing” (1) describing 17 years of
pioneer research to develop an affordable and environmentally friendly alternative to
terrace housing. Cluster houses consisting of 2, 3, 4 or 6 units, rather than long rows of
terrace houses, are arranged like bungalows in a honeycomb pattern around small
neighbourhood parks planted with fruit bearing rainforest trees to shade the roads and
provide food for birds and small wildlife. The honeycomb arrangement, offering the
same or higher density than terrace housing, reduces the roads and through traffic,
discouraging burglary and making the area outside the home much safer for children
and more sociable for the residents. This new Malaysian architectural concept has
been widely presented to housing industry seminars and displayed at Inventors
exhibitions and Home Ownership campaigns. Scientific surveys conducted by UPM at
these events, although they cannot claim to be random, have shown over 90%
acceptance for the Honeycomb concept and a strong demand (80%) amongst potential
house buyers. This new housing form, representing the third wave of Malaysian
housing following traditional kampong housing and post Independence urban terrace
housing, has been accepted by the Sarawak Government for State housing under the
Ninth Malaysia Plan (2).
1
 However almost without fail, Developers have expressed the concern that
Honeycomb housing with its triangular land and sharp angles in parts of the house
conflicts with Feng Sui beliefs and might not be acceptable to Chinese house buyers.
The purpose of this study is not to discuss or question Feng Sui as a cultural belief but to
measure its influence amongst the house buying public. A random household survey
was commissioned by a Johor Developer to determine how strongly Feng Sui beliefs
were held by estimating the acceptability of Honeycomb housing in Johor Jaya, a
predominantly Chinese area. The survey took the form of a preference study comparing,
as fairly as possible, a medium cost Honeycomb house with a Terrace house of the
same price and similar features such as 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and 2 car ports.

METHODS A stratified random survey of 150
Random Survey respondents was performed, selecting
first the housing areas, then the roads
and finally the households to be
interviewed by three teams of
enumerators. Using a street map of Johor
Baru, Taman Johor Jaya (a 15 to 20 year
Township covering 520 hectares selected
by the Developer,Renewed Development
Sdn. Bhd., Registration Number 202807-
H) was divided into eight areas defined by
the major roads. On the first morning of
the survey (24-26 March 2006) three
areas were randomly selected from a tin
containing the name of the area written
on 8 separate pieces of folded paper. The
selection was performed publicly by the
group of 6 female enumerators led by
UPM Lecturer, Bukryman Sabri. In the
same manner 10 roads from each of the
3 areas were randomly selected.
Selecting 5 houses in each road was
performed on site by determining the
number of even numbered houses in
each road and dividing by five. For
example, if the randomly selected road
contained 32 even numbered houses
then every 6th even numbered house
was selected.
If a selected house was clearly not
occupied, the nearest occupied house to
the right was chosen. The 150 selected
houses were letterboxed with a UPM Letter
in English and Malay (see Appendix 1)
describing the purpose of the survey and
requesting the cooperation of the resident.
Together with the letter was an A4 colour
print of a Terrace House and
neighbourhood (appendix 2) designed by
the developer and a separate print of an
equivalent Honeycomb House (appendix 3)
designed by Arkitek M. Ghazali.
Residents of the selected houses
were interviewed, usually outdoors, by 3
teams of enumerators, during 10am to 7pm
on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Where a
resident of the selected house was
unwilling to be interviewed or not at home
after a few visits, the house to the right was
selected then if still no response the house
to the left. This second round of random
selection was more difficult for the
enumerators since the residents were ‘cold’
and did not have the benefit of a prior
reading of the letter and house
descriptions.
2
 Interview The three survey teams worked in pairs and introduced themselves as the UPM Housing
Techniques Survey team. Generally, the teams were met with a favourable response, especially if
the residents had already studied the UPM material. Respondents were shown a set of 8
A3 colour prints, describing in more detail the features of the Terrace House versus the
Honeycomb House (appendix 4) The enumerators, skilled in survey techniques and
knowledgeable on the new housing technology, were allowed to brief the respondents
and answer clarification questions but were instructed not to “sell” the new Honeycomb
concept.
The respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire in English (appendix 5) or
Malay (appendix 6) consisting of demographic data and 24 statements by ticking the
appropriate box:- Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly disagree.

Statistical Back at UPM, the responses to the questionnaire statements were punched into a
Analysis of standard SPSS computer program “Statistical Package for the Social Sciences”. A
Questionnaires
Sample printout of the results is given (appendix 7). Further cross tabulation analysis
and t-tests were performed within the same statistical package.

RESULTS & The purpose of a random survey is to
DISCUSSION minimise the number of people that need
Random Survey
to be surveyed in a given population. The
results obtained from this small sample
can then be applied to the whole
population, thereby greatly reducing the
amount of work and expense to obtain
the desired objective. A random survey is
the highest form of sampling but can only
be conducted where the population is
fixed, such as the residents in a housing
area, the workers in a factory or the staff
and students in a university (2). Earlier
UPM surveys to determine the
acceptability of Honeycomb housing were
conducted in exhibitions where it is not
possible to carry out a random survey
since the populations is continually
changing according to uncontrollable
reasons such as time of day, the weather,
other human factors such as the intention
to visit the exhibition and other competing
events in the area.
The recommended sample size for a
random survey is 3% of the population
size, in this case the number of houses in
Johor Jaya. The Informal estimate
(guestimate) of the number of houses
given by the staff of the company
commissioning this study was 4000. The
chosen sample size of 150 respondents
was more than adequate at 3.75% for 4000
houses. However, the calculation of the
number of houses in Johor Jaya,
conducted after the survey was completed
and based on a direct counting of all the
residential houses from a Johor Jaya
Street Directory (3) revealed 8830 houses
which ideally require a sample size of 265
respondents. The below optimum number
of 150 respondents used in this study
(1.7% sample size) does not invalidate the
random survey; it merely increases the
sample error, rendering the findings less
accurate.
3
 The selection of respondents in a
random survey can be done by various
methods but all must follow generally
accepted strict procedures. A stratified
random sampling technique, selecting
areas within the housing estate, then
roads then houses (figure 1) was followed
in this study as the fastest method since
the survey teams had to complete the
survey during a 3 day weekend.
The three randomly selected areas
in Johor Jaya are shown in figure 2. Each
area consisted of a mixture of houses and
the predominant value of the houses is
also shown. Thus the area called Jalan
Anggerik was typified by medium-high cost
houses.
Figure 1
Figure 2
4
 Consumer A comparative description of the test Terrace house and the test Honeycomb house is
Preference Test shown in figure 3. The Terrace house was a commercial design supplied by the
Developer. The Honeycomb house was designed by Arkitek M.Ghazali to be as
comparable as possible in terms of price (RM220,000 with land), number of bedrooms,
bathrooms and carports. However, land sizes and built up areas could not be exactly
matched due to the different design constraints imposed by terrace and honeycomb
housing and the requirements of the Authorities. The honeycomb house had 11% less
built-up area but 24% more land.

Figure 3

The results of the consumer Housing is a scientific urban recreation of

preference test are shown in figure 4.
Almost two thirds (66%) of the 150
respondents preferred the Honeycomb
House compared to the Terrace house with
similar price and features.
The preference by race was also
determined. The demographics of the 150
Johor Jaya respondents (figure 5) show
them to consist of 58% Chinese, 33%
Malays and 8% Indians. Their preference
was all considerably higher for the
Honeycomb house; 56% amongst Chinese
respondents, 58% amongst Indian and
84% amongst Malays. The much higher
cultural acceptance amongst Malays
confirms our informal surveys at exhibitions
and is not surprising since Honeycomb
the Malay kampong, featuring the
essential elements of traditional housing
such as a close secure neighbourhood,
child friendly outdoor areas and shady
native landscaping.
The 58% preference for the
Honeycomb house amongst Chinese
respondents compared to the terrace
house indicated that cultural objections
were not strong. This was tested directly
in the questionnaire with the statement
“This Honeycomb house conflicts with
Feng Sui principles”. The response
amongst Chinese was equally divided;
50% agreed and 50% disagreed (figure
6).
5
Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6
6
 However, to the next statement in the questionnaire “I will consult a Feng Sui
expert before buying a Honeycomb house” (figure 7) only 33 % of Chinese
respondents agreed. It would seem that as much as two thirds of Chinese residents in
Johor Jaya do not hold strong Feng Sui beliefs and do not consider it necessary to
consult an expert before buying a Honeycomb house. Some 61% of the respondents
were under 40 years (figure 5). However, in Honeycomb presentations given by
Arkitek M.Ghazali to Chinese Developers, their age in general has been over 50
years. It is these Developers, rather than the potential house buyers who are
expressing the strong concern that Honeycomb may conflict with Feng Sui and
prevent Chinese from buying Honeycomb houses.

Figure 7

Perhaps it is the older Chinese

who hold strong Feng Sui beliefs?

We tested this hypothesis that that Conclusion 1:

Feng Sui beliefs were stronger amongst
older Chinese, and that these beliefs were
The cultural concerns of
Developers are largely
‘diluted’ in their children’s generation by
unfounded.
conducting a 2 tailed t-test. We found the
hypothesis to be false. Chinese under 40 Feng Sui beliefs will not
versus over 40 years of age showed no prevent up to two thirds
significant differences in their responses to of Chinese from buying a
the Feng Sui statements shown in figures 6 Honeycomb house.
and 7. Similarly, there were no significant
differences between the under and over 50
year old Chinese.

7
 Comparing In this preference test considerable effort
Terrace and was made by Arkitek M. Ghazali to fairly
Honeycomb match a Honeycomb house with the
Houses
Terrace house chosen and designed by
the Developer as a suitable house for their
next project. Each house type was
presented as a fair to the respondents with
pictures in similar styles and colours (see
appendix 4). The questionnaire required
responses to identical set of 8 statements,
first about the Terrace house followed by
the Honeycomb house (appendix 6)
A scoring system was devised
according to the response to each
statement:-
Strongly agree 10 points
Agree 7 points
Disagree 4 points
Strongly disagree 1 point
This enabled the response to each
statement to be given a ranking on a 1-10
scale which is easily comprehended by the
general public. Thus a perfect score of 10
would show that every respondent strongly
agreed with the statement; a score of 1
that everyone strongly disagreed. Rather
than a crude ‘agree or disagree’
comparison this scoring system
permitted a detailed quantitative
comparison of the Terrace house and
the Honeycomb House.
The comparative ‘House
Scores’, all beween 6.1 and 7.1 out of
10, are shown in figure 8.
The response to “I like this
house” was 6.6 out of 10 for the Terrace
house and slightly higher at 6.8 for the
honeycomb house showing that both
houses were well accepted. Likewise
Honeycomb scored higher than Terrace
for the other five statements shown in
figure 8. The biggest difference was for
the community layout. The Terrace
scored 6.3 versus 7.1 for the
Honeycomb.
The mean overall scores
were 6.27 out of 10 for Terrace house
and 7% higher at 6.74 out of 10 for the
Honeycomb house.
Conclusion 2:
Both houses were quite
acceptable but Honeycomb
scored 7% higher overall and
was preferred to the terrace
house by two thirds of the
Johor Jaya respondents.
Figure 8
8
Satisfaction with The questionnaire (see results in figure 9) also found that 35% of respondents wanted
Present House to buy a house within the next 1-4 years, with 22% unsure. Some 37% could afford
the RM220,00 price of the Honeycomb and Terrace houses. These two findings were
used to calculate the number of potential buyers for either the Honeycomb or the
Terrace houses amongst Johor Jaya residents (71% house owners, 29% house
renting).
The survey also confirmed earlier findings regarding the most common
defects of Malaysian terrace houses (1). The surveyed areas in Johor Jaya consisted
entirely of terrace housing. Some 57% of respondents agreed their kitchen was too
small,70% agreed their house was too hot and 74% wanted space in their compound
for 2 cars (figure 9).

Figure 9
Potential We have devised a simple general method, based on random sampling, for
Honeycomb determining the number of potential buyers of specific houses amongst residents in a
house buyers
housing area, in this case Johor Jaya. The results are shown in figure 10.

Figure 10
9
 Of the 150 respondents 53
agreed they wanted to buy a house
within the next 4 years of which 22
agreed they could afford the selling price
of RM220,000 for each of the houses
presented.
Seventeen out of 22 preferred
the Honeycomb house and only 5
preferred the Terrace house. So out of
150 respondents 17 (11.3%) have
clearly indicated they are potential
Conclusion 3:
buyers of the Honeycomb house on the
basis that they want to buy a house Johor Jaya has 1010
within 4 years, they can afford the potential customers for the
RM220,000 price and that they prefer RM220,000 Honeycomb
the Honeycomb house. House, more than 3 times
We can estimate, albeit based the 298 who preferred the
on the less than optimum number of
RM220,000 Terrace house
offering similar features.
respondents, that just over 1000
households (11.33% of 8830
households in Johor Jaya) are potential
buyers of the RM220,000 Honeycomb
house (figure 11). The corresponding
potential customers for the competing
RM220,000 Terrace house amongst all
races is much less at 298 (5 households
in 150 surveyed = 3.33% of 8930
households).

Figure 11
10
Comparison with The same questionnaire used in this Johor Jaya survey was used a week earlier to
Kuala Lumpur
survey those attending a Home Ownership campaign at the Kuala Lumpur Convention
Survey
Centre (17-19 March 2006). A random survey cannot be carried out at an exhibition or
for that matter on the streets or in a shopping centre since the population is continually
changing. The next best survey is a systematic survey whereby for instance every tenth
adult passing a particular point in the exhibition hall is surveyed. This type of survey
was conducted and 101 respondents were shown the set of drawings of the
RM220,000 Honeycomb house and the RM220,000 Terrace house. Respondents were
also shown a model of a honeycomb community displaying cluster houses surrounding
neighbourhood parks. The Kuala Lumpur systematic survey fully confirmed the findings
of the Johor Jaya random survey.
The comparison of the Kuala Lumpur housing survey with the Johor Jaya
survey is shown in figure 12. Some 77% of the visitors to the Kuala Lumpur Home
Ownership Campaign (43% Chinese, 40% Malay and 7% Indian) wanted to buy a
house within the next 4 years, 75% preferred honeycomb and 30% were potential
buyers of the RM220,000 Honeycomb house. As in the Johor Jaya survey both house
types were well accepted in Kuala Lumpur but the House Scores were much higher,
reaching 8.7 out of 10 for the Honeycomb house. (figure 13). The percentage of
potential Honeycomb house buyers was also very high, 30% of those visiting the
exhibition. Feng Sui beliefs were not strong and 24% of Chinese visitors to the housing
exhibition were potential Honeycomb house buyers.

Figure 12

Figure 13 11
 SUMMARY The Honeycomb house was preferred by two thirds of Taman Johor Jaya residents
compared to an equivalent Terrace house. A novel scoring system was used to
determine the acceptability of each house. The Honeycomb house scored 6.7 out of 10
whilst the Terrace house scored 7% lower at 6.3 out of 10.

Johor Jaya has 1010 potential customers for the RM220,000 Honeycomb House (352
Chinese, 364 Malays and 294 Indians). This is more than 3 times the 298 potential
customers of the equivalent RM220,000 Terrace house.

Considerably higher house scores were obtained for the same houses in an earlier
survey of visitors to a Kuala Lumpur housing exhibition where 77% wanted to buy a
house within 4 years; the Honeycomb house scored 8.7 out of ten compared to 7.8 for
the Terrace house.

Amongst the 3600 Chinese visitors to the Kuala Lumpur housing exhibition 880 (24%)
were regarded as potential customers for the RM220,000 Honeycomb house.

CONCLUSIONS • The cultural concern of Developers that Honeycomb housing conflicts with Feng Sui
beliefs is largely unfounded. Feng Sui beliefs will not prevent most Chinese from
buying a Honeycomb house.

• The simple and economic survey techniques described in this study can greatly
reduce the commercial risk to Developers and Town Planners. By measuring
consumer perception at a very early concept stage of a housing project, the
affordability, cultural acceptability and many other factors of new houses and their
surroundings can be forecast amongst different sections of the house buying public.
This market intelligence can be used to ‘give the customer what they want’ and unite
all sections of the housing industry into an efficient supply chain satisfying consumer
aspirations for a an affordable quality home in a well planned neighbourhood.

12
 We thank the Survey enumerators for their excellent and cheerful work. Final
ACKNOWLEDGE
year students at Universiti Putra Malaysia:-
MENTS
• Ng Jen Tyng
• Ng Chai Moong
• Ng Lim Cheng
• Tee Chai Ling

Staff of Arkitek M. Ghazali, Desa Pandan, Kuala Lumpur:-

• Syuhana binti Khalidi
• Ismayanty binti A. Razak

REFERENCES 1. Mohd Peter Davis, Mazlin Ghazali and Nor Azian Nordin (2006) in ‘Thermal Comfort
Honeycomb Housing, the Affordable Alternative to Terrace Housing’, Hardback 186
pages, published by Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang. Malaysia.

2. Fred N. Kerlinger (1973) in ‘Foundation of Behavioural Research’, published by Holt,

Reinhart and Wilson Inc. New York.

3. Johor Jaya Street Directory (2002), published by Rimman International, containing

house numbers.

13
 Johor Jaya Township (8830 Residential Houses)
150 Households were randomly selected for the housing survey.
 Three out of eight areas in
Taman Johor Baru were
JOHOR JAYA HOUSING SURVEY

randomly selected for the

housing survey.
24-26 MARCH 2006

A typical house in Anggerik,

Taman Johor Baru.

UPM Students briefing a

relaxed resident outside his
home.

Mission accomplished.
Everyone happy!
26 March 2006