Singaporean Family Life in High-Rise Apartment Blocks
11 August 2003
Preliminary draft
Stephen Appold
[email protected]
Department of Sociology
Belinda Yuen
[email protected]
Department of Real Estate
National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Singapore 119260
Please do not cite or quote – comments are most welcome
Copies of the paper are available at:
http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/socsja
Singaporean Family Life in High-Rise Apartment Blocks
Stephen Appold
Department of Sociology
Belinda Yuen
Department of Real Estate
National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Singapore 119260
It’s a commonplace that life in apartment blocks is not suited for families with children. Space is too
cramped. The transportation of babies and groceries is too inconvenient. The supervision of playing
children is too difficult. Yet in many cities of the world, particularly in parts of Asia, families have
little choice. In Singapore approximately 86 percent of the resident population lives in public housing
– much of which is in “slab blocks” of about 12 storeys and in “point blocks” of 20, 25, and 30
storeys. In addition, approximately 7 percent of the population live in condominiums, most of which
are also apartment blocks. The modal family person in Singapore is an apartment dweller. How does
life in an apartment block affect daily life? Do family members spend more time together – or less?
Does a family receive frequent visits from others? How are casual trips out of the house affected?
We analyze the 24-hour time diaries of the pilot responses in the first study of household time use in
Singapore. The 211 respondents are spread across 82 households (all household members aged 12
and over were asked to respond). The sample was comprised of high-rise residents split between high
and low floors (up to the 30th floor) and split between a location very convenient to a town center and
one that requires a feeder service to arrive at a town center. The diaries record primary and secondary
activities, the people involved in each activity, and the place of each activity. The time diaries are
linked to household questionnaire data on perceptions of high-rise living.
The results allow us to compare the living patterns of families in high-rise flats with those in singlefamily houses in other countries and to compare those on high floors with those on low floors and
those near a town center and those more distant.
Singaporean Family Life in High-Rise Apartment Blocks
This paper reports on a preliminary investigation into the time use of a sample of
Singaporeans aged 12 and above who live in public housing. We are most directly interested in the
approximately 86 percent of resident Singaporean who live in public housing. Singapore’s public
housing, as public housing in other countries, has been called “working class barracks.” The
architecture has sometimes been austere and according to the theory of situated behavior, the physical
surroundings may privilege some behaviors and inhibit others. More than architecture is at play,
however. Public housing has had a social function, perhaps “disciplining” the population by bringing
people more directly under government control by making them clients of the state. Some observers
have claimed that Singaporeans, when faced with any controversy, think first of what the
government’s stand might be.
Singapore sometimes seems to be everyone’s favorite urban laboratory – with Dutch architect
Rem Koolhaas terming Singapore a “petri dish” and the Singaporean architect, Tay Keng Soon,
possibly somewhat hopefully, claiming that the city was at the vanguard of 21st- century social trends
(both quoted in Turnbull (1997 )). The assessments of Singaporean life in public housing vary from
the dark dystopia portrayed in Eric Khoo’s film, “Twelve Storeys” which could be described as
Ingmar Bergman spends 24 hours in the tropics to Darren Shiau’s novel which looks very lovingly at
public housing estate architecture and ends with the protagonist looking down from the roof of a 20storey point block to view his neighborhood “moving at the speed of life.”
The common factor that unites almost all assessments of Singaporean life is their lack of a
firm empirical base. Of course, artistic views are generally expected to be more a product of the
creator than a reflection of the subject. This is generally not the case for social scientists. Inspired by
Abu-Lughod’s (1991) suggestion and Michelson’s (1977) example, our aim here is to describe
activity patterns and compare those patterns among sub-groups and, very crudely, cross-nationally.
1
Theory of identity, situated behavior, and institutions
Our interest is in the nature of the lives led by Singaporeans – the quality of their lives.
Quality of life has to do with active engagement in projects of worth (Wolf, 1997). For many people,
raising a family is one such project. Family life, in turn, is closely tied to relationships, roles and
identity.
One way to tap into the salience of particular identities is to trace public discourse. That
method is common in Singapore but, ironically, the weaker a common identity is, the easier it may be
to create or dominate a discourse about it. Another way to measure identity is to survey attitudes.
The validity of such measurements is always questionable, however. Attitudes frequently have a low
correlation with behavior. When there is a large possibility of social desirability bias and respondents
see answering a survey as a public performance, the question is difficult to settle. A difficulty with
both methods is that identities may be announced, but that doesn’t imply that the identity claims will
be recognized. Conversely, identities are sometimes placed upon people. These two moments of
identity do not always coincide (Stryker, 1994). A third option, of course, is to examine the activities
performed and the people they are performed with.
The symbolic interactionist dictum is that the “self is a mirror of society” (Hewitt, 2000).
Identity is situated in social contexts (Stryker, 1994). Identities exist insofar as persons are
participants in structured social relationships and identity theory investigates the relationships
between concepts of self, social relations, and role performance (activity). Figure 1 illustrates the
framework of identity theory. Although there can be much discussion about the direction of causality
between the elements, a) sentiment, b) social interaction, and c) activity are linked.
(Figure 1 here)
To give an everyday example, it is the common activities with colleagues or family that leads
to the social interaction which creates the feeling of “we-ness” at work or within a family. It is the
common activity that enacts the family and without that activity and interaction, an identity as a
family member would have little significance. Daily activities with colleagues creates a university.
Similarly, when a person visits a national shrine – a museum or a site of national pride – that person
2
can communicate the experience to others and thereby symbolically assert membership in the nation.
Focused activity leads to social interaction and the development of sentiment (Feld, 1981; Homans,
1951). This implies that describing activities – particularly those undertaken with other people – is a
route to understanding enacted identities. The efficacy of the approach is suggested by the link
between activity, relationship, and sentiment. This approach has the advantage of measuring
identities that are both announced and placed
Leisure activities are central to the maintenance of unity because they provide a social space
for the development of intimacy (Kelly, 1983). Leisure is the social space of friendship, of much
parenting, of relations with neighbors, and workmates. It provides a crucial life space for the
expression and development of selfhood, for the working out of identities that are important to the
individual. Just as the social function of the division of labor is to create groups that would otherwise
not exist (Durkheim, 1984), the function of the division of leisure is to produce groups which would
not exist without it. That is one reason for the social importance of the arts and culture. Mass events,
such as festivals (Warner, 1963), or even Beethoven’s music in the nineteenth century (Bonds, 1997),
are ways to symbolically demonstrate group membership. We may not all be cultivated – in the sense
that we appreciate the more esoteric forms of expression – but we all develop “selves” and we all
express those selves.1
If leisure activities create the social space that allows for the establishment of family
identities, that social space is affected by factors outside the family. First of all, obligations outside
the family reduce the time available for family. Paid work, of course, both takes away from family
time and provides the resources to make leisure activities possible. In this paper, we do not analyze
the effect of work hours on families but we will repeat a few respondent comments on the issue.
Second, and of more immediate concern here, the physical surroundings can affect the mix of
activities performed. According to Michelson (1977: 222), 1) individuals seek to establish behavior
1
The basic understanding of identity just outlined is a good, common sense starting point
but, as Kluckhohn and Murray (1948) have argued, “Every man is in certain respects, a) like all other
men, b) like some other men, and c) like no other man.” That is, identity is intrinsically associated
with all the joinings and departures of social life. To have an identity is to join with some and depart
from others (Stone, 1962). We will not explore the ways in which particular identities intersect.
3
and activity patterns (use of time, access, ...), 2) they choose a setting to permit that behavior, and 3)
particular, unanticipated, behaviors may emerge – partially dependent upon social factors but also
partially dependent upon congruence with the home environment. Apartment life may privilege some
behaviors, such as passive leisure, and discourage others, such as active leisure, simply because the
physical environment affords more opportunity for one and less for the other. Apartment life may
privilege out of the neighborhood activities and decrease time spent in transit because the higher
population density and location allows easier access to some places. Singapore differs from most
other cities in that, although public housing serves a large segment of the population, the degree of
choice is limited (or at least has been until very recently). Apartment life in public housing is not a
way-station or intermediate step for most contemporary Singaporeans. For most it is the beginning
and end point. Malay weddings and Chinese funerals are held on the ground floor void decks below
the apartments. While in the past, education and hard work could afford mobility to landed property
or at least a private condominium, the rapid increase in housing prices relative to incomes has made
such movement rare.
Third, according to Gerth and Mills (1953), political institutions affect the character of
individuals and, by extension, social and family life. All societies place premiums on desired traits
and taboos on undesired traits (177). Some states attempt to become the monopoly providers of such
premiums and taboos.2 Such an arrangement has been termed “bureaucratic patrimonialsm” (Jackal,
1988 ). Much of the discussion of Singapore’s public housing project focuses on its role in social
control (Castells, Goh, and Kwok, 1990; Chua, 1995; Tremewan, 1994), rather than on the physical
2
“One of the features of this new orthodoxy is that no institutional order is permitted to
develop prestigeful roles on its own ground. For all loyalties, and thus for all prestige and for all
authority, there must be one fountainhead. Success in any field may thus be ascribed to the head of the
state, who in turn distributes all honor. So there are medals for warriors and for workers, for artists
and for the mothers who bear many children. All achievement is pre-conditioned by the correct course
of the ... leadership, and hence all achievement is credited to its wise and infallible course. Criticism
may be made only of its inadequate means, not – once they are officially promulgated – of its ends.
And no one can deviate from whatever 'line" has been defined for each field of endeavor.
The modem ... leader thus resurrects the image of ancient patriarch who was supreme judge,
chief provider, military leader, and head religious functionary, all in one. The individual member of
his family had no alternative orientation, and functionally specialized motives met on the common
basis of all obligation, defined in terms of filial piety (Gerth and Mills, 1953: 176-177).”
4
surroundings per se. At this point, we are unable to distinguish between physical and social factors.
Our research sites
As of 31 March 2002, the Housing Development Board (the main public housing agency in
Singapore) managed 862,918 housing units that provided shelter to 86 percent of the resident
population of Singapore.3 The percentage housed rose from approximately 9 percent in 1960 and has
remained steady since around 1990. During this time, Singaporean population increased from
approximately 1.5 million in 1960 to 3 million in 1990 and to 4 million in 2000 (3.3 million of whom
were “residents”).
Some of the public housing is fairly basic but through time the quality and finish of the
buildings has improved. In addition, residents make sometimes substantial renovations to the interior
of their flats. Approximately 93 percent of the units are owned by their occupants so that 82 percent
of the resident population lives in an HDB unit owned by the household. (Non-residents – those on
employment or dependent passes and those on work permits are not permitted to own HDB flats but
they can sub-let from residents.) Public housing in Singapore covers a broad segment of the
Singaporean population. Singaporean flats are relatively large by international standards – 85 square
meters (900 square feet) for a new four-room flat and 110 square meters (1200 square feet) for a new
five-room flat but the size has been shrinking for new flats. Today a new four or five room flat is
approximately 85 percent as large as a new flat was about 20 years ago. As a point of comparison, the
median size of U.S. detached and mobile homes was approximately 160 square meters (1,685 square
feet) in 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001: Table 954). The mix of flats has continued to shift towards
the flats with a larger number of rooms, however.
Toa Payoh, one of our two neighborhoods, contains 35,491 HDB flats and a population of
3
Singapore has a substantial non-resident population. In 2000 approximately 80 percent of
the total population lived in HDB houses, 8 percent in private condominiums, 6 percent landed
property, and 7 percent in other places. The other places would include a approximately 5,000 Jurong
Town Corporation flats, 350 JTC houses, and 1,233 worker dormitory units that can contain 6-14
occupants. There are other worker and student dormitories and some workers live onconstruction
sites.
5
116,200. Bukit Panjang, the other neighborhood that we studied, contains 28,097 flats and a
population of 96,100. New flats were available in Bukit Panjang from HDB for S$111,000 to
S$150,000 (US$63,429-US$85,714) for a four-room flat and S$182,000 to S$251,000 (US$104,000US$143,429) for a five-room flat. The average first quarter 2003 valuation for a four-room resale flat
in Bukit Panjang was S$187,400 (US$107,100) and for a five-room resale flat, S$278,600
(US$159,200). New flats are not openly available in Toa Payoh; they would be priced higher because
of the location closer to the city center.4 In Toa Payoh, resale flats were valued at S$263,000
(US$150,300) and S$398,500 (227,700) for four and five-room flats, respectively. Median household
income in 1998 was approximately S$46,800 (US$26,743). Interest rates on mortgage loans have
been comparatively low. Appendix Table One summarizes the size distribution of HDB flats, the
community facilities managed by HDB, and the consumer durables owned by Singaporean
households.
Appendix maps locate the two research sites in Singapore and in the respective
neighborhoods. The photographs illustrate the newer buildings and some aspects of life in public
housing.
Data collection procedure
We collected data on the use of time over 24-hour periods for 211 members of 82 households
living in the focus neighborhoods of Toa Payoh and Bukit Banjang. Such data have formed the basis
for landmark research in housing studies (Michelson, 1977). Time use data is regularly collected in
the U.S. (Robinson and Godbey, 1997), the U.K. (Gershuny, 2000), and other countries. As far as we
know, ours is the first attempt to collect such data in Singapore. Unfortunately, our data collection
efforts were interrupted by the outbreak of SARS. Therefore, we can present only the most minimal
of analyses here. This report is based on a very preliminary coding of our data and a very exploratory
analysis. All results should be regarded as extremely preliminary and tentative. Our analysis will be
4
Those living in both our 30-storey blocks were participants in HDB’s Selective En bloc
Redevelopment Scheme which encouraged residents to opt for the newer buildings through a
combination of subsidy and restricted choices.
6
refined and extended in subsequent reports. The time use study is one component of a multi-nation,
multi-method study of high-rise living in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia (Yuen et al., 2003).
Time use data have been shown to be an effective, albeit difficult to collect, measures of
behavior. Our aim was to examine how living in high-rise buildings affects daily behavior. Housing
impacts are often hypothesized but, with very few exceptions, not empirically investigated. When
investigated, it is difficult to separate out the self-selection effects of housing choice from the
treatment effects of housing type. Due to the nature of the Singaporean housing market, and of the
selection procedure for our 30-storey blocks in particular, self-selection effects are not major, so we
have an opportunity to measure in a fairly direct manner the effects of high-rise living itself on what
individuals and families actually do.
Our sampled households also participated in a complementary survey questionnaire
component of our study. A member of the research team contacted each sampled household (usually
in-person) and made arrangements to distribute 24-hour time diaries to each member of the household
aged 12 and over. The diary collection protocol was explained to the household. In addition to the
diary itself, a household census was included and lists of individual contacts during the day and the
individual places visited. In practice, one person in the household often acted as a champion and,
with varying degrees of success, shepherded the rest of the household members through the process.
After explaining the procedure to the household, the diaries were left in the home and arrangements
made to collect the completed diaries. Ours was therefore a prospective (“day after”) data collection
protocol. When collecting the completed diaries, they were checked for clarity and completeness.
Sometimes response was quite rapid; in other cases, repeated callbacks and visits were needed before
the completed questionnaires could be collected. Individuals were given a choice between English
and Mandarin versions of the diary. Mandarin responses were subsequently translated into English
before coding. A copy of the English language version of the diary is included in the Appendix. As
is common in such studies, after some experimentation, each participating household was given a $50
(US$29) recognition for their efforts.
7
Results
Our 211 respondents are 54 percent female and 46 percent male. They range in age from 12
to 76 with a mean age of 38. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents work outside their homes.
The incomes of the employed ranges from $100 (a part-time income) to $9,800 with a mean of $2,117
(US$1,210). As could be expected, given the reported income range, the range of occupations was
quite diverse and no particular occupation dominated. Twenty six respondents reported being
housewives and 32 reported being students.5
We gathered a total of 3,272 diary entries from our respondents for a mean of 15.51 (median
15.00) per person per day. Figure 2 shows the distribution of number of activities reported by each
respondent. The number of entries per person ranges from 4 to 52. Ninety percent of our respondents
recorded 8 or more entries; 75 percent recorded 11 or more entries. Our impression is that the
Mandarin-language responses contained fewer entries with the fewest entries in Mandarin-language
diaries of working days.
(Figure 2 about here)
Although we asked respondents to separate out individual activities, multiple activities are
sometimes reported per entry. Separating these out yielded 3,420 main activity entries and adding in
the 930 diary entries identified as “secondary activities” leads to a total of 4,350 total activities
reported. This yielded a mean of 20.62 activities per person per day.
We asked respondents to report on any (an arbitrary) day. Many did so and almost 90 percent
of the respondents claimed that the day reported on was a “typical day.” The responses to a question
put to those who claimed theirs was an atypical day suggested that some respondents purposely chose
particular days to give us what they thought was more interesting data. Some illustrative responses
follow.
5
A portion, 74, of the 285 members enumerated in our selected 82 households did not
complete time use diaries. Thirty-two of the household members were too young too complete the
instrument (we had set a cut-off age of 12). A small number (3 to 5) were perhaps too infirm; one
worked overseas. For some completing the dairy was simply too troublesome. Those not responding
were disproportionately male but not more likely than the respondents to be employed or busy at
work.
8
“Hardly go outing with family members due to long working hours.”
“It's my off-day today!”
“Usual day - work - work - work til late, no time for family except weekend, that if I am off.
If not, work -work - work - work.”
In order to control for the possibility that illness or other malady generated an atypical pattern
of activity, we asked the respondents about how they felt. Eighty-two percent claimed they felt fine.
Another 14 percent felt terrific. Only a small percentage claimed to be feeling in any way unwell.
Each diary entry was recorded in the respondent’s own (brief) words. A member of the
research team then classified each activity according to a 0-99 coding scheme that is often used for
such purposes. A copy of that coding categorization is included in the Appendix. A summary of that
information ins contained in Table 1. Time use is shown for all respondents, those 16 years and older,
and for females and males. The left part of each section shows the total number of minutes; the right
part, the percentage of all time. Because of the way we coded activities (including secondary
activities), the number of minutes per day totals more than 1440 per person.
(Figure 3 about here)
Some time use researchers divide activities up into 1) Productive Time, consisting of a)
Contracted (employment) time and b) Committed (housework, child care and shopping) Time, 2)
Maintenance (personal needs time), 3) Expressive (leisure and self-actualization) Time, and 4) Travel
time. This categorization is illustrated in Figure 3. The upper panel of Table 1 shows that
categorization of our sample’s time. Roughly a quarter of the time of our adults (aged 16 and above)
is productive time. The proportion is noticeably higher for females than males. Personal maintenance
requires the largest proportion of time with sleeping being the primary activity. Males apparently
require more such time then females. Expression accounts for approximately one quarter of time use
with television viewing as by far the predominant mode of expression. Transport accounts for
approximately five percent of time use in our preliminary coding. We expect refined coding to
increase that estimate somewhat. The lower panel shows the same time categorized according to the
9
broad headings of our detailed coding categories. Males spent less time doing domestic work, caring
for children, and shopping than did females.
(Table 1 about here)
The time use diary asked respondents to name who they performed their various activities
with. Our preliminary categorization of co-actors includes immediate family members (which in the
case of adults often includes those outside the household), extended family, friends, colleagues from
work, intimates (boyfriends and girlfriends), and a residual category of others. We explicitly
requested that respondents not provide details about their work and school time and contacts there, so
that our information reflects time spent outside of working (or school) hours – often off-site lunch.
Table 2 shows the time spent with each category of person by adults (aged 16 and above) once work
(employment) and sleeping time was removed from the total. Total adjusted sample minutes and
percentage of those minutes are shown.
(Table 2 about here)
Immediate family account for the largest block of social time – about one-fourth of all
available time. Friends account for the next largest block of social time – somewhat less then one
tenth of the available time. Females spend a slightly larger proportion of their non-work, non-sleep
time with others than do males.
(Table 3 about here)
Table 3 shows the activities undertaken with (or at least in the co-presence of) immediate
family members. Work (employment) and sleeping time have been removed from the totals.
The largest block of family time is expressive time and the primary activity is watching
television. The next largest block of family time is personal maintenance time and the primary
activity here is eating meals together. The third largest block is committed time with the primary
relevant activity being caring directly for children. Males spend less time caring for children. The
lower panel of the table shows the more detailed categorization of activities.
(Table 4 about here)
Table 4 shows the activities undertaken with (or at least in the co-presence of) friends. Work
10
(employment) and sleeping time have been removed from the totals here also.
Our respondents spent considerably less time with friends than with immediate family. For
both males and females, expressive activities take up the largest block of time with friends. In
contrast to family time, however, television viewing figures less prominently – especially for males.
Although males do not devote a large proportion of their time to sports, almost one-fifth of the time
with friends is spent in such activities. Personal maintenance time accounts for a large block of the
activities with friends. Again, eating is the primary common activity. Females spent a noticeably
larger proportion of their committed time with friends than do males. Much of that time was engaged
in shopping.
(Table 5 about here)
Table 5 shows the time use by neighborhood. Information for all respondents and for adults
(aged 16 and above) are shown. All activities are included.
With one exception, the pattern of time use in the two neighborhoods is similar. Bukit
Panjang resident spend somewhat more time traveling. The difference is not large but it is expected.
Bus service to the city center is good, however. Several Bukit Panjang residents mentioned the rapid
connection to downtown provided by their neighborhood and the Selective En bloc Redevelopment
Scheme deliberately selected strategically located sites. Others in the more remote locations of each
of our neighborhoods may not enjoy such good connections. More detailed spatial analysis will
reveal whether the comparatively similar travel times are due to good transportation connections, the
existence of most needed amenities nearby, or restricted geographic mobility.
(Table 6 about here)
Table 6 shows some very preliminary attempts to explain variations in adult (aged 16 and
above) time use by examining household structure, individual characteristics, and neighborhood. The
unit of analysis is the individual. There are 173 adults in our sample. The top panel shows the
results for the broad categories of time use. The second panel shows the results for specialized
activities and time spent with particular types of others.
We were perhaps most successful in explaining variations in the amount of committed time
11
and least successful in explaining variations in time spent eating. The presence of children in the
household is an important factor in explaining the use of several types of time. There is clear
evidence of a household division of labor and individual characteristics such as sex, age, and paid
employment are also important factors. Neighborhood has some unexpected effects on time use.
Future analysis will investigate these.
Floor level had no measurable effect on the time use of our respondents. (Analysis not
shown.) Comparatively few of our residents live sufficiently close to the ground to avoid dependence
on elevators. Moreover, even at the lower levels, parents cannot supervise the outside play of their
children.
(Table 7 about here)
The previous six tables and the brief discussion just begin to describe the pattern of life for
Singaporeans living in high-rises. Much more analysis needs to be performed before we can assess
the ways in which that style of living impacts their lives. Table 7 provides a first basis of comparison
with the activity patterns of a large sample of residents of the United States. As mentioned above, our
respondents very probably under-reported the time spent working by, on occasion, deliberately
choosing to record non-working days. Nevertheless, several differences stand out in this initial
comparison that are likely to survive adjustments for the under-reporting of paid employment time in
our sample. First, Singaporeans appear to engage in fewer collective social activities in other people’s
homes, such as visiting, and in activities outside their own home, such as visiting museums, than do
Americans. Some of that difference may be accounted for by the very ready availability of public
eating places in almost every Singaporean neighborhood. Second, Singaporeans appear to engage in
passive leisure to a far greater degree even the than television-addicted Americans. Since U.S.
residents tend not to live in high-rises and many American families have their own private gardens,
housing type may account for at least a portion of the difference by reducing the possibilities for
active family leisure. Analysis in progress will explore these and other possibilities.
12
Conclusion
Our analysis begins to describe the daily pattern of activities, social interaction, and physical
movement of Singaporeans. Singaporeans have been apartment dwellers for at least a generation. We
find that Singaporeans are heavily engaged in passive leisure even as they are also heavily engaged in
social eating. Of course, more refined analysis of our data and gathering additional data are needed.
In particular, we need to know more about the time spent watching television. For many, the
television may have replaced the radio as a source of background noise.
Although there are no earlier surveys of time use and activities, anecdotal evidence suggests
that the nature of community life, family, and childhood has dramatically changed over the past
several decades. Some of those changes can be attributed to the movement to high-rise living. The
rise of material living standards also has a role as do other social factors. Childhoods are clearly
different now than earlier. But we how much of this is due to the physical arrangements of the highrise – clearly some – and how much to the increased importance of schooling as the determinant of
social stratification? Much of the anecdotal evidence of changes in childhood focuses on
unsupervised time which was possibly made partially possible by the physical and social
arrangements of the kampong (village). Yet Singaporean neighborhoods today are generally safe for
children and extended families – then and now – often live nearby. There has been a rapid decrease in
neighboring over the past decade. To what extent is that due to the increased prevalence of point
blocks which afford few immediate neighbors, to what extent by the high level of housing mobility
over the past decade, and to what extent is it due to shifts in social stratification that tend to diminish
the importance of neighbors? We hope to begin answering these and similar questions over the next
several months.
13
Bibliography
Abu-Lughod, Janet L. 1991. Changing Cities: Urban Sociology. New York,: HarperCollins.
Bonds, Mark Evan. 1997. “Idealism and the Aesthetics of Instrumental Music at the Turn of the
Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 50: 387-420.
Castells, Manuel, L. Goh, and R. Y.-W. Kwokl. 1990. The Shek Kip Mei Syndrome: Economic
Development and Public Housing in Hong Kong and Singapore. London: Pion.
Chua Beng Huat. 1995. Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London:
Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Feld, Scott L. 1981. “The focused organization of social ties.” American Journal of Sociology 86:
1015-1035.
Gershuny, Jonathan I. 2000. Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-Industrial Society. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gerth, Hans H. and C. Wright Mills. 1953. Character and Social Structure: The Psychology of
Social Institutions. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Hewitt, John P. 2000. Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, 8th ed.
Homans, George Caspar. 1951. The Human Group. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Jackall, Robert.. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kelly, John R. 1983. Leisure Identities and Interactions. London: Allen and Unwin.
Kluckhohn, Clyde and Henry A. Murray. 1948. Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture. New
York: A.A. Knopf.
Michelson, William. 1977. Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential Satisfaction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, John P, and Geoffrey Godbey. 1997. Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Use
their Time. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Stone, Gregory P. 1962. “Appearance and the self.” Pages 93-94 in Arnold M. Rose, ed., Human
Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Stryker, Sheldon. 1994. “Identity theory: Its development, research base, and prospects.” Studies in
Symbolic Interaction 16:9-20.
Tremewan, Chris. 1994. The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
14
Turnbull, David. 1997. “Soc. Culture; Singapore.” Pages 227-239 in Nan Ellin, ed., Architecture of
Fear. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
Warner, W. Lloyd. 1963. Yankee City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wolf, Susan. 1997. “Happiness and meaning: Two aspects of the good life.” Social Philosophy and
Policy. 14: 207-225
Yuen, Belinda, Stephen J. Appold, Anthony Yeh, George Earl, John Ting, William Lim, and Kwee
Lanny Kurnianingrum. 2003. Living Experience in Super Tall Residential Buildings.
Department of Real Estate, National University of Singapore, manuscript, August.
15
Figure 1 A conceptual framework
Activity
Interaction
Sentiment
Figure 2 Number of main activity diary entries per person
Stem
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Leaf
0
0
00
00
000
0
0000
00000000
00000000000
00000000000
000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000
00000000000000000000
000000000000
000000
----+----+----+----+----+----+
#
1
Boxplot
*
1
2
2
3
1
4
8
11
11
24
27
28
30
20
20
12
6
0
0
0
0
|
|
|
|
|
+-----+
|
|
*--+--*
|
|
+-----+
|
|
|
Figure 3 Broad categories of time use
Source: Robinson and Godbey (1997)
Table1 Time use of respondents
all respondents
adult (16+) respondents
female adults
male adults
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Panel A: Broad categories
Productive Time
Contracted Time (employment)
Committed Time
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
96145
49140
47005
25.32
12.94
12.38
84670
43800
40870
26.93
13.93
13.00
53870
20395
33475
30.35
11.49
18.86
30620
23405
7215
22.59
17.27
5.32
Personal Maintenance Time
Eating
Sleep
162280
28615
107855
42.74
7.54
28.41
134360
23735
88095
42.73
7.55
28.02
70280
12845
46130
39.6
7.24
25.99
63345
10800
41365
46.74
7.97
30.52
Expressive Time
Television viewing
100671
40145
26.51
10.57
78561
32345
24.98
10.29
44555
17635
25.1
9.94
33481
14545
24.71
10.73
20595
5.42
16860
5.36
8785
4.95
8075
5.96
379691
100
314451
100
177490
100
135521
100
Transport
Total
Panel B: Coding categories
Minutes
Percent
Minutes
Percent
Minutes
Percent
Minutes
Percent
Working time etc. (00-09)
Domestic work (10-19)
Care to children (20-29)
Purchasing of goods etc (30-39)
Private needs: meals, sleep etc. (40-49)
Adult education and training (50-59)
Collective participation activities (60-69)
Spectacles, entertainment, etc (70- 79)
Sports and active leisure (80-89)
Passive leisure (90-99)
53315
26005
12735
10160
174195
11340
4520
4280
8171
74970
14.04
6.85
3.35
2.68
45.88
2.99
1.19
1.13
2.15
19.75
47480
22725
11185
8675
144805
5640
3955
2540
6236
61210
15.1
7.23
3.56
2.76
46.05
1.79
1.26
0.81
1.98
19.47
22195
19620
8980
6270
75210
3150
2640
1445
1480
36500
12.5
11.05
5.06
3.53
42.37
1.77
1.49
0.81
0.83
20.56
25285
2985
2205
2345
68860
2490
1195
1065
4606
24485
18.66
2.2
1.63
1.73
50.81
1.84
0.88
0.79
3.4
18.07
Total
379691
100
314451
100
177490
100
135521
100
Table 2 Adult (16+) time spent with others -- work and sleep removed
adult (16+) respondents
female adults
male adults
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Percent
Percent
Percent
Immediate Family
Extended Family
Friends
Colleagues from work
Non-related intimates
Others
44790
3345
15425
4150
450
3375
25.04
1.87
8.62
2.32
0.25
1.89
26680
2385
9870
2515
300
2610
24.44
2.18
9.04
2.30
0.27
2.39
18110
960
5495
1635
150
765
26.30
1.39
7.98
2.37
0.22
1.11
Total social time
71535
39.99
44360
40.62
27115
39.37
178876
100
109165
100
68871
100
Total non-work, non-sleep time
Table 3 Adult (16+) activities with immediate family
adult (16+) respondents
female adults
male adults
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Panel A: Broad categories
Productive Time
Contracted Time (employment) [removed]
Committed Time
Percent
Percent
Percent
9790
21.86
6765
25.36
3025
16.70
Personal Maintenance Time
Eating
Sleep [removed]
11330
8545
25.30
19.08
6465
4910
24.23
18.4
4865
3635
26.86
20.07
Expressive Time
Television viewing
20250
11255
45.21
25.13
11550
5430
43.29
20.35
8700
5825
48.04
32.16
3420
7.64
1900
7.12
1520
8.39
44790
100
26680
100
18110
100
Transport
Total
Panel B: Coding categories
Minutes
Percent
Minutes
Percent
Minutes
Percent
Working time etc. (00-09) [removed]
Domestic work (10-19)
Care to children (20-29)
Purchasing of goods etc (30-39)
Private needs: meals, sleep etc. (40-49) [sleep removed]
Adult education and training (50-59)
Collective participation activities (60-69)
Spectacles, entertainment, etc (70- 79)
Sports and active leisure (80-89)
Passive leisure (90-99)
3775
4785
1935
13870
165
1310
690
260
18000
8.43
10.68
4.32
30.97
0.37
2.92
1.54
0.58
40.19
2925
3465
1005
7560
165
785
645
260
9870
10.96
12.99
3.77
28.34
0.62
2.94
2.42
0.97
36.99
850
1320
930
6310
4.69
7.29
5.14
34.84
525
45
2.9
0.25
8130
44.89
Total
44790
100
26680
100
18110
100
Table 4 Adult (16+) activities with friends
adult (16+) respondents
female adults
male adults
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Panel A: Broad categories
Productive Time
Contracted Time (employment) [removed]
Committed Time
Percent
Percent
Percent
2370
15.36
1980
20.06
390
7.10
Personal Maintenance Time
Eating
Sleep [removed]
3555
2865
23.05
18.57
1860
1605
18.84
16.26
1695
1260
30.85
22.93
Expressive Time
Television viewing
8385
1155
54.36
7.49
5400
1095
54.71
11.09
2925
60
53.23
1.09
Transport
1115
7.23
630
6.38
485
8.83
15425
100
9870
100
5495
100
Total
Panel B: Coding categories
Minutes
Working time etc. (00-09) [removed]
Domestic work (10-19)
Care to children (20-29)
Purchasing of goods etc (30-39)
Private needs: meals, sleep etc. (40-49) [sleep removed]
Adult education and training (50-59)
Collective participation activities (60-69)
Spectacles, entertainment, etc (70- 79)
Sports and active leisure (80-89)
Passive leisure (90-99)
Total
Percent
Minutes
Percent
Minutes
Percent
255
245
1865
4410
870
240
1400
1850
4290
1.65
1.59
12.09
28.59
5.64
1.56
9.08
11.99
27.81
255
245
1475
2290
615
135
800
515
3540
2.58
2.48
14.94
23.2
6.23
1.37
8.11
5.22
35.87
390
2120
255
105
600
1275
750
7.1
38.58
4.64
1.91
10.92
23.2
13.65
15425
100
9870
100
5495
100
Table 5 Time use of respondents by neighborhood
all respondents
Bukit Panjang
Toa Payoh
Minutes
Minutes
adult (16+) respondents
Bukit Panjang
Toa Payoh
Minutes
Minutes
Panel A: Broad categories
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Productive Time
Contracted Time (employment)
Committed Time
43865
23550
20315
24.53
13.17
11.36
52280
25590
26690
26.03
12.74
13.29
36335
19830
16505
26.95
14.71
12.24
48335
23970
24365
26.90
13.34
13.56
Personal Maintenance Time
Eating
Sleep
76205
11585
50800
42.62
6.48
28.41
86075
17030
57055
42.85
8.48
28.4
57750
8865
37505
42.83
6.57
27.82
76610
14870
50590
42.65
8.28
28.17
Expressive Time
Television viewing
47451
15350
26.54
8.58
53220
24795
26.49
12.34
32466
11615
24.08
8.61
46095
20730
25.66
11.54
Transport
11280
6.31
9315
4.64
8280
6.14
8580
4.78
178801
100
200890
100
134831
100
179620
100
Total
Panel B: Coding categories
Minutes
Working time etc. (00-09)
Domestic work (10-19)
Care to children (20-29)
Purchasing of goods etc (30-39)
Private needs: meals, sleep etc. (40-49)
Adult education and training (50-59)
Collective participation activities (60-69)
Spectacles, entertainment, etc (70- 79)
Sports and active leisure (80-89)
Passive leisure (90-99)
Total
Percent
Minutes
Percent
Minutes
Percent
Minutes
Percent
25710
9785
7510
3460
83030
6570
1840
2700
3336
34860
14.38
5.47
4.20
1.94
46.44
3.67
1.03
1.51
1.87
19.50
27605
16220
5225
6700
91165
4770
2680
1580
4835
40110
13.74
8.07
2.60
3.34
45.38
2.37
1.33
0.79
2.41
19.97
21660
8335
6080
2470
63315
1530
1290
1125
2331
26695
16.06
6.18
4.51
1.83
46.96
1.13
0.96
0.83
1.73
19.8
25820
14390
5105
6205
81490
4110
2665
1415
3905
34515
14.37
8.01
2.84
3.45
45.37
2.29
1.48
0.79
2.17
19.22
178801
100
200890
100
134831
100
179620
100
Table 6 The impact of selected factors on time use
Type of time
Intercept
smallkid
kid
older
male
worker
age2
TP
R2
Committed time
185.370
123.041
65.285
-24.452
-242.513
-244.161
5.874
30.839
**
***
**
***
***
***
0.4863
TV watching time
Intercept
smallkid
kid
older
male
worker
age2
TP
R2
175.258 ***
-12.509
-2.422
26.447
1.677
-34.304
0.354
18.421
0.0684
Work time
134.608
-62.420
-14.105
9.649
67.339
276.797
-0.638
-51.677
Personal time
*
*
*
***
0.3561
0.1802
***
**
**
**
0.1341
Sleep time
563.299
-44.850
-9.649
0.067
45.866
-80.361
0.641
-63.209
856.632
-43.154
-8.222
25.172
78.316
-94.095
0.147
-102.841
Eating time
***
**
*
***
**
99.863 ***
0.288
9.998
10.600
1.446
14.582
0.227
18.632
0.0433
Express time
589.428 ***
-0.310
100.175 **
17.545
-29.433
-119.364 *
-2.780
28.430
0.0818
Time with
immediate family
-13.559
111.731 *
117.475 **
-17.142
-37.415
-36.204
8.668 ***
-57.364
0.1605
Transport time
79.808 **
18.485
12.409
-7.201
9.750
48.523 ***
-0.336
-14.698
0.133
Time with
friends
177.101 **
-4.023
6.885
-17.088
-25.880
24.652
-2.786 *
58.344 a
0.0676
Table 7 Initial comparison of U.S. and Singaporean time use
year
persons
Working time etc. (00-09)
Domestic work (10-19)
Care to children (20-29)
Purchasing of goods etc (30-39)
Private needs: meals, sleep etc. (40-49)
Adult education and training (50-59)
Collective participation activities (60-69)
Spectacles, entertainment, etc (70- 79)
Sports and active leisure (80-89)
Passive leisure (90-99)
US data
1985
3,704
2003
211
difference
17.99%
8.61%
2.15%
3.68%
44.03%
1.25%
1.25%
4.51%
2.99%
13.54%
14.04%
6.85%
3.35%
2.68%
45.88%
2.99%
1.19%
1.13%
2.15%
19.75%
-3.95%
-1.76%
1.20%
-1.00%
1.85%
1.74%
-0.06%
-3.38%
-0.84%
6.21%
Appendices
16
Appendix Table 1
Type
Units as of 31 March 2002
Residential
1-Room Flats
2-Room Flats
3-Room Flats
4-Room Flats
5-Room Flats
Executive Flats
Studio Apartments
HUDC Flats
21,274
30,661
232,234
315,381
195,506
64,501
936
2,425
Total
862,918
Social and Communal Facilities
Neighbourhood Parks
Childcare Centres
Education Centres
Homes for the Aged
Senior Citizen Clubs
Boys' Clubs
Residents' Committee Centres
Community Halls
Community Health/Dialysis Centres
Social Service Centres
Civil Defence Shelters
Others
50
306
467
52
30
7
516
84
36
216
85
6
Availability of Consumer Durables in the Household (percent)
1998
Refrigerator
Television set
Video cassette recorder
Piano/organ
Personal computer
Internet access
Air-conditioner
Washing machine
Car
Motorcycle/scooter
from Yearbook of Statistics Singapore
98.6
98.6
76.9
11.9
47.4
22.8
57.7
90.8
34.9
10.3
Our research sites
Toa Payoh
Toa Payoh 30-storey HDB building
Bukit
Panjang
Bukit Panjang
30-storey
HDB building
Which to believe?
Singapore’s Economic Base I
Singapore’s
Economic
Base II
Evolving architecture I
Evolving architecture II
Scenes from HDB life
October 23, 2002
Time Use in Singapore High-Rise Residences
Respondent _________________________________________________________
Address _______________________________________________________
Date ____________________________________
Please help us understand how living in flats affects the daily lives of Singaporeans. We are asking
you to keep a record of what you do in a specific 24-hour period. Please record all your activities and
not just the important ones. We are asking everyone in your household that is aged 12 or above to do
that also.
For each 15-minute period, please record:
•
Your main activity (for example, “cleaning the house” or “watching TV”).
•
Any additional activity (for example, “watching the children”).
•
Who was involved with the activity along with you (for example, “spouse” or “mother”). We
don’t need to know their exact identity, so “Cousin AB” or “Friend DD” is
•
where you were (for example, “home” or “waiting for the bus”). We are very interested in
these aspects of your day.
Please fill in your diary as often as possible and as soon as possible after completing the activity.
•
If an activity lasts more than 15 minutes (for example, “sleeping”), just draw a line indicating
the starting and ending time.
•
If an activity lasts less than 10 minutes (for example, “Mom stopped by to drop off some
vegetables” or “walked to market”), just write a short note with the approximate length of
time the activity lasted.
•
Feel free to abbreviate.
•
•
We do not need to know about what you did while you were physically in your work place or
in your school. We would like to know about your trips out to have tea or to run errands.
We want to know about your time “out” and at home – especially when other people are
involved.
Please answer the questions at the end of the time dairy. Your responses will help us put your
activities for the day in context. We will compare your day to those of other Singaporeans and to
those of people living in other countries.
October 23, 2002
Midnight to 7:59 a.m.
What were you doing?
12:00
15
30
45
1:00
15
30
45
2:00
15
30
45
3:00
15
30
45
4:00
15
30
45
5:00
15
30
45
6:00
15
30
45
7:00
15
30
45
What else were you
doing
Who was
involved?
Where were you
doing it (address)?
8:00 a.m. to 3:59 p.m.
What were you doing?
8:00
15
30
45
9:00
15
30
45
10:00
15
30
45
11:00
15
30
45
12:00
15
30
45
1:00
15
30
45
2:00
15
30
45
3:00
15
30
45
What else were you
doing
Who was involved?
Where were you
doing it?
4:00 p.m. to midnight
What were you doing?
4:00
15
30
45
5:00
15
30
45
6:00
15
30
45
7:00
15
30
45
8:00
15
30
45
9:00
15
30
45
10:00
15
30
45
11:00
15
30
45
What else were you
doing
Who was involved?
Where were you
doing it?
Additional questions
Please tell us about the members of your household (We only need this information from one person
in your household.)
Name/Initials
Relationship to
you
Sex
Age
Occupation
Works
outside
house
self
MF
YN
MF
YN
MF
YN
MF
YN
MF
YN
MF
YN
MF
YN
MF
YN
Are there more people in this household?
Average
monthly
income
YN
Please tell us about the people you did things with today (you do not need to record those with whom
you did things at work or at school or household members).
Name/Initials
Were there other people?
Sex
Age
Is this person
a relative?
Lives in your
neighborhood?
MF
YN
YN
MF
YN
YN
MF
YN
YN
MF
YN
YN
MF
YN
YN
MF
YN
YN
MF
YN
YN
MF
YN
YN
YN
If you visited any of these places, please tell us where they are
Place
In the neighborhood?
Where?
My usual work place
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
Y ==>
Street and Block:
N ==>
Area:
My usual school
A place of recreation
A supermarket
A wet market
Hawker center
Shopping center
other places
Would you say your day was pretty typical?
Y
N
If not, how did it differ from a usual day?
How did you feel today?
Terrific
Fine
A little ill
I was ill
Thank you for your cooperation!
Complete two-digit activity code
Code
Activity description
Working time and time connected to it (00-09)
Normal professional work (outside home)
0
Normal professional work at home or brought home
1
Overtime if it can be specifically isolated from 00
2
Displacements during work if they can be specifically isolated from 00
3
Any waiting or interruption during working time if it can be isolated from work
(e.g. due to supply shortage, breakdown of machines, etc.)
4
Undeclared, auxiliary, etc. work
5
Meal at the workplace
6
Time spent at the workplace before starting or after ending work
7
Regular breaks and prescribed non-working periods etc. during worktime
8
Travel to (resp. from) workplace, including waiting for means of transport
9
Domestic work (10-19)
Preparation and cooking of food
10
Washing up and putting away the dishes
11
Indoor cleaning (sweeping, washing, bed-making)
12
Outdoor cleaning (sidewalk, disposal of garbage)
13
Laundry, ironing
14
Repair or upkeep of clothes, shoes, underwear
15
Other repairs and home operations
16
Gardening, animal care*
17
Heat and water supplies-upkeep
18
Others (e.g. dealing with bills and various other papers, usual care to
household members, etc.)
19
Care to children (20-29)
Care to babies
20
Care to older children
21
Supervision of school work (exercises and lessons)
22
Reading of tales or other non-school books to children, conversations with
children
23
Indoor games and manual instruction
24
Outdoor games and walks
25
Medical care (visiting the childrens' doctor or dentist, or other activities related
to the health of children)
26
Others
27
Not to be used
28
Travel to accompany children including waiting for means of transport
29
Purchasing of goods and services (30-39)
Purchasing of everyday consumer goods and products
30
Purchasing of durable consumer goods
31
Personal care outside home (e.g. hairdresser)
32
Medical care outside home
33
Administrative services, offices
34
Repair and other services (e.g. laundry, electricity, mechanics)
35
Waiting, queueing for the purchase of goods and services
36
37
38
39
Others
Not to be used
Traveling connected to the above mentioned activities, including waiting for
means of transport
Private needs: meals and sleep etc. (Private and non-described activities) (40-49)
Personal hygiene, dressing (getting up, going to bed, etc.)
40
Personal medical care at home
41
Care given to adults, if not included in household work
42
Meals and snacks at home
43
Meals outside home or the canteen*
44
Night sleep (essential)
45
Daytime sleep (incidental)
46
Nap or rest
47
Private activities, non-described, others
48
Traveling connected to the above mentioned activities. including waiting for
means of transport
49
Adult education and professional training (50-59)
Full time attendance to classes (undergraduate or post-graduate student),
studies being the principal activity
50
Reduced programs of professional or special training courses (including after
work classes organized by the plant or enterprise in question)
51
Attendance to lectures (occasionally)
52
Programs of political or union training course
53
Homework prepared for different courses and lectures (including related
research work and self-instruction)
54
Reading of scientific reviews of books for personal instruction
55
Others
56
Not to be used
57-58
Traveling connected to the above mentioned activities, including waiting for
means of transport
59
Civic and collective participation activities (60-69)
Participation as member of a party, of a union, etc.)
60
Voluntary activity as an elected official of a social or political organization
61
Participation in meetings other than those covered by 60 and 61
62
Non-paid collective civic activity (e.g. volunteers)
63
Participation in religious organizations
64
Religious practice and attending religious ceremonies
65
Participation in various factory councils (committees, commissions)
66
Participation in other associations (family, parent, military, etc.)
67
Others
68
Traveling connected to the above mentioned activities, including waiting for
means of transport
69
Spectacles, entertainment, social life (70- 79)
Attending a sports event
70
Circus, music-hall, dancing, show, night-club (including a meal in the
entertainment local)
71
Movies
72
Theatre, concert, opera
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Museum, exhibition
Receiving visit of friends or visiting friends
Party or reception with meal offered to or offered by friends
Cafe, bar, tearoom
Attending receptions (other than those mentioned above)
Traveling connected to the above mentioned activities, including waiting for
means of transport
Sports and active leisure (80-89)
Practice a sport and physical exercise
80
Excursions, hunting, fishing
81
Walks
82
Technical hobbies, collections
83
Ladies' work (confection, needle work, dressmaking, knitting, etc.)
84
Artistic creations (sculpture, painting, pottery, literature, etc.)
85
Playing a musical instrument, singing
86
Society games
87
Others
88
Traveling connected to the above mentioned activities, including waiting for
means of transport
89
Passive leisure (90-99)
Listening to the radio
90
Watching television
91
Listening to records
92
Reading books
93
Reading review, periodicals, pamphlets etc.
94
Reading newspaper
95
Conversations, including telephone conversation
96
Writing private correspondence
97
Relaxing, reflecting, thinking, planning, doing nothing, no visible activity
98
Traveling connected to the above mentioned activities, including waiting for
means of transport
99
Such activities (especially gardening and animal care) are to be recorded as 'domestic work'
only if not part of professional work or gainful employment.
A number of special types of meals outside home and the canteen have special codes, different from 44
(see under 'Spectacles, Entertainment, Social life', especially codes 71, 76-78)