{"id":48779,"date":"2014-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2014-04-02T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk\/press\/survey-findings-on-views-about-the-individual-visit-scheme-released-by-hong-kong-institute-of-asia-pacific-studies-at-cuhk\/"},"modified":"2014-04-02T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2014-04-02T00:00:00","slug":"survey-findings-on-views-about-the-individual-visit-scheme-released-by-hong-kong-institute-of-asia-pacific-studies-at-cuhk","status":"publish","type":"press","link":"https:\/\/www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk\/en\/press\/survey-findings-on-views-about-the-individual-visit-scheme-released-by-hong-kong-institute-of-asia-pacific-studies-at-cuhk\/","title":{"rendered":"Survey Findings on Views about the Individual Visit Scheme Released by Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at CUHK"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","tags":[],"class_list":["post-48779","press","type-press","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":{"title_alt":"","sub_title_alt":"","press_date":"20140402","keep":false,"details":"<p>A telephone survey was conducted from 21 to 26 March 2014 by Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong to gauge public views about the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS).&nbsp; 880 respondents aged 18 or above were successfully interviewed, with a response rate of 46.1%.&nbsp; The sampling error is + or &ndash;3.30% at a confidence level of 95%.&nbsp;<\/p><p><strong>Major findings are summarized as follows:<\/strong>&nbsp;<\/p><p>In the current survey, while over three-fifths (61.1%) of 880 respondents said that visitors under IVS brought inconvenience to their everyday lives, 37.7% reported they did not experience inconvenience.&nbsp; Among the former group of respondents, 36.6% reported a low level of inconvenience caused by IVS, 35.3% found a medium level, and 27.3% expressed a high level.&nbsp; Overall, more than a quarter (27.8%) of the 880 respondents said IVS brought more benefits to themselves, 43.0% tended to believe that it caused more detriments, and 21.9% were \"in-between\".&nbsp;<\/p><p>In terms of the impacts of IVS on Hong Kong, more than two-fifths (45.7%) of the respondents thought IVS as beneficial, 29.1% reported it as detrimental, and 22.4% believed that it brought both benefits and detriments.&nbsp; When the respondents were asked if they perceived that Hong Kong had no more capacity to receive the existing volume of Mainland visitors from IVS, over half of them (53.6%) agreed, 17.2% disagreed, and 27.2% said \"in-between\".&nbsp;<\/p><p>Concerning the proposed revision of the IVS, more than three-fifths (63.6%) of the 880 respondents agreed that multiple-entry permit arrangement currently applicable to Shenzhen registered residents should be cancelled, 15.3% disagreed, and 19.6% neither agreed nor disagreed.&nbsp; When being asked if they agreed with the proposal of imposing arrival tax on visitors entering the territory on land so as to control the number of IVS visitors, 37.2% agreed, 43.5% disagreed, and 17.3% indicated \"in-between\".&nbsp;<\/p><p>In addition, more than three-fifths (61.8%) of our respondents agreed with setting a quota of IVS visitors, 16.3% disagreed, and one-fifth (20.0%) neither favored nor disfavored.&nbsp; Concerning the view that \"As a free port, Hong Kong should not impose any entry restrictions to Mainland visitors under IVS\", 34.9% agreed and 38.7% disagreed.&nbsp; 25.4% said \"in-between\".&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p><p>Finally, while nearly three-fifths (57.2%) of the 880 respondents wanted to reduce the scope of IVS, 4.3% preferred an expansion.&nbsp; 34.9% expected no change.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>","show_as_achievement":false,"achievement_category":[],"show_as_clarification":false,"show_as_announcement":false,"photos":null,"attachments":null,"video_source":null,"video_file":null,"add_play_button":false,"video_caption":"","show_migration":false,"original_id":"1786","photos_original":null,"attachments_original":[{"link":"533b94acc31ef.pdf","text":"Attachment (Chinese version only)"}],"cover_photo":null,"fb_photo":null,"cover_image":null},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press\/48779","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/press"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press\/48779\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}