Using semi-structured interviews with 160 university students in Hong Kong, this paper analyses whether there are differences in the anticipated housing pathways of local Hong Kong students and non-local mainland students. The paper develops a theoretical framework for analysing housing pathways based on Clapham's (2005) concept by focusing on the degree of financial support from parents in purchasing an apartment, optimistic versus pessimistic future aspirations, and individual housing preferences. It employs an innovative methodology, including the reliability interval method (RIM) to analyse individual housing preferences. Three major conclusions can be drawn: first, parental support is crucial for university students to purchase apartments in the future, particularly for non-local mainland students; second, non-local mainland students are generally more optimistic about being able to purchase an apartment in the future, particularly female students; third, individual housing preferences can be grouped into price sensitive, security sensitive, connectivity sensitive, and environmental sensitive groups. The most crucial concern in their anticipated housing pathways for a majority of local and non-local students is the price level and the security of the building and neighbourhood, resulting in considerable housing and socio-economic policy challenges.

Green building codes normally consider self-sufficiency of energy and water. Their highest aspiration is to build zero carbon buildings (ZCB) or zero energy buildings (ZEB). However, a zero-energy building is not sustainable, as it does not take into account the self-sufficiency of food and waste. This paper puts forward a novel planning model to approach a zero-food and zero-(organic) waste community (ZFW community), paving the way to achieve a truly sustainable community with four-zeros on energy, water, food, and waste. It considers a community of 40-ha land accommodating 10,000 persons. If 8-ha farmland is additionally provided, then it can achieve 100% self-sufficiency in fertilizer (organic waste) and 40% self-sufficiency in vegetables. It does not only save carbon dioxide emission due to transportation of food and waste, but it also helps reduce 40% of the landfill space.