Supply and affordability

Housing affordability is one of the main issues that influence the desired quality of housing. The quality of house that individuals are able to attain is largely a reflection of what they are willing or are able to afford. For the great majority of people this scarcely bears comparison with an ‘ideal’ house. The extent to which housing falls below any particular standard may be as much a reflection of households’ wealth and financial ability in aggregate. It is very easy to foresee that a dwelling, which is quite difficult to purchase, shall become an even more expensive item in the event of increasing the divergence between the prices of housing and income. For most people the cost of buying or renting their house consumes by far the largest part of their income. This, in turn, affects their ability to provide better housing and life qualities. Moreover, if the financial capabilities lead to the threat of losing the home this could be very damaging for the household (Maliene & Malys 2009; Harrison 2004; Markus 1988; Duncan 1971).

Housing affordability has long been considered a key indicator for success in the overall housing system. Therefore, it is among the issues that focus the attention of policy makers and numerous researchers engaged with the fields of housing economics, housing policies and housing behaviour. Several studies have been undertaken on housing affordability to assess the efficiency of housing supply and explore the set of opportunities and constraints that determine the ability of households to fulfil their housing needs and demands, and thus, achieve better housing quality. Such studies tackle various issues related to housing policies, housing supply and allocation, housing costs and finance, affordability problems, dynamics of housing markets and others. This puts forward the idea that affordability is really a label for a number of closely related issues linked to housing provision. Such issues include housing supply and demand, housing delivery, accessibility to housing market, housing costs and housing tenure and homelessness, all of which affect the achievement of better housing quality (Gallent &

Tewdwr-Jones 2007; Leishman & Rowley 2012).

The effect of tenure type is an aspect that has been extensively addressed. Attempts have been made to explore the set of consequences associated with the different tenure

Page | 40

types, particularly home ownership, on the individual and societal levels. Examples include the work of Elsinga and Hoekstra (2005), Dietz and Haurin (2004), Rohe and Basolo (1997), Rossi and Weber (1996) and Rohe and Stegman (1994). Researchers have found such apparent implications on aspects including health, mobility, social integration, sense of security, household behaviour, wealth accumulation and environment. Although most of these studies work within economical perspectives or with the housing behaviour research agenda, their contribution in enriching and widening the concept of housing quality is substantial.

Choice and control are two other meanings that have been extensively referred to when addressing the issue of housing quality and the efficiency of housing provision. Both are strongly associated with the concept of home constituting the profound dimension of housing. It is argued that the increased choice/control would be associated with greater housing quality and, thus, higher levels of subjective QOL. This has been confirmed through the work of Nelson et al (2007) who found out that perceptions of housing quality have been related to perceptions of housing control and choice. Households who perceived themselves as having had more choice/control over their housing were also more likely to perceive their housing as being of greater quality. It has been justified that ability to exercise more choice over where people live would have allowed them to select better quality housing. Additionally, greater perceptions of choice/control over housing themselves could lead to increased attachment to housing and, accordingly, an improved evaluation of its quality (Van Ham 2012; Nelson et al 2007; Brown & King 2005).

Research on affordability and housing provision is important for enriching the conceptualisation of housing quality. It presents the wider lens through which housing quality can be assessed, and helps providing explanations for findings obtained from research engaged with quality of dwelling or neighbourhoods. It is also recognisable for being an important source for objective data that might relate to housing quality.

Page | 41

2.5.4. Residential satisfaction

Residential satisfaction is a subject covered substantially in the literature on housing and built environment. It has long been a major topic in disciplines such as sociology, psychology, planning and geography. The reason for the popularity of this topic is, according to Lu (1999), twofold: the first is being recognised as a ‘mediator’ of individual happiness or well-being (Vera-Toscano & Ateca-Amestoy 2008).

Accordingly, it has been studied as an important criterion in describing the QOL of inhabitants in determinate residential environment, and also a trigger factor affecting residential mobility (Amerigo & Aragones 1997). The second reason is being a source for understanding individuals’ evaluations of their housing circumstances which determine the way they respond to residential environments and form the basis of demands for public action. In that sense, it presents an alternative viewpoint of addressing housing quality by covering the subjective dimension overlooked in conventional objective approaches.

Residential satisfaction studies tend usually to examine households’ perceptions of their living environments, including both the house and the neighbourhood, through dividing explanatory factors into characteristics of users (either cognitive or behavioural) and attributes of the environment, both physical and social. The main aim is to find out the most influential factors that affect people’s perceptions and determine their level of satisfaction. Despite the variety of approaches applied by different studies to assess and conceptualise residential satisfaction, they all share the same central idea - that what is important in determining individuals’ residential satisfaction is their perception rather than the actual configuration of residential forms and conditions (Lu 1999). In line with that, all such studies work under the notion that residential satisfaction measures the differences between households’ actual and desired housing situations, where satisfaction with one situation indicates the absence of complaints and a high degree of matching between actual and desired states. On the contrary, the ‘lack of fit’ between households’ actual and desired housing needs creates stress or dissatisfaction with their residence (Lu 1999; Morris & Winter 1975).

Page | 42

Research related to residential satisfaction may be grouped into two categories: the first includes studies of residential satisfaction as a criterion of evaluation of residential quality, treating satisfaction as a dependent variable, i.e. an outcome. Examples include the work of Marans and Rodgers (1975), Cutter (1982), Amerigo and Aragones (1990) and Weidemann et al (1982). The objective of this type of study is to establish the factors that determine the degree of households’ satisfaction with their residential environment. Such factors include length of residence, tenure status, physical characteristics of the house and neighbourhood, social bonds, and the socio-demographic characteristics of residents. In that sense, this approach is more associated with research focusing on the qualities of dwelling and neighbourhood. The second category interprets residential satisfaction as a predictor, i.e. independent variable, of households’ behaviours, like residential mobility and adaptation of housing. This approach assumes that any incongruence between the set of needs and aspirations and the current residential status can be alleviated by moving either to another house or to another location. Examples of this approach include the work of Newman and Duncan (1979) and Galster (1987). This type of research is usually more linked with research on housing market and provision.

In general, residential satisfaction is a complex cognitive construct. Unlike the case with the objective research on housing quality, research on residential satisfaction tends to reflect a broader perspective in addressing housing quality that combines aspects related to the dwelling, neighbourhood and, in some cases, affordability and housing provision.

In respect of that, different studies have adopted or come up with different measures of satisfaction. Table 2.3 illustrates examples of residential satisfaction features that have been explored in a number of studies. It can be noticed that studies undertaken on residential satisfaction vary in their focus, and in the type and amount of explanatory variables and factors of influence, as well as the degree of specificity with which they identify such variables.

Page | 43 Table 2.3: Factors of residential satisfaction explored in a number of studies

Study

Tenure type - Property value - Housing adequacy - Public/private housing - Room stress - Province - Availability of public services - Bothersome features - Interaction with neighbours - Social consensus with neighbours

Hur & Morrow-Jones (2008)

- Neighbourhood Safety - Local government service - Cleanliness - Trees - Pedestrian access to stores - Traffic - Racial composition - Distance to work - Distance to family and friends - Access to recreational opportunities - Proximity to problem areas - General appearance - Density of housing - Social activity - Social communication

Adriaanse (2007) - Dwelling - Neighbourhood

Dwelling is properly maintained - Convenient dwelling layout - Pleasing ambiance of dwelling - Attachment to neighbourhood - Pleasant treatment of neighbourhood’s residents - Cohesion Attractiveness - Social mix - Lack of annoyance - Contact with neighbours - Feeling at home Kearney (2006) - Neighbourhood Density - Proximity to shared nature - Use of shared

outdoor areas - View from the home

Type of tenure - Housing quality index - Dwelling type - Number of rooms - Space shortage in dwelling - Housing expenditure

Parkes, et al (2002) - Dwelling - Neighbourhood

Access to neighbourhood facilities - General appearance of area - Leisure facilities - Noise - Community spirit in area - Friendly community - Quality of schools - Quality of public transport - Street lighting - Crime - Relations with

neighbours - Safety in accommodation

Day (2000) - Dwelling

- Neighbourhood

Choice & tradeoffs - Auto accommodation - Space around house - Privacy - Views – Image - Interior space

Lu (1999) - Dwelling

- Neighbourhood - Housing provision

Housing adequacy - Room stress - Property value - Housing cost in income - Public/private housing - Census region - Central city/suburb - Bothersome features in neighbourhood

Turkoglu (1997) - Dwelling - Neighbourhood

Accessibility to city centre & public services - Availability

& maintenance of social, recreational & educational services -Satisfaction with neighbour - Social & physical environmental problems - Size & physical conditions of dwelling - Climatic control of dwelling

Aragones et al (1992)

- Dwelling - Neighbourhood

Relationships with neighbours - Quality of house - Urban insecurity - Comfort - Overcrowding of house

Aragones &

Corraliza (1992)

- Dwelling - Neighbourhood

Relationships with neighbours - Urban safety - Health infrastructure - Overcrowding - Infrastructure facilities neighbours -Safety of the town - Infrastructure of the neighbourhood - Deterioration - Connection with the outside world - Urban activity and noise - Open natural spaces

Amrigo &

Aragones (1990)

- Dwelling - Neighbourhood

Comfort with the neighbourhood - Comfort of house - Safety - Privacy - Thermal insulation

Page | 44

Each of these studies came up with different sets of factors or housing quality attributes that were found to be the most influential. For instance, Amerigo and Aragones (1997) identified four important aspects that seemed to be of substantial concern. The first two relate to the house and are the quality of basic infrastructure and overcrowding, while the second two refer to the neighbourhood and surrounding area, and are perceived residential safety and relationships with neighbours.

On the other hand, Lu (1999) found that home ownership and availability of space were the two housing aspects that seemed to be associated with more satisfaction with homes and neighbourhoods. Unlike the previously mentioned studies, in his study about improving neighbourhood quality, Greenberg (1999) found that poor neighbourhood quality was strongly associated with crime and physical decay. These were seen to be more influential if compared to other factors such as absence of good parks, schools, mass transportation facilities and other public amenities. Bothersome industrial and commercial developments also lower neighbourhood quality if residents perceive that these developments were imposed on them and result in uncontrolled disturbances and means of environmental or social deterioration. Other factors include mistrust of authority, negative emotions, and lack of sense of mastery of the environment.

Greenberg claims that residents differ in their feelings about a given neighbourhood according to their personal attributes that include degree of optimism, sense of control and trust of local officials. These influence the way and extent to which they assess and rate their neighbourhood quality. He also stated that previous neighbourhood experiences confound present ones and play a role in differentiating between attitudes of people towards the same neighbourhood they live within.

The work of Hur and Morrow-Jones (2008) presents another sort of finding. The study has shown that factors affecting residential satisfaction vary among community groups as they were similar among satisfactory groups of neighbourhoods, but noticeably different in the case of unsatisfactory groups. Satisfaction with housing density, traffic and proximity to problem access seem to be important in all cases. Satisfaction with general appearance and density of housing seem to be the most significant factors in the case of satisfied neighbourhoods. Other factors include satisfaction with local

Page | 45

government services and satisfaction with recreational opportunities. In the case of dissatisfied neighbourhoods, indicators of social problems such as satisfaction with safety from crime, satisfaction with racial composition, and satisfaction with proximity to problem areas turned out to be dominant influences for the overall satisfaction of residents, besides satisfaction with general appearance. Findings of Hur and Morrow-Jones match to a certain extent with findings from a set of studies which identify physical appearance as the most important factor for increasing neighbourhood satisfaction and QOL. These include the work of Kaplan (1985) and Langdon (1997).

Other researchers claim that attributes of residents affect their tendency towards valuing physical and social factors in determining their overall satisfaction. For instance, newly arrived residents are seen to point out physical appearance as the most important factor for residential satisfaction, while long-term residents consider stress factors such as tension with neighbours and inability to communicate with others as the most important (Potter & Cantarero 2006).

Regardless of the differences, most studies tend to agree on a certain number of attributes that seem to be more associated with residential satisfaction. Sirgy and Cornwell (2002) listed a number of features, based on an extensive review of literature, that have received empirical support in relation to residential satisfaction. The list includes the following features arranged under three categories as follows: physical features - upkeep of homes and yards, landscape in the neighbourhood, crowding and noise level, nearness of neighbourhood to facilities needed, quality of the environment in the community; social features - social interactions with neighbours, outdoor play space, satisfaction with people in the neighbourhood, ties with people in the community, crime, race relations in the community, privacy at home; and economic features - home value, cost of living in the community, satisfaction with socio-economic status of neighbourhood and neighbourhood improvements.

In spite of its popularity, research on residential satisfaction and the interaction between the individual and their residential environment faces a number of problems that can be grouped around three dimensions. The first relates to the content of the residential environment and how it is empirically defined. An example is the problem associated

Page | 46

with the definition of neighbourhood. In many cases the concept is not used within clear, well established and bounded limits that define what features constitute a neighbourhood. The second dimension broaches the problem of the interaction between the individual and the residential environment because of being dynamic, two-way and constantly changing. The third relates to the issue of social desirability inherent in the term ‘satisfaction’ and the difficulty of determining objective levels of residential satisfaction. Such problems sometimes result in contradictions between research findings (Hur & Morrow-Jones 2008; Amerigo & Aragones 1997).

2.6. Towards an Integrated Definition of Housing Quality

Despite the abundance of research undertaken on the subject of housing quality there seems to be a scarcity in studies that cover broad dimensions of the subject. Even with the efforts made to develop substantial and coherent theoretical and practical frameworks to understand and analyse quality and design of housing, most of them became fragmented as they were the subject of different disciplines involved in housing studies such as architecture and planning, psychology, economics and sociology.

Furthermore, research from different bases has had difficulties connecting with each other due to the different concepts, theories, methods and even languages and assumptions about people-environment relationships that each discipline has and uses (Garcia-Mira et al 2005). For instance, it can be noticed that studies exploring objective-subjective relationships in housing have been limited (Marans 2003). Lawrence (2000) pointed out that there were also very few studies that address the morphological or spatial dimensions of housing.

In respect of that, many researchers argue that it is no longer possible to discuss housing quality without considering the reciprocal relations between different factors and attributes that include, for instance, physical characteristics of housing and the much broader environmental and social conditions. For that reason, they call for a reappraisal of the concept of housing quality, calling for an integrated definition of housing quality in which sets of architectural, demographic, economic, ecological, psychological, social and political factors are explicitly interrelated. This implies the development of a contextual understanding based on the identification and aggregation of the contingent

Page | 47

factors that relate to the different aspects of housing, including provision and affordability of housing (Lawrence 1995). Table 2.4 present these sets of factors.

Table 2.4: Contextual conditions of housing Land use and Building Regulations

Availability of services in the neighbourhood and the city Availability and diversity of housing, services and employment Affordability and choice in local market for house-owners and renters Evolution of comforts and housing standards

Changes in lifestyles and domesticity

Social values attributed to neighbourhoods and building types Social values attributed to housing tenure

Residential history of the local population

This integrative perspective offers more collaboration, conceptual innovation, and multiple methods and measures in defining and assessing housing quality (Ozsoy &

Gokmen 2005). It takes into account not only the needs but also the perceptions of resident in order to create a more harmonious residential environment, maximising comfort with the resources at their disposal. Additionally, it entails the necessity to replace the longstanding use of prescriptive principles based on definite conceptual

Source: Lawrence (1995)

Page | 48

visions or beliefs that specify what ought to be achieved by proscriptive principles that state what not to achieve. Proscriptive principles imply that what is not forbidden is permitted. They do not hinder a wide range of solutions to housing requirements, and thus open the way for broader awareness of housing quality attributes and more innovative solutions for accomplishing housing needs and requirements (Lawrence 1995). Furthermore, this approach offers a combination of the ‘outside’ and ‘inside’

viewpoints about housing quality comprising external and internal values as well as approved standards and shared local experiences, in addition to utilising both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This gives rise to possibilities in the long term for deepening our understanding of both local and general views of housing quality, and the interrelated natures of the different perspectives (Ambrose 1989).

In terms of welfare, development, and overall distributional impact, the study of whole-sector housing quality is more significant than attention to parts of a housing system.

This is necessary for the development of effective housing policies in order to establish a more comprehensive approach that has vigorous relationships to general land policies,

This is necessary for the development of effective housing policies in order to establish a more comprehensive approach that has vigorous relationships to general land policies,