Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 313–330 | Cite as

Spatial dimensions of the demand for homeownership. A Danish rural–urban perspective

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of “spatial location satisfaction” and examines its relation to the individual demand for homeownership. Based on a Danish questionnaire survey carried out in a rural study area (N = 1,000) and in an urban study area (N = 1,015), a tenure choice model was estimated relating spatial location satisfaction to homeownership, while adjusting for control variables. The spatial location satisfaction variable was constructed from two questionnaire items asking respondents to state their actual and preferred place of settlement given five location type options: large city, medium-sized city, small town, village, and “in the countryside”. As hypothesised, the study shows a strong association between spatial location satisfaction and the individual demand for homeownership. This association is robust across study areas. Spatial location satisfaction is highest in the rural study area and explains about 6% of the rural–urban difference in homeownership rates. The identification of a positive association between spatial location satisfaction and homeownership adds credibility to population surveys that measure the correspondence between actual and preferred location type. This, in turn, provides increased impetus to use such survey data as one of the tools in formulating regional planning policies.

Keywords

Spatial location satisfaction Demand for homeownership Tenure choice Rural–urban 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and advice. Further, I thank associate professor Peter Sandholt Jensen, University of Southern Denmark, for his advice and valuable suggestions in connection with writing the article. Financial support for the study is acknowledged from the EU initiative programme INTERREG III B.

References

  1. Aaronson, D. (2000). A note on the benefits of homeownership. Journal of Urban Economics, 47, 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, H. S., & Christensen, G. (2006). Den almene sektors rolle i boligforsyningen [The role of the social housing sector in the housing supply]. In H. S. Andersen & T. Fridberg (Eds.), Den almene boligsektors rolle i samfundet [The role of the social housing market in society] (pp. 19–34). Copenhagen: Danish Institute of Governmental Research.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, D. M., & Baba, Y. (1990). Social determinants of neighborhood attachment. Sociological Spectrum, 10, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baba, Y., & Austin, D. M. (1989). Neighborhood environmental satisfaction, victimization, and social participation as determinants of perceived neighborhood safety. Environment and Behavior, 21(6), 763–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, T., & Kingston, P. (1984). Homeownership and social attachment. Sociological Perspectives, 27(2), 159–180.Google Scholar
  6. Carliner, R. (1974). Determinants of home ownership. Land Economics, 50(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coulson, N. E. (1999). Why are Hispanic- and Asian-American homeownership rates so low? Immigration and other factors. Journal of Urban Economics, 45, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, K. (1982). Housing tenure and neighborhood activism. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 18, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruz, C. (2007). Housing transaction costs in the OECD. Property Investment Guide. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/investment- analysis/Housing-transaction-costs-in-the-OECD.
  10. Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs. (2003). Den Regionale Vækststrategi [The regional growth strategy]. Copenhagen: Paper published by the Danish government.Google Scholar
  11. Danish Ministry of the Interior and Health. (2004). Landdistriktsredegørelse 2004 [Rural district survey 2004]. Copenhagen: Paper published by the Danish government.Google Scholar
  12. Danish Ministry of Welfare. (2008). Tiltrækning og fastholdelse af borgere i landdistrikterne. Landdistriktsundersøgelsens hovedrapport 2008 [Attracting and retaining citizens in rural districts. Main report of the rural district study 2008]. Paper published by the Danish government, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  13. Di, Z. X., Belsky, E., & Liu, X. (2007). Do homeowners achieve more household wealth in the long run? Journal of Housing Economics, 16, 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ditkovsky, O., & van Vliet, W. (1984). Housing tenure and community participation. Ekistics, 307, 345–348.Google Scholar
  15. Fama, E. F., & Schwert, G. W. (1977). Asset returns and inflation. Journal of Financial Economics, 5, 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feijten, P., Mulder, C. H., & Baizán, P. (2003). Age differentiation in the effect of household situation on first-time homeownership. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 18, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher, L. M., & Jaffe, A. J. (2003). Determinants of international home ownership rates. Housing Finance International, 18(1), 34–42.Google Scholar
  18. Galster, G. C., & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction. Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaeser, E., & Sacerdote, B. (1999). Why is there more crime in cities? Journal of Political Economy, 107, 225–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, R. K., & White, M. J. (1997). Measuring the benefits of homeowning: Effects on children. Journal of Urban Economics, 41, 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen, J. D., & Skak, M. (2005). Economics of housing tenure choice. Paper presented at ENHR conference, Reykjavik.Google Scholar
  22. Hartig, T., & Fransson, U. (2006). Housing tenure and early retirement for health reasons in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 34, 472–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heaton, T., Fredrickson, C., Fuguitt, G. V., & Zuiches, J. J. (1979). Residential preferences, community satisfaction, and the intention to move. Demography, 16(4), 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hiscock, R., Macintyre, S., Kearns, A., & Ellaway, A. (2003). Residents and residence: Factors predicting the health disadvantage of social renters compared to owner–occupiers. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeffers, L., & Dobos, J. (1984). Communication and neighborhood mobilization. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 20, 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laakso, S., & Loikkanen, H. A. (1995). Finnish homes—through passages or traps? Real Estate Economics, 23(4), 475–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linneman, P. (1986). A new look at the homeownership decision. Housing Finance Review, 5, 159–187.Google Scholar
  28. Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. regression models. Growth and Change, 30, 264–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lyons, W., & Lowery, D. (1989). Citizen responses to dissatisfaction in urban community: A partial test of the general model. Journal of Politics, 15(4), 841–868.Google Scholar
  30. Matznetter, W. (1994). Levels of homeownership across Europe: Economic, political, demographic, and architectural factors at work. Paper presented at ENHR conference, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  31. Megbolugbe, I. F., & Linneman, P. D. (1993). Home ownership. Urban Studies, 30(4/5), 659–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Norstrand, R. (2005). Kommunal og statslig boligpolitik [Municipal and State Housing Policy]. In: AKF særnummer 2005 [Special edition of the Danish Institute of Governmental Research 2005] (pp. 39–45). Danish Institute of Governmental Research, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  33. Oh, J. H. (2004). Race/ethnicity, homeownership, and neighborhood attachment. Race and Society, 7, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reid, C. K. (2004). Achieving the American Dream? A longitudinal analysis of the homeownership experiences of low-income households. CSDE Working Paper No. 04-04, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  35. Rohe, W. M., & Stegman, M. A. (1994). The impact of home ownership on the social and political involvement of low-income people. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 30, 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rohe, W. M., & Stewart, L. S. (1996). Homeownership and neighborhood stability. Housing Policy Debate, 7(1), 37–81.Google Scholar
  37. Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2004). The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 759–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. White, G. F. (2001). Home ownership: Crime and the tipping and trapping processes. Environment and Behavior, 33, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish Centre for Rural ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkEsbjergDenmark

Personalised recommendations