Advertisement

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 283–311 | Cite as

Are sustainable residential choice also desirable? A study of household satisfaction and aspirations with regard to current and future residential location

  • Simin LotfiEmail author
  • Carole Despres
  • Sebastien Lord
Article

Abstract

The desirability of sustainable residential choices, understood as satisfaction-with and aspiration-for, is a concern for policy-makers. Even though sustainable residential choices encompass both the built environment and the associated behaviors, it is mostly studied of its material components. This study emphasizes the behavioral component by examining the extent to which working households are satisfied with their residential choices sustainable to different degrees and aspire to make similar or different choices in their residential projects. This study used the database «Demain Quebec» that is an Internet quantitative cross-sectional survey of residents of the Quebec City metro area detailing their household, residence and mobility characteristics. 740 households with at least one full-time worker were analyzed. The results showed that it is possible to have residential choices that are at once sustainable and desirable. However, households who had made such choices were less satisfied with the trees and greenery, quietness, and ambiance, security and characteristics of neighbors. Also, sources of dissatisfaction are not necessarily associated with moving intentions. The main reasons for moving are often associated with the desire to become a homeowner or having access to a larger residence. On their residential choice decisions, households regard mostly the environmental features which are in accordance with their needs and goals at a certain stage in their life and also with their dominant activities. Though the built environment plays an essential role in the achievement of desirable sustainable choices, the households are the protagonist in enhancing sustainable prosperity.

Keywords

Cross-sectional survey Desirability Residential aspirations Residential choice Residential satisfaction Residential sustainability 

References

  1. Adams, R. E. (1992). Is happiness a home in the suburbs? The influence of urban versus suburban neighborhoods on psychological health. Journal of Community Psychology, 20(4), 353–372.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(199210)20:4%3c353:AID-JCOP2290200409%3e3.0.CO;2-Z.Google Scholar
  2. Aditjandra, P. T., Cao, X., & Mulley, C. (2012). Understanding neighbourhood design impact on travel behaviour: An application of structural equations model to a British metropolitan data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(1), 22–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.001.Google Scholar
  3. Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring residential satisfaction: A residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22(3), 287–304.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-007-9082-9.Google Scholar
  4. Audirac, I. (1999). Stated preference for pedestrian proximity: An assessment of new urbanist sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(1), 53–66.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9901900105.Google Scholar
  5. Barr, S., & Prillwitz, J. (2012). Green travellers? Exploring the spatial context of sustainable mobility styles. Applied Geography, 32(2), 798–809.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.08.002.Google Scholar
  6. Boussauw, K., & Witlox, F. (2011). Linking expected mobility production to sustainable residential location planning: some evidence from Flanders. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 936–942.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.12.002.Google Scholar
  7. Breheny, M. (1996). Centrists, decentralists and compromisers: Views on the future of urban form. The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? 13–36. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZAeZti784w4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=Centrists,+decentrists+and+compromisers:+Views+on+the+future+of+urban+form&ots=1Sex0M44xz&sig=I_GyZQdhpZIJTACGBEkC2r_Oz9Q.
  8. Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2011). Conceptualising convenience: Transportation practices and perceptions of inner-urban high density residents in Brisbane, Australia. Transport Policy, 18(1), 289–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.012.Google Scholar
  9. Camagni, R., Gibelli, M. C., & Rigamonti, P. (2002). Urban mobility and urban form: The social and environmental costs of different patterns of urban expansion. Ecological Economics, 40(2), 199–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00254-3.Google Scholar
  10. Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.Google Scholar
  11. Dahl, A. L. (2012). Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 17, 14–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.032.Google Scholar
  12. De Vos, J., Derudder, B., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2012). Reducing car use: changing attitudes or relocating? The influence of residential dissonance on travel behavior. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.11.005.Google Scholar
  13. De Vos, J., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2016). Urban sprawl: Neighbourhood dissatisfaction and urban preferences. Some evidence from Flanders. Urban Geography, 37(6), 839–862.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1118955.Google Scholar
  14. Delmelle, E. C., Haslauer, E., & Prinz, T. (2013). Social satisfaction, commuting and neighborhoods. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 110–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.03.006.Google Scholar
  15. Dempsey, N., Brown, C., & Bramley, G. (2012). The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Progress in Planning, 77(3), 89–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.01.001.Google Scholar
  16. Döring, L., Albrecht, J., Scheiner, J., & Holz-Rau, C. (2014). Mobility biographies in three generations—Socialization effects on commute mode choice. Transportation Research Procedia, 1(1), 165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.07.017.Google Scholar
  17. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1780, 87–114.  https://doi.org/10.3141/1780-10.Google Scholar
  18. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766.Google Scholar
  19. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2003). Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts. Transportation Research Record, 1831(1), 175–183.  https://doi.org/10.3141/1831-20.Google Scholar
  20. Fan, Y., Khattak, A., & Rodriguez, D. (2011). Household excess travel and neighbourhood characteristics: Associations and trade-offs. Urban Studies, 48(6), 1235–1253.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010369712.Google Scholar
  21. Farber, S., & Li, X. (2013). Urban sprawl and social interaction potential: An empirical analysis of large metropolitan regions in the United States. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, 267–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.03.002.Google Scholar
  22. Figueroa, M. J., Nielsen, T. A. S., & Siren, A. (2014). Comparing urban form correlations of the travel patterns of older and younger adults. Transport Policy, 35, 10–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.007.Google Scholar
  23. Gordon, P., Richardson, H. W., Gordon, I. P., & Richardson, H. W. (1997). Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 95–107.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975727.Google Scholar
  24. Handy, S., Sallis, J., Weber, D., Maibach, E., & Hollander, M. (2008). Is support for traditionally designed communities growing? Evidence from two national surveys. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(2), 209–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802010418.Google Scholar
  25. Harpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001.Google Scholar
  26. Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). An examination of residential preferences for less sustainable housing: Exploring future mobility among Dublin central city residents. Cities, 26(1), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2008.10.001.Google Scholar
  27. Jarass, J., & Heinrichs, D. (2014). New urban living and mobility. Transportation Research Procedia, 1(1), 142–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.07.015.Google Scholar
  28. Jeffres, L. W., & Dobos, J. (1995). Separating people’s satisfaction with life and public perceptions of the quality of life in the environment. Social Indicators Research, 34(2), 181–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079196.Google Scholar
  29. Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S., & Turrell, G. (2013). Residential dissonance and mode choice. Journal of Transport Geography, 33, 12–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.09.004.Google Scholar
  30. Lotfi, S., Despres, C., & Lord, S. (2018). Does “Where We Live” Reflect “What We Do”? An overview of empirical evidence on place-people correspondence with regards to sustainability performance. Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(2), 149–162.  https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v11n2p149.Google Scholar
  31. Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(1), 37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.04.010.Google Scholar
  32. Matzler, K., Sauerwein, E., & Heischmidt, K. A. (2003). Importance-performance analysis revisited: The role of the factor structure of customer satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal, 23(2), 112–129.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060412331300912.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, A. L. (2008). Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environment International.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2007.09.004.Google Scholar
  34. Myers, D., & Gearin, E. (2001). Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 633–659.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2001.9521422.Google Scholar
  35. Nazarnia, N., Schwick, C., & Jaeger, J. A. G. (2016). Accelerated urban sprawl in Montreal, Quebec City, and Zurich: Investigating the differences using time series 1951-2011. Ecological Indicators, 60, 1229–1251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.020.Google Scholar
  36. Newman, S. J., & Duncan, G. J. (2007). Residential problems, dissatisfaction, and mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(2), 154–166.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976953.Google Scholar
  37. Oh, J. H. (2003). Social bonds and the migration intentions of elderly urban residents: The mediating effects of residential satisfaction. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(2), 127–146.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025067623305.Google Scholar
  38. Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography, 11(2), 173.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2060556.Google Scholar
  39. Talen, E. (2001). Traditional urbanism meets residential affluence: An analysis of the variability of suburban preference. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(2), 199–216.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976229.Google Scholar
  40. Taylor, R. B. (1996). Neighborhood responses to disorder and local attachments: The systemic model of attachment, social disorganization, and neighborhood use value. Sociological Forum, 11(1), 41–74.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02408301.Google Scholar
  41. Troell, M., Pihl, L., Rönnbäck, P., Wennhage, H., Söderqvist, T., & Kautsky, N. (2005). Regime shifts and ecosystem services in Swedish coastal soft bottom habitats: When resilience is undesirable. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 30.Google Scholar
  42. Valkila, N., & Saari, A. (2013). Attitude-behaviour gap in energy issues: Case study of three different Finnish residential areas. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(1), 24–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.10.001.Google Scholar
  43. Wells, N. M., & Yang, Y. (2008). Neighborhood design and walking. A quasi-experimental longitudinal study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(4), 313–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.019.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecole d’urbanisme et d’architecture de paysage, Faculte de l’amenagementUniversite de MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Ecole d’architecture, Faculte d’amenagement, d’architecture, d’art et de designUniversite LavalQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations