Social Indicators Research

, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp 869–885 | Cite as

Satisfaction and Motivation of Homeowners Towards Green Homes

  • Teck-Hong TanEmail author


Whilst green homes have been constructed by housing developers in Malaysia, developers should determine how satisfied homeowners are with their green homes. This paper first reviews data from a survey to determine the satisfaction level of homeowners towards their residence in terms of green features in Iskandar Malaysia. Next, factor analysis is carried out to identify benefits that motivate households to own green homes, and then followed by logistic regression analysis to determine the effects of motivators on housing satisfaction. Results show that homeowners are most satisfied with the green features of high ceiling, North–South orientation, double-glazed panel glass doors and windows, solar panel system and landscaped parks with facilities. Rain water harvesting system and low-flow water fixtures, on the other hand, are the least satisfied green features among homeowners. Four motivators are found that describe households’ belief about green homes: ‘Financial Incentives’, ‘Healthy and Sustainable Environment’, ‘Energy Efficiency’ and ‘Livability’. The findings also demonstrated that the extent of housing satisfaction may depend on what motivates homeowners to own green homes. It would seem that house buyers do not just demand a typical house to stay in but also sustainable houses that do not compromise the environment.


Green home Housing satisfaction Motivation Malaysia 


  1. Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring residential satisfaction: A residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Build Environment, 22, 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in student housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond, S. (2010). Lessons from the leaders of green designed commercial building in Australia. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 16(3), 314–338.Google Scholar
  4. Canter, D., & Rees, K. (1982). A multivariate model of housing satisfaction. International Review of Applied Psychology, 31, 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cradduck, L., & Wharton, N. (2011). The adoption of residential sustainability programs: Lessons from the commercial sector. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 17(3), 388–403.Google Scholar
  6. Eicholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. (2008). Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings: Working Paper, Fisher Centre for Real Estate and Urban Economics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  7. Erdogan, N., Akyol, A., Ataman, B., & Dokmeci, V. (2007). Comparison of Urban housing satisfaction in modern and traditional neighborhoods in Edirne, Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 81, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eves, C., & Kippes, S. (2010). Public awareness of ‘green’ and ‘energy efficient’ residential property: An empirical survey based on data from New Zealand. Property Management, 28(3), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feliciano, M., & Prosperi, D. C. (2011). Planning for low carbon cities: Reflection on the case of broward county, Florida, USA. Cities, 28, 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisk, W. J. (2000). Health and productivity gains from better indoor environment and their relationship with building energy efficiency. Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 25(1), 536–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furst, F., & Mc Allister, P. (2009). An investigation of the effect of eco-labeling on office occupancy rates. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 49–64.Google Scholar
  12. Furst, F., & McAllister, P. (2011). Green noise or green value? Measuring the effects of environmental certification on office values. Real Estate Economics, 39, 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: an empirical critique. Environment and Behavior, 19(5), 539–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunderson, K. (2006). Simple green. Journal of Property Management, 71(5), 42–45.Google Scholar
  15. Green Building Index. (2013). Residential new construction (RNC)—Certified Building. <> Accessed 19 Jan 2013.
  16. Harkness, J. M., & Newman, S. J. (2003). Effects of homeownership on children: The role of neighborhood characteristics and family income. Economic Policy Review, 9(2), 87–107.Google Scholar
  17. Ling, F. Y. Y., & Gunawansa, A. (2011). Strategies for potential owners in singapore to own environmentally sustainable homes. Engineering. Construction and Architectural Management, 18(6), 570–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lovell, H. (2004). Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 6(1), 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit versus regression models. Growth and Change, 30, 264–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, N., Spivey, J., & Florance, A. (2008). Does green pay off. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 8(2), 91–103.Google Scholar
  21. Natham, V. (1995). Residents’ satisfaction with the sites and service approach in affordable housing. Housing and Society, 22(3), 53–78.Google Scholar
  22. Pitts, J. & Jackson, T. O. (2008). Green Buildings: Valuation Issues and Perspectives. Appraisal Journal, Spring, 115–118.Google Scholar
  23. Raisebeck, P., & Wardlaw, S. (2009). Considering client-driven sustainability in residential housing. International Journal of Housing Market and Analysis, 2(4), 318–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rizzo, A., & Glasson, J. (2012). Iskandar Malaysia. Cities, 29(6), 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roper, A., Voler, B., & Flap, H. (2009). Social network and getting a home: Do contacts matter? Social Networks, 31, 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Seelig, S. (2011). A master plan for low carbon and resilient housing: The 35 Ha area in Hashtegerd New Town, Iran. Cities, 28, 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tan, T. H. (2008). Determinants of homeownership in Malaysia. Habitat International, 32, 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tan, T. H. (2012a). Housing satisfaction in medium- and high-cost housing: the case of greater Kuala Lumpur. Habitat International, 36(1), 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tan, T. H. (2012b). Meeting first-time buyers’ housing needs and preferences in greater Kuala Lumpur. Cities, 29(6), 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tan, T. H. (2013). Determinants of Intention to Inhabit Eco-Friendly Homes in Malaysia. Journal of Green Building, 8 (3), (In Press).Google Scholar
  31. Toowoomba Regional Council. (2010). Sustainable Home Toowoomba, Sustainable Living. <> Accessed 18.12.2011.
  32. Vera-Toscano, E., & Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2008). The relevance of social interactions on housing satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 86, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yu, S. M. & Tu, Y. (2011). Are green buildings worth more because they cost more? IRES Working Paper Series IRES2011-023.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sunway UniversitySunwayMalaysia

Personalised recommendations