Abstract
For most individuals, housing is the largest consumption and investment item of their lifetime and, as a result, housing satisfaction is an important component of their quality of life. The purpose of this paper then is to investigate the determinants of individual housing satisfaction as a particular domain of satisfaction with life as a whole, examining the effects of individual and household attributes (predictive), housing characteristics (hedonic), and more importantly, of social interactions originated in one's residential neighbourhood. To do so, we model housing as a composite commodity that satisfies dwelling needs, as well as other intangibles such as familiar relationships and socio-status aspects. We use the Survey of Living Conditions and Poverty (Spain). Specifically, using a self-reported measure of housing satisfaction, we estimate ordered probit models searching for the empirical specification that provides the best fit accounting for divergences driven by aspirations defined in the own household (internal norm), and by social comparisons (peer-effect or external norm).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In some societies, this individuals’ need for housing is considered to be a basic one, so it is protected by constitutional arrangements such as in the Spanish Constitution (art. 47).
Happiness, quality of life and well-being are used interchangeably.
Using our data and calculating relative importance Pratt indexes to measure the weight that different dimensions have on overall life satisfaction, housing satisfaction is the second most important domain, once we control for the influence of other domain satisfactions, namely: environmental, financial (which ranks first), leisure, health and job.
We use data for 2003 in order to get some accurate measure of the price of services.
The sample is drawn using a stratified, multi-stage design using probability sampling. The principal stratification of the sample takes place by poverty levels, gender and age. Primary sampling units were selected in different ways depending upon the relevant size of municipalities combined with census units.
In particular, 79% of total household assets are made of housing and other real estate, 82% of households are home owners, almost 19% own a secondary residence, and 30% possess a secondary residence or other real estate properties. More strikingly, for the bottom 20% of households in the income distribution, 74% of them are owner occupiers and 18.5% have other real estate properties. The impact of house price fluctuations on expenditure will therefore affect most households significantly (Bover 2005).
References
Bajari, P., Benkard, C. L., & Krainer, J. (2005). House prices and consumer welfare. Journal of Urban Economics, 58, 474–487.
Bover, O. (2004). The Spanish Survey of Household Finances (EFF): Description and methods of the 2002 wave, Occasional paper no. 0409, Banco de España.
Bover, O. (2005). Wealth effects on consumption: Microeconometric estimates from the Spanish Survey of Household Finances, Documento de Trabajo no. 0522, Banco de España.
Brock, W. A., & Durlauf, S. N. (2003). Multinomial choice with social interactions, Mimeo.
Burgess, E. (1925). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The city (pp. 47–62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E, & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4(4), 341–372.
Clark, A.E, & Oswald A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104(424), 648–659.
Clark, A. (2003). Unemployment as a social norm: Psychological evidence from panel data. Journal of Labor Economics, 21, 323–351.
Di Pasquale, D., & Glaeser, E. (1999). Incentives and social capital: Are homeowners better citizens? Journal of Urban Economics, 45, 354–384.
Díaz-Serrano, L. (2005). Housing satisfaction, homeownership and housing mobility: A panel data analysis for twelve EU countries. IZA DP N0, 2318, IZA Bonn.
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective wellbeing? A literature review and guide to needed research. Social Indicators Research, 57, 119–169.
Falk, A., & Knell, M. (2000). Choosing the Joneses: On the endogeneity of reference groups. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich WP, No. 59.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2002a). Subjective questions to measure welfare and well-being: A survey. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2002-020/3.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2002b). Income and Well-Being. An empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2002-019/3.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Economic Journal, 114, 641–659.
Foley, D. L. (1980). The sociology of housing. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 457–478.
Frey, B. S., Benz, M., & Stutzer, A. (2003). Introducing procedural utility: Not only what but also how matters. IEW working paper no. 129, University of Zurich.
Galster, G. C. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: An empirical critique. Environment and Behavour, 19(5), 539–568.
Galster, G. C, & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735–758.
Green, R. K, & White, M. J (1997). Measuring the benefits of homeowning: Effects on children. Journal of Urban Economics, 41, 441–461.
Greene, W. (1990). Econometric analisis. New York: MacMillan.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2005). Encuesta continua de presupuestos familiares. Base 1997. http://www.ine.es/daco/daco43/metodo_ecpf.doc.
Ioannides, Y. M., & Zabel, J. E. (2003). Neighbourhood effects and housing demand. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 563–584.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Foundations of hedonic psychology: Scientific perspectives on enjoyment and suffering. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. Regression Models. Growth and Change, 30, 264–287.
Luttmer, E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 963–1002.
Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–542.
Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 79–88.
Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1978). Housing, family and society. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Oswald, A. J. (1999). The housing market and Europe’s unemployment: A non-technical paper, Mimeo, University of Warwick.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rohe, W. M., & Basolo, V. (1997). Long-term effects of homeownership on the self-perceptions and social interaction of low-income persons. Environment and Behavior, 29(6), 793–184.
Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move. Glenco IL: The Free Press.
Sen, A. K. (1999). The possibility of social choice. American Economic Review, 89, 349–378.
Van Praag, B. M. S., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of wellbeing. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 29–49.
Van Praag, B. M. S., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2004). Happiness quantified. A satisfaction calculus approach. Oxford University Press.
Vera Toscano, E., Ateca Amestoy, V., & Serrano del Rosal, R. (2006). Building financial satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 77, 211–243.
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of leisure class. New York: Modern Library.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces for their financial support through the project "Satisfacción con la Vivienda en Andalucía" (SOCH 2.05/009). Funding from the Department of Social Affairs of the Andalucian Regional Government to undertake the Survey is also acknowledged. Vera-Toscano wants to further acknowledge Junta de Andalucía for the support provided for this research through Averroes, and Ateca-Amestoy acknowledges Gobierno Vasco (BFI 05.225). All usual caveats apply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vera-Toscano, E., Ateca-Amestoy, V. The relevance of social interactions on housing satisfaction. Soc Indic Res 86, 257–274 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9107-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9107-5