Journal of Environmental Psychology (1990) 10, 313 325

RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION IN COUNCIL HOUSING*

M A R I A A M I ~ R I G O and J U A N I G N A C I O A R A G O N I ~ S

Departamento de Psicologia Social, Facultad de Psicologia,

Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Abstract
Planners' and architects' knowledge of the needs of users as well as their perceptions of
the residential environment, has been commented on in many studies dealing with
residential satisfaction. In this study--based on primary research in an area of council
housing in Madrid--the main goal is the study of objective and subjective factors, on
both physical and social levels, which influence council housing residents' satisfaction.
A sample of 447 housewives responded to a questionaire, a multiple regression analysis
of which showed that attachment to the neighbourhood and relationships with
neighbours explained the greatest variance in residential satisfaction. Some
methodological issues about the measurement of residential satisfaction are also
discussed.

Introduction
Despite the considerable amount of empirical work which has been carried out on
residential satisfaction, the theoretical systematization developed in this area can be
considered quite limited. Holahan (1986) in his review of Environmental Psychology,
fundamentally looks at empirical research data, but not theoretical models.
Generally speaking, empirical studies in this area can be divided into two distinct
approaches. On the one hand, there are those studies in which residential satisfaction is
considered as a criterion of residential quality, e.g. M arans and Rodgers (1975), Galster
and Hesser (1981), Cutter (1982), Weidemann et al. (1982), etc. The objective of studies
such as these is to establish which f a c t o r s - - b o t h of the residential environment and of
the individual--determine the degree to which he/she is satisfied with his/her
residential environment. Within this approach, the study of housing satisfaction
carried out by Canter and Rees (1982) based on G u t t m a n ' s facet theory, can be
considered as offering a new way of dealing with this subject. These authors consider
the residential environment as consisting of three components: neighbourhood, house
and neighbours.
Other authors, such as Speare (1974) or N e w m a n and Duncan (t979), consider
residential satisfaction not as a criterion, but as a predictor of behaviour. Using this
approach, a low level of residential satisfaction can predict such behaviour as moving
house, or, in cases where this is not possible, the adaptation of the housing to new needs
as they arise, e.g. carrying out home improvements (Premius, 1986). Thus, the studies
* This study was supported by lnstituto de la Vivienda de Madrid (IVIMA).
02724944/90/040313 + 13 $03.00/0

1990 Academic Press Limited

314

M. Am6rigo and J. 1. Aragon6s

which deal with residential mobility and its consequences use residential satisfaction as
a variable predictor of such behaviour.
Although not empirically tested, a study which combines the two approaches is the
model offered by Weidemann and Anderson (1985). In this study, residential
satisfaction is considered as an attitude, and in their model these authors include some
classic concepts of attitude theory, such as behaviour intentions, based on Fishbein and
Ajzen's model (1975).
In the studies carried out on the basis of the first approach, the subject's socioeconomic status has been one of the variables to which most attention has been given.
The majority of studies which deal with the relationship between socioeconomic status
and residential satisfaction conclude, as Haney and Knowles (1978) affirm, that there
are no differences in the level of satisfaction with the residential environment between
subjects of different social status, and, furthermore, that this level of satisfaction is
relatively high. But what is most interesting to comment on here, are those mechanisms
which lead a subject of low social status, and therefore with minimal resources, to
conform or to adapt to a residential environment, in many cases impoverished, in order
to reach a moderate level of satisfaction.
In this respect, there are some works which have been landmarks in the study of
residential satisfaction in residents with low incomes. Hence the work of Fried and
Gleicher (1961) dealt with a depressed area of Boston--the West End; or the work of
Yancey (1972) on the demolition of the well known Pruitt-lgoe urbanization in the city
of Saint Louis. Both works record the importance of the environment as perceived by
the resident, and how these perceptions vary as a perception of social class.
It can be argued that town-planners and designers should take into account not only
the needs but also the perceptions of the resident in order to create a more harmonious
residential environment, maximizing comfort with the resources at their disposal.
A first attempt to determine the predictors of residential satisfaction in a sample of
housewives residing in a neighbourhood of Madrid, was carried out by Am6rigo and
Aragon6s (1988).
This research was carried out in a peripheral neighbourhood of low socioeconomic
status in the south of Madrid, Orcasitas. The aim of this study was to establish a
comparison between predictors of residential satisfaction in a sample of residents in
housing controlled by the council, and predictors obtained in similar samples in other
countries, following the methodology used by Marans and Rodgers (1975),
Weidemann et al. (1982), Hourihan (1984), Loo (1986), Cook (1988), etc. The results
were consistent with those of the above-mentioned studies, but the low values obtained
in the multiple regression coefficient--due to a minimal variation in the sample--and
certain methodological problems with the instrument used (Am6rigo 1989), have led us
to believe that it is important to carry out further research.
The study of Orcasitas led to the conclusion that the improvement of the instrument
and its application to more heterogenous samples would probably produce statistically
more worthwhile results, and consequently be more reliable as regards its contribution
towards an explanation of theoretical questions, such as those related to the process of
interaction between the individual and his/her residential environment.
The objectives o f this study are, firstly, to test the extent to which satisfaction with
the three components of residential environment, neighbourhood, house and
neighbours, as distinguished by Canter and Rees (1982), explain residential
satisfaction. Secondly the study also seeks to establish the objective and subiective

Satisfaction in Council Housing

315

predictors of both physical and social character, which influence the residential
satisfaction of a sample of housewives residing in council housing projects.

Environmental Settings
The problem of the homogeneity of the Orcasitas sample previously commented on,
made it necessary for the study to be undertaken with a more heterogenous sample
within the population which lived in housing controlled by public bodies. For this
reason, it was important to obtain, not only distinct geographical placement of the
samples, but also to consider that the samples were subjected to different levels of
procedure by the Institute of Housing of Madrid, a body which deals with housing in
the Community of Madrid.
Therefore three different areas, which are controlled by different procedures of the
responsible body, were considered: (1) the polygon '11' of San Blas: (Figures l a and l b),
which is awaiting rehabilitation, (2) The overspill town of La Ventilla: (Figures 2a and
2b), where the inhabitants expect to move to new housing; and (3) recently allocated
housing (Figures 3a and 3b) belonging to the neighbourhood of La Ventilla. Although
these are areas with different types of intervention, the last two are situated in the same
geographic zone.
As regards residential quality, it is worth pointing out that the quality of housing
construction goes from better to poorer in the following order: Remodelado, San Blas
and Ventilla, which coincides with the number of years since construction.

Subjects
The total number of the population of housewives in San Blas was 602, that of Ventilla
620, and that of Remodelado, 135. All of the housewives were living in public housing
and thus the socioeconomic status can be regarded as similar. The remaining
sociodemographic characteristics which were considered will be described in the results
section. The total sample of housewives interviewed was 447, this being a simple
random sample without replacement, i.e. the probability of a subject being selected
depended on those who have already been chosen to form part of the sample (Azorin,
1970).
The number of housewives chosen was 194 in San Blas, 213 in Ventilla, and 40 in
Remodelado. The sizes of these samples are large enough to be representative.

Instrument
The instrument for collecting the data in this study corresponded to a questionnaire
worked out by Amerigo (1989), used in the investigation of Orcasitas. The
questionnaire was in three different parts:
(1) The first part had 43 items which aimed to measure the subject's perception of her
residential environment. It was based on that used by Canter and Rees (1982) and
grouped into three main categories: the neighbourhood, the house, and the
relationship maintained with the neighbours. These items were formulated in a
quantitative and ordinal scale--a lot, quite, a little or n o n e - - o f the particular attribute.
(2) The second part consisted of the scale type used to measure residential
satisfaction. Two scales were included with the purpose of measuring the individual's

316

M. Am6rigo and J. 1. Aragon6s

FIGURE la. San Bias.

FIGURE lb. San Bias. A view of the rehabilitation process.

Satisfaction in Council Housing

FIGURE 2a. Ventilla.

FIGURE 2b. Ventilla, A detail of the entrance to a house.

317

318

M. Am6rigo and J. I. Aragon6s

FIGURES3a and 3b. Remodelado. Two aspects of the renewal area.

level of satisfaction with her house, neighbourhood and neighbours. The first scale
consisted of three questions formulated in a direct way:
(1) How satisfied are you with your neighbourhood?
(2) How satisfied are you with your house?
(3) How satisfied are you with your neighbours?
Nevertheless, this scale could create problems of social desirability by asking the
subject directly about her level of satisfaction with her house, neighbourhood and
neighbours. To try to avoid this problem a second scale was created formulating the
same items in a more indirect way, following the works of Zehner (1972) and
Weidemann et al. (1982):
(1) How would you define your neighbourhood as a place to live?

Satisfaction in Council Housing

319

(2) If you could make changes to your house, how many would you make?
(3) If you moved neighbourhood, how many neighbours would you like to meet
in the new neighbourhood?
Both the direct and indirect scales are formulated in the same way for the 43 initial
items, that is to say, in a quantitative and ordinal scale.
(3) Finally, the last part of the questionnaire was made up of a series of
sociodemographic questions shown to be relevant in the literature on residential
satisfaction: life cycle status, measured by means of the subject's age and that of her
youngest child living at home; level of education; time spent living in the
neighbourhood and house; and degree of attachment to the neighbourhood. This last
variable was analysed according to three different degress, from low (Attachment 1) to
high (Attachment 3) degree of attachment to the neighbourhood:
Attachment 1: The subject would like to leave the neighbourhood.
Attachment 2: The subject would leave the neighbourhood if she were offered
better housing.
Attachment 3: The subject would not leave the neighbourhood even if she were
offered better housing.
Some objective questions about the residential environment were also included in
this third part: About relations living in the neighbourhood; housing density (ratio
between the number of inhabitants and bedrooms); heating use; and consumption and
home improvements.
The field work was carried out by psychology students who had been previously
trained by means of a role play with the questionnaires. It began at the end of October
1988 and finished at the beginning of December of the same year.

Results

With regard to both the sociodemQgraphic characteristics and those objective

characteristics of the residential environment, a profile of the samples studied can be
established by means of synthesis in Table 1 enabling us to understand the results in a
better way.
In every case the subject was of low socioeconomic status with a limited level of
education. As regards life cycle status, the sample was of advanced age with an average
age of 52. The oldest sub-sample was from Ventilla, in which the age of the youngest
child living at home was greater than 21 in over 50% of the sub-sample. However, in
San Blas and Remodelado, more than half had children under 15 years of age.
The housewives in the San Blas sample were clearly of a more migratory background
than those of the Ventilla and Remodelado neighbourhoods; similarly the former were
found to have resided a shorter period of time in their house and in the neighbourhood
than the housewives in Ventilla, and consequently the attachment shown to the
neighbourhood was less in the residents of San Blas.
The majority of the homes in Ventilla have no central heating, only 10.8% had
installed their own heating. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that, in San
Blas, although there was central heating, it was hardly used, which leads us to
conclude that the system was expensive. As regards the question of whether the
residential environment has been altered by means of any improvements, Table 1

320

M. Am~rigo and J. 1. Aragon,s

TABLE 1

Objective residential environment and sociodemographic characteristics of the

sample

Age

Education
level
Origin
Time in
neighbourhood
Time in
house
Density
Youngest
child

Relatives
Attachment
Heating
Heating
use
Home
improvements

0-30
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or +
Graduate
A level
O level
Illiterate
Madrid
City
Town
1-5
6-15
16-30
+ 30
1-5
6-15
16-30
+ 30
0-1
1-1.5
+ 1.5
0--5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-30
+30
Yes
No
Att 1
Att 2
Att 3
Yes
No
always
When cold
Occasionally
Never
Yes
No

San Blas
(N = 194)

VentiIla
(N = 213)

Remodelado
(N = 40)

6'8
19'8
28-6
19"8
25"0
1'6
8"3
56'8
40"0
31-8
15"1
53'1
5'2
5.8
26.4
10.4
8.8
80.8
10.4
0-0
39.1
26.0
34-9
19"0
17.0
28.1
17-6
12.4
5.9
62.0
38-0
60.2
25'7
14.l
79-3
20.7
20.6
28-4
12.3
38'7
36.8
63-2

7-5
9'0
7'5
36-8
39-2
4'7
9.4
55-7
33"3
49.5
10-4
40'1
6'6
6.6
57"5
29.2
7.5
10.8
78.3
3.3
49-0
26.9
24.0
12"1
5.0
10.0
17.9
42-9
12.1
54.5
45.5
28"8
48.6
22-6
10-8
89.2
85.7
7.1
7-1
0'0
65.6
34-4

7.5
20.0
17.5
25-0
30"0
7.5
10"0
42.5
30.2
72-5
12.5
15.0
12"5
10.0
30"0
47-5
100.0
0.0
0"0
0-0
35'9
41.0
23.1
20'0
20.0
16'7
23'3
13.3
6"7
55"0
45.0
20-0
20'0
60'0
97-5
2-5
48"7
48-7
2"6
0"0
5'0
95"0

shows t h a t in Ventilla s o m e f o r m o f h o m e i m p r o v e m e n t has been carried o u t in the

m a j o r i t y o f cases. Finally, a n d as r e g a r d s w h e t h e r the subject's residential e n v i r o n m e n t
includes the presence o f relations, T a b l e 1 indicates t h a t this was so in over h a l f o f the
cases, in all three o f the n e i g h b o u r h o o d s studied.
The statistical analysis, a p p l i e d to see in w h a t m e a s u r e the three c o n c e p t s
( n e i g h b o u r h o o d l h o u s e a n d n e i g h b o u r s ) explain residential satisfaction, was a step-

321

S a t i s f a c t i o n in C o u n c i l H o u s i n g

TABLE 2
Regression of the direct and indirect scales on residential satisfaction
(A) Direct

Neighbourhood
Neighbours
House
"p<

(B) Indirect

R2

Standard reg.
coefficient

0-3815
0"4792
0.516 5

0"424"
0331 a
0'205 a

Rz
Neighbourhood
House
Neighbours

Standard reg.
coefficient

0"1690
0.2034
0.227 3

0-345"
-0.179 a
0"163"

0.001.

wise multiple regression analysis. The variable criteria used for the analysis, as m u c h
with one scale as with the other, was the residential satisfaction in general which the
interviewees said they had, measured by the question: ' H o w satisfied are y o u with these
things together: y o u r house, y o u r n e i g h b o u r h o o d and y o u r neighbours, that is to say,
living where you live?': 'very', 'quite', 'somewhat', or ' n o t at all'.
The results obtained in Table 2 show that the direct scale predicts 51.65 % residential
satisfaction, while the indirect scale only predicts 22.73 %. These results confirm that in
effect residential satisfaction is a function o f the neighbourhood, the house and the
TABLE 3
Main component
Items
I

Components
II
llI

Your house is small.

-0.817
The quality of the construction of the house is good.
0.784
In general you could say that your house is comfortable.
0.764
You feel cramped in the rooms of your house.
-0-759
The kitchen in your house is big enough.
0"753
Your house is equipped with a built in cupboard.
0.749
Your house is well insulated from the cold.
0'753
The equipment in the bathroom is good.
0'599
In winter in your house you feel the cold.
-0'544
Your neighbourhood is equipped with sanitory services such as
ambulances, emergency services, pharmacies, etc,
0"435
The transport in your neighbourhood allows you to get to the
centre of the town easily.
0'424
The relations which you maintain with your neighbours are good.
In general the people in your neighbourhood are nice people.
When you need help your neighbours are disposed to help you.
Your neighbours meddle in your private life.
In general the people in your neighbourhood are bad.

0'806
0"732
0-700
--0-548
--0"443

When you walk through your neighbourhood you are frightened of

being attacked.
In your neighbourhood there is delinquency,
In your neighbourhood drugs are a serious problem.
Are the streets of your neighbourhood watched, e.g. by the police,
etc.
Variance explained (%)

0"735
0-700
0'679
-

18"97

9"93

0'450
6'77

co~linued

M. Am6rigo and J. I. Aragon6s

322

TABLE 3--contd.
Items
IV
In respect to sanitory services such as ambulances,
emergency services, chemists, etc. your neighbourhood is equipped.
Your neighbourhood is provided with parks and
gardens.
Transport in your neighbourhood allows you to get to
the city centre easily.
Your neighbourhood is well lit at night.
The streets in your neighbourhood are bad due to potboles, worn surfaces, etc.
-

Components
VI VII VII1

0"547
0"466
0"419
0-491
O-485

Your neighbourhood is polluted.

There is rubbish in the streets of your neighbourhood.
Your neighbourhood is in a run-down state.

0"672
0'657
0"541

The ventilation in your house is good.

During the day your house is light.
The view from your house is nice.
There are people in the streets of your neighbourhood.

0'778
0"657
0-419
0"619

Your neighbourhood is supplied with shops.

Your neighbourhood is noisy.
Your neighbours are noisy.

0"578
0"548
0"418

Your neigbbours are in general bad people.

In your house there are often problems with humidity
The view from your house is nice.

0'558
0.530
0-522

You frequently go to the parks and gardens in your

neighbourbood,
Your neighbourhood is endowed with parks and
gardens.
Variance explained (%)

0.736
0.537
5'1

4.37 3-98 3"54 3-24 3.11

neighbours. The results obtained imply that the direct scale is, as can be clearly seen, a
better predictor than the indirect scale. But the figures produced by the new scale mean
that this is a good means of attaining an indirect scale which measures residential
satisfaction without having to use evaluations in which social desireability could be a
possible obstacle in the appraisal of the results.
The main objective of this study was to obtain predictors of satisfaction, both
subjective and objective, and originating both from the residential environment and
from the personal characteristics of the inhabitant.
The potential subjective predictors originating from the residential environment,
were determined by the 43 items which formed the first part of the questionnaire of
residential satisfaction. In order to reduce these 43 items into a smaller, but equally
representative series of the subject's perceived residential environment, the items were
subjected to an analysis of the main components.
The result of the analysis is shown in Table 3, in which the saturations greater than
0"5 o f each item in its corresponding component can be seen. Nine components

Satisfaction in Council Housing

323

TABLE 4
Results of the analysis of regression including the scores of the
main components and objective and sociodemographic
variables
R2
Attachment
Factor II
Factor I
Factor VI
Family
Age
Period of
residence in
neighbourhood
Factor IX
Home
improvements
Factor V
Factor IV
Heating
Factor VIII

Standard reg. coefficient

0.160 4
0.231 4
0.273 8
0-311 0
0.335 2
0.343 2

0'320"
0.26&
0"290"
0"187a
- 0.200 a
-0-131 a

0.3518
0"355 5

0"108"
-0-072 ~

0-3591
0'363 5
0-366 3
0.369 0
0.370 9

-0.077"
-0'061"
0.069 ~
0'079"
0-047 a

P<0.001.
emerged which explained a 59% of the variance, and these were identified by the
following labels:
(I)
(II)
(Ill)
(IV)
(V)
(VI)
(VII)
(VIII)
(IX)

Basic residencial infrastructure

Relationship with neighbours
Safety of the town
Infrastructure of the neighbourhood
Deterioration
Connection with the outside world
U r b a n activity and noise
Miscellaneous
Open natural spaces

Once the principal components are defined it is possible to ascertain which

conditions are the variables which predict the satisfaction of the subjects with their
residential environment. In order to do this a step-wise multiple regression analysis of
all the independent variables or predictors concerning general satisfaction with the
residential environment was carried out.
Looking at the results which appear in Table 4, the principal components together
with the objective attributes and the sociodemographic variables explain 37.09% of the
variance in satisfaction, an acceptable quantity if it is compared with other similar
investigations--already quoted previously--which obtained values of explanation
approximately between 30% and 50%.
The variable which predicts m o s t satisfaction is the a t t a c h m e n t to the
neighbourhood, followed by C o m p o n e n t II--'relationship with the neighbours'--;
both variables are those which appear frequently in the literature on residential
satisfaction in subjects of low social status (Fried & Gleicher, 1961).

324

M. Am~rigo and J. I. Aragon,s

Immediately afterwards Component I appears--Basic residential infrastructure--.

This deserves to be conspicuous. It is the factor which explains the most variance in the
questionnaire and is also the clearest dimension in itself. The next entrant in the
regression is Component VI--Connection with the outside world. This component
collects together interesting aspects of housing; referring fundamentally to the number
and size of the windows and how these influence residential satisfaction. Other
objective and subjective attributes influence the proportion of the variance explained,
as shown in Table 4.
Component III--Safety--which explains 6.77% of the variance of the questionnaire,
does not appear in the analysis, which may at first seem strange, since the
neighbourhoods looked at are evaluated as being high in cases of delinquency.
Nevertheless, it has been observed that of all the items except one of this component,
there are no significant differences in perception of insecurity of the inhabitants'
surroundings, which in all cases is very high. But because there is no variation about
safety, this variable does not appear as a predictor of residential satisfaction in the
populations studied.
Discussion

The results lead to the conclusion that the improvement of the instrument and the
heterogeneity of the sample have produced more consistent predictors than was found
in the last study (Am6rigo & Aragon6s, 1988), as well as a greater percentage of
variance on satisfaction. It has shown again the importance of physical residential
environments: house and neighbourhood; and those of a social nature: neighbours.
Nevertheless, we must in future consider ways to improve the scales which measure
residential satisfaction in an indirect way, like the one used in this investigation,
because part of the relationship between the three components of the direct scale and
residential satisfaction in general is that both are formulated in a similar way: 'To what
degree are you satisfied with...'. These can be affected by social desirability by directly
asking the subject about her level of satisfaction.
The technique o f multiple regression used so frequently in this type of study of
residential satisfaction is incomplete. Although it shows predictors which allow us to
see the influence over variable criteria, it does not pick up certain relevant attributes in
the concrete residential whole, if there is a strong homogeneity in the evaluation of a
population in relation to a certain attribute. One indication of this is the absence of
clearly important factors such as component III 'safety', which in spite of appearing as
a basic lack in the three neighbourhoods studied does not emerge as a basic predictor of
residential satisfaction, although obviously the absence of delinquency might improve
the quality of life of residents of the area. The difficulties which this analysis poses
suggest the necessity of resorting to other techniques of collecting data and statistics
when dealing with such situations.
To conclude, it is worthwhile pointing out how curious it is in this type of sample that
when their own objective situation demands a better real quality of life, it is not this-although this is obviously important--which is the factor most relevant in explaining
their level of residential satisfaction, but rather questions o f a psychosocial type such as
the level of attachment to the place they live in and social interactions or networks
which form between inhabitants. Perhaps a certain conformism or acceptance of their
status leads this type of population to develop mechanisms which compensate for the

Satisfaction in Council Housing

325

evident lack o f objective quality in the place where they are living, to thus reach an
acceptable level o f satisfaction with their residential environment.
References
Amerigo, M. & Aragones, J. I. (1988). Satisfacci6n residencial en un barrio remodelado:
Predictores fisicos y sociales. Revista de Psicologia Social, 3, 61-70.
Amerigo, M. (1989). Estudio de fiabilidad de un cuestionario de satisfacci6n residencial aplicado
a sujetos de bajo estatu~. H Jornadas de Psicologia Ambiental. Palma de Mallorca, 1989.
Azorin, F. (1970). Curso de muestreo y aplicaciones. Caracas, Venezuela: Facultad de Economia,
Instituto de Investigaciones Econ6micas.
Canter, D. & Rees, K. (1982). A multivariate model of housing satisfaction. International Review
of Applied Psychology, 31, 185-208.
Cook, C. (1988). Components of neighborhood satisfaction. Responses from urban and
suburban single-parent women. Environment and Behavior, 20, 115-149.
Cutter, S. (1982). Residential satisfaction and the suburban homeowner. Urban Geography, 3,
315 327.
Fishbein, M. & Azjen, J. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An introduction to Theory
and Research. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.
Fried, M. & Gleieher, P. (1961). Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum. Journal
of American Institute of Planners, 27, 305-315.
Galster, G. C. & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction. Compositional and contextual
correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13, 735-758.
Haney, W. G. & Knowles, E. S. (1978). Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban
resident. Human Ecology, 6, 201-214.
Holahan, Ch. (1986). Environmental Psychology. Annual Review Psychology, 37, 381407,
Hourihan, K. (1984). Context-Dependent models of residential satisfaction. An analysis of
housing groups in Cork, Ireland. Environment and Behaviour, 16, 369-393.
Loo, C. (1986). Neighborhood satisfaction and safety. A study of a low-income ethnic area.
Environment and Behavior, 18, 109-131.
Marans, R. W. & Rodgers, S. W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In
A. Hawley & V. Rock, Eds. Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspective. New York:
Halstead Press.
Newman, S. J. & Duncan, G. J. (1979). Residential problems, dissatisfaction and mobility.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, 154-166.
Premius, H. (1986). Housing as a social adaptation process. A conceptual scheme. Environment
and behavior, 18, 31-52.
Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility.
Demography, 11, 173-188.
Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. R., Butterfield, D. J. & O'Donell, P. M. (1982). Residents perception
of satisfaction and safety. Basis for change in multifamily housing. Environment and
Behavior, 14, 95-724.
Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In
I. Altman & C. H. Werner, Eds., Home Environments. New York: Plenum Press.
Yancey, W. L. (1972). Architecture, interaction and social control: The case of a large-scale
housing project. In J. F. Wohlwill & D. Carson, Eds., Environment and the Social Sciences:
Perspectives and Applications. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Zehner, R. B. (1972). Neighborhood and community satisfaction: A report on new towns and less
planned suburbs. In J. F. Wohlwill & D. Carson, Eds. Environment and the Social Sciences:
Perspectives and Applications. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Manuscript received 23 April 1990
Revised manuscript received 4 July 1990