This paper is published in: Abidoye, R.B., Puspitasari, G., Sunindijo, R. and Adabre, M.

(2020), “Young
adults and homeownership in Jakarta, Indonesia”, International Journal of Housing Markets and
Analysis, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHMA-03-2020-0030

Young Adults and Homeownership

in Jakarta, Indonesia
Rotimi Boluwatife Abidoye, Gitta Puspitasari and Riza Sunindijo
Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia, and

Michael Adabre
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – Homeownership, especially for young adults, is a significant challenge in nearly
every country, and Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world is not exempted.
Its capital city, Jakarta, has the lowest homeownership rate when compared with other cities,
and if this challenge remained unresolved, it could lead to more social and economic issues in
the country. Hence, this research is conducted to investigate the homeownership of young
adults in Jakarta, focusing on young adults’ opinions, perceptions and experiences regarding
homeownership opportunities.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from
young adults in the study area. The collected data was analysed using the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 24.0 software. Descriptive analysis, Cronbach’s alpha test,
Pearson’s correlation test and Mean Score (MS) ranking were adopted to analyse the collected
data.
Findings – The result shows that homeownership is driven by factors that are more functional
and realistic (in terms of a place to live, marriage, and parenthood) rather than those related to
pride or social status representation (as a personal or career accomplishment). Unaffordability
and insufficient income were ranked as crucial barriers to homeownership. Increasing the
supply of affordable housing, controlling housing prices through the government’s
intervention, and reducing mortgage interests are potential solutions to address this issue.
Practical implications – The result of this research would be useful to young adults who are
the participants of this study, property developers, lending institutions, and the government
concerning homeownership policy formulation, loan provision, affordable housing supply,
among others.
Originality/value – Specific studies that focused on the young adults’ homeownership in
Jakarta, Indonesia is limited, therefore, this research provides an insight into the issue of young
adults’ homeownership in the country. Also, the findings could be applicable in other
developing countries that have similar characteristics to Indonesia.

Keywords Young adults, Homeownership, Housing, Housing supply, Jakarta, Indonesia

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Housing is one of the basic needs of human beings is housing, which is as important as food

and health (Widoyoko, 2007). The role of housing is more than just a shelter, but it has a

substantial impact on the standard of living of its habitants. The key that opens the door to meet

other essential human needs is a safe, affordable, and permanent housing (Mulroy & Ewalt,

1996). Moreover, Doling and Ronald (2010) outlined that housing is an important source of

wealth and an ‘asset’ that can be used to secure future wellbeing. The wellbeing of a nation is

reflected in its people enjoying a certain standard of living (Idrus & Ho, 2008). Therefore,

homeownership is usually a topical issue in every country.

Mulder (2006) stated that when the supply of houses is limited and house prices are high, it

will become more difficult for young adults to access the housing market. Ronald (2008) also

argued that getting on the homeownership ladder has become so frustrating for many

households, especially the younger generation with low to middle income, while the more

mature housing investors often have made huge gains from their property investments. The

difficulties of access to homeownership are not only experienced in developed countries such
as the UK and France (Clapham et al., 2012; Bugeja-Bloch, 2013), but also in developing

countries. In Indonesia, the average rate of homeownership stood at 79.61 per cent (Indonesian

Statistical Board, 2018). However, the capital city, Jakarta, is ranked the lowest with only 48.33

per cent homeownership rate (Indonesian Statistical Board, 2018). The limited supply of land

and housing, coupled with the increase in population, have inflated the housing price in Jakarta

(Rahadi et al., 2015b), and have worsened the homeownership challenges.

Since income plays a critical role for people to enter the housing market (Clark & Dieleman,

2017), it is becoming very challenging for the young adults to access homeownership without

financial support from their family or relatives (Filandri & Bertolini, 2016). The median

housing price in Central Jakarta is IDR 27.92 million or USD 1,838 per square meter (Azkia,

2017), meaning it could take up to 20 years for young adults to save money for the 20 per cent

down payment, assuming there is no significant increase of housing prices every year. World

Bank (2012) reported a significant delay in the homeownership of citizens between the age of

30 to 45 in Indonesia. This fact was corroborated by Caesario (2016) who mentioned that the

inability of the younger generation to purchase a house would be a serious challenge in the

future. Therefore, it is crucial to address the homeownership challenge of young adults in

Indonesia, since the housing condition of young adults is a key driver for future social changes

(Hirayama, 2013). In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives were formulated: 1)

to examine the factors that drive young adults’ homeownership in Jakarta, 2) to evaluate the

barriers that prevent young adults from owning a house in Jakarta; and 3) to recommend

solutions to overcome the homeownership challenges faced by young adults in Jakarta.

Literature Review

Housing Needs

Housing is generally a crucial issue in every country because it forms the basic foundation of

human activities (Bratt, 2002). Maslow’s theory proposes a five-tier model of human needs,
comprising physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs,

and finally, the self-actualization. Maslow explained that in order to satisfy the self-

actualization as the highest hierarchy of needs, individuals need to fulfil the lower needs first

(McLeod, 2018). In this hierarchy of needs, housing falls under the category of safety needs.

According to Van Ham (2012), a dwelling fulfils the most basic needs, such as the need for

shelter to feel safe and a place to call home. Additionally, housing has a critical role in people’s

wellbeing which can contribute to the physical and psychological health, safety and security

outcomes, love, and belongingness needs.

Hablemitoglu et al. (2010) conducted a study about defining homeownership according to

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The findings show that homeownership has significant effects

on the physical and social wellbeing of the occupants and the economic features of the

household. Homeownership has many advantages for individuals in terms of better mental and

physical health and for communities, such as social engagement and involvement (Xu et al.,

2015). National Housing Task Force (1988) stated that a proper home allows people to get

ahead in society, by taking benefit of opportunities in education, health and employment. In

brief, homeownership has an important contribution to fulfil the basic needs of human beings,

providing safety and security, which influences the behaviour, prosperity, and physical

wellness of not only the occupants but also the neighbourhood, and society.

Housing in Indonesia

In Indonesia, the importance of housing is stated in the National Congress of Housing and

Settlement in 2009, which declared housing as the responsibility of the state, based on the 1945

Constitution and Human Right Law of Indonesia. Both constitutions declare that every

Indonesian citizen has the right to live well, both materially and spiritually, and has the right

to live not only in a good house but also in a healthy neighbourhood (Kusno, 2012). Kusno
(2012) also stated that housing is considered as a human right, rather than simply a human need

for shelter.

However, most of the Indonesian citizens, especially the low-income earners in the urban areas,

experience difficulties in accessing homeownership. According to Siew (2017), Indonesia had

housing backlog of 11.4 million units in 2017. Although the average homeownership rate in

Indonesia remains high at 79.61 per cent, the rate of homeownership in the urban capital city,

Jakarta, stood at the lowest level at 48.33 per cent (Indonesian Statistical Board, 2018). Rapid

urbanisation due to economic and political factors have caused Jakarta to expand into a

megacity (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). As a result, Jakarta has the highest density with 15,624

people per km2, while the average density in Indonesia is only 137 people per km2 (Indonesian

Statistical Board, 2018). This uneven population distribution in the country and the massive

population in the capital city create housing problems in Jakarta (Rahadi et al., 2015b, 2015a).

Informal self-help housing, called kampung, is one of the most self-initiated and self-

constructed urban settlement in Indonesia and sometimes has low quality and no security of

tenure (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). Tunas and Peresthu (2010) stated that there is a massive gap

in living conditions between informal and formal housing in Indonesia. The authors argued

that informal housing is the only option for the poor. Nevertheless, housing has an important

role in the economic development in Indonesia, especially in Jakarta which is the centre of

government and economic activities. McCallum and Benjamin (1985) posited that one of the

most important factors that influence the ability of the poor to succeed in an urban economy is

housing in its broadest interpretation, including the land, shelter, and access to services.
Young Adults and Homeownership

Factors that influence Young Adults’ Homeownership

According to studies conducted in different parts of the world (see Table 1), various factors

drive homeownership among young adults. The factors are categorised into external and

internal factors. The internal factors can be divided further into two cohorts: personal and

family. Table 1 shows that the internal factors, such as education, income, marriage,

employment, and family background, play a more significant role for young adults’

homeownership with these factors having 52 occurrences in the reviewed studies than the

external factors, such as the government’s policy and lending institution in relation to credit

access with only 35 occurrences.

Table 1: Factors that drive homeownership of young adults – International studies
Colic-
Filandri McDonald
Peisker Castro Beer and No of
and Xu et al. and McKee Coulter Hirayama
Factors and Campos et Faulkner Öst (2012) Variable
Bertolini (2015) Baxter (2012) (2018) (2013)
Johnson al. (2016) (2012) Occurrence
(2016) (2005)
(2012)

Internal Factor
Personal
Education ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6
Income ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
Marriage ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6
Parenthood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5
Employment Type (temporary/permanent) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9
Student Loan/Debt ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4
Health Condition ✓ 1
Family
Family Class Background ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6
Family Financial Support ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6
Parents' homeownership ✓ ✓ 2

External Factor
Policy and Regulation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4
Credit Accessibility ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
Welfare of the Country ✓ ✓ 2
Financial and Economic Condition ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5
Labour Market ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6
Housing Affordability ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
Affordable Housing Supply ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4
Among the internal factors, employment type is the most influential factor since permanent

employment provides stable income and is necessary to save money for the down payment to

get a mortgage loan (Filandri & Bertolini, 2016). Moreover, the young adults’ life transition to

get married and become a parent is also seen as one of the influential factors (McDonald &

Baxter, 2005; Öst, 2012; Hirayama, 2013; Xu et al., 2015). McDonald and Baxter (2005) stated

that one of the most important determinants of purchasing a house is the relationship status,

where married people are almost five times more likely to access homeownership than those

who are single and still living with their parents. Another study conducted by Lauster (2008)

found that there is a relationship between homeownership and marital stability since couples

who already purchased a house are less likely to divorce. In fact, a couple’s investment in a

housing purchase leads to stronger marriage commitment due to financial stability. However,

according to Fry (2013), young adults have a greater tendency to defer marriage and stay single

than previous generations. This phenomenon has the potential to influence young adults’

housing decision.

For the external factors, housing affordability and credit accessibility remain the most

significant factors that drive young adults’ homeownership. Tightened mortgage standards

from lenders make it more difficult for young adults to obtain credit to purchase a house,

worsened by their weaker financial condition (Xu et al., 2015). All the external factors such as

affordable housing supply, housing price, and mortgage bank are interrelated in driving the

homeownership of young adults (Hirayama, 2013; Xu et al., 2015). Furthermore, the

government’s policy and the country economic condition have substantial influence on the

housing tenure status of young adults (Castro Campos et al., 2016; Filandri & Bertolini, 2016).
Young Adults’ Homeownership Challenges

According to McKee (2012), young adults are progressively being excluded from entering the

housing market. McKee (2012) also explained that young adults are often not getting the

priority to be allocated in social or public housing because the access is determined by

administrative criteria designed to assess a particular group of low-income earners that are

considered by the government to have more significant housing ‘need’ than the young adults.

From the global perspective, in Italy, Poggio (2012) showed that the younger generation

experiences economic difficulties due to the increase in housing prices and rents, which have

doubled since the 1990s. The author also stated that the insecurity of homeownership because

of possible mortgage defaults and lack of alternative affordable housing is still a marginal

phenomenon, especially for young adults to purchase a house. The issue of accessing both

social renting and homeownership also occurs in the UK. Clapham et al. (2012) forecasted that

by 2020, more than 1.5 million young people aged between 18 and 30 will be living in the

private rented sector.

In Australia, the rates of homeownership of people aged between 25 and 34 years also

experience a downward trend, from more than 60 per cent in 1981 to 45 per cent in 2016 (Daley

& Coates, 2018). The plausible reason may be because younger Australians usually have lower

income and less accumulated savings (Wood & Griffiths, 2019). Also, the fall in

homeownership rates of young adults could be attributed to the postponement of the

relationship formation in Australia, especially the delay of marriage (McDonald & Baxter,

2005). Similarly, in Sweden, Öst (2012) stated that the chances of young adults to access the

housing market has become increasingly difficult. Öst (2012) further mentioned that the

percentage of the poor has increased among young people and it is tougher for young adults

nowadays to be a permanent employee, which is needed to enter a firsthand lease.

In conclusion, homeownership rates among young adults in many countries around the world

are declining. There are numerous reasons why homeownership decreases. They include the

difficulties of finding permanent jobs, insufficient income, and unaffordable housing prices.

Today, homeownership largely depends on income, and how wealthy the young adults’ parents

are (Daley & Coates, 2018). Daley and Coates (2018) also argued that housing has a significant

contribution to widening the gaps in wealth between the rich and the poor, the old and the

young. The exclusion of young people from being homeowners is a crucial public-policy issue

that demands urgent and decisive interventions from the government (Öst, 2012).

Young Adults and Homeownership in Indonesia

For the younger generation in Indonesia, acquiring a house is one of the top indicators for

future achievement. Collecting data from young people aged between 20 and 35 in Indonesia,

Utomo (2019) found that the first priority is to ‘make their parents happy’, followed by

‘homeownership’, ‘be a good parent’, then ‘be a successful entrepreneur’ and ‘ to have a high

earning job’. Young adults in Indonesia often have a close relationship with their family. This

close relationship becomes a deciding factor for young adults when purchasing a house, that is

to live close to family members (Rahadi et al., 2015b). It is common in Indonesia for children

to live with or near their parents or their siblings (Rahadi et al., 2015b).

Understanding the factors that influence the price of houses could pose as a homeownership

challenge because knowing the value formation of houses will mean that home buyers (young

adults) know what to look out for and what to save when planning to buy a house. According

to Rahadi et al. (2015a), there is a wide gap between the perception of home buyers and

property practitioners on the pricing of housing in Indonesia which may probably aggravate

homeownership issue in Indonesia. Homeownership is still a challenge amongst the Indonesian

younger generation as Utomo (2019) reported that only 35.1 per cent of the millennials own a
house. The high inflation rate of housing prices hinders young adults’ abilities to acquire

homeownership in Indonesia (Utomo, 2019). Fortunately, some of the lending institutions in

Indonesia are now aware of the homeownership challenge amongst young adults. Some

Indonesian banks started launching housing mortgage programmes which are specifically

designed for the younger generation, with adjusted payment schemes according to young

adults’ financial conditions.

Research Methodology

This research is conducted to investigate the homeownership of young adults in Jakarta,

Indonesia, and adopted a quantitative research approach by using a questionnaire survey as the

data collection method. This method was chosen because the research focuses on identifying

the factors that influence an outcome, understanding the best predictors of the outcome, and

the utility of an intervention (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Also, quantitative research

approaches are suitable when a large population and a widespread of participants over a

geographical area are to be sampled (Easterbrook et al., 2008). The use of a questionnaire

survey is not uncommon in previous studies, for instance Rahadi et al. (2015b), Indrianingrum

(2017) among others.

The first step of this research was to review the literature and statistical data from the Indonesia

Statistical Board to understand the fundamental homeownership issues among young adults.

The drivers and barriers that influence the homeownership of young adults drawn from the

literature review were used to design the questionnaire. The next stage of this study was the

data collection from the young adults in the study area using the questionnaire survey. Finally,

the collected data were analysed and discussed to draw meaningful conclusions from the study.
Data Collection

A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from the respondents. A hard copy

questionnaire was administered to the respondents and this is allowed answering any question

the respondents may had which lead to getting quality answers (Zutshi et al., 2007). Before the

administration of the questionaries the respondents were informed about the confidentiality of

their participation. The questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section captures

the respondents’ profile by asking questions about their gender, age, marital status, type of

employment, length of working, salary level and education qualification. The second section

focuses on the factors (drivers) and barriers of homeownership. A five-point Likert scale from

‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ was used in this section. This section also includes a

question on the importance of the family role to their homeownership. A five-point Likert scale

from ‘very unimportant’ to ‘very important’ was used for this question. The third section asked

the respondents to indicate the solutions to overcome the homeownership challenges. A five-

point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ was used in this section.

The use of the Likert scale is not uncommon and have been appropriately adopted in the

previous literature (see Dawes, 2008; Rahadi et al., 2015a).

Three selection criteria were set for the target respondents for this research. First, must be an

Indonesian citizen because Indonesian citizens do not need to renew or extend their Rights to

Use a house in Indonesia as in the case of foreigners (Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of

The Republic of Indonesia, 2015). Secondly, must live in Jakarta. This is because it has 15,663

people/kilometre density which is the highest compare to other cities in Indonesia (Indonesian

Statistical Board, 2018) and only about 17 per cent of young adults in Jakarta can afford to

purchase a house and pay the mortgage (Caesario, 2016). Lastly, must be aged between 25 and

34 years (inclusive). This age range has been established in the literature (see Filandri &

Bertolini, 2016). The hard copies of the questionnaire were administered to the respondents in
Jakarta offices, coworking spaces and the surrounding public areas such as parks, cafes, malls

and libraries.

Data Analysis

The statistical tests used to analyse the collected data are the Cronbach’s alpha test, Pearson’s

correlation test and Mean Score (MS) ranking. Cronbach’s alpha test was adopted to measure

the reliability and internal consistency of the respondents’ answers. The value of the

Cronbach’s alpha test ranges from 0 to 1, in which 0 means no correlation and 1 means a perfect

positive correlation. Although there are debates about the acceptable benchmark, Morgan et al.

(2012) argued that the lowest acceptable reliability score is 0.70. Pearson’s correlation test was

conducted to examine the relationship between the respondents’ profile with their ability to

become homeowners and to evaluate the importance and criticality of each driver and barrier

of homeownership.

The MS test was conducted to rank the factors, barriers, and solutions of homeownership. The

MS of each variable was calculated using the expression in Equation 1 (Abidoye, 2017):

MS = 5 x n5 + 4 x n4 + 3 x n3 + 2 x n2 + 1 x n1 (1)
N

Where n is the number of young adults who gave a certain answer and N is the total number of

young adults that participated in the survey.

The criticality of each variable was established based on its respective MS. For this study, a

variable with MS of 4.00 and above was considered as highly critical, variables with MS

between 3.50 and 3.99 were considered as critical, while those with MS less than 3.00 were
regarded as noncritical. This classification is consistent with the existing literature (see,

Abidoye & Chan, 2016a).

Results and Discussion

Reliability Test

In total, 99 young adults responded to the questionnaire survey. However, three responses were

invalid and were taken out of the data analysis. Consequently, only 96 valid responses were

analysed. The response size is not uncommon in previous studies. For instance, Cheung et al.

(2012) got 45 responses (aggregate), Abidoye and Chan (2016b) got 55 responses, Wilkinson

et al. (2018) sampled 25 respondents, among others. Particularly in Indonesia, Indrianingrum

(2017) got 62 responses. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the questionnaire is 0.89, indicating

that the data gathered through the questionnaire survey is reliable and that meaningful

conclusions can be drawn from it.

Respondents’ Profile

Table 2 shows the gender distribution of the respondents who participated in this research. Out

of the 96 respondents, the majority are females (56.3 per cent), while 42.7 per cent of them are

males, with one respondent chose not to disclose his/her gender. This result is consistent with

the data from the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics (2018) who reported that the majority of the

young adults between the ages of 25 and 34 are females.

 Table 2: Profile of the respondents

Variables Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 41 42.7
Female 54 56.3
Prefer not to say 1 1.0
Total 96 100

Age Group
25 – 30 years 87 90.6
30 – 34 years 9 9.4
Total 96 100

Marital Status
Single 63 65.6
Married 30 31.3
Other: Prefer not to say 3 3.1
Total 96 100

Highest Education
High School 1 1.0
Diploma Certificate 9 9.4
Bachelor’s Degree 80 83.3
Master’s Degree 6 6.3
Doctoral Degree (PhD) 0 0
Total 96 100

The majority of the respondents were aged between 25 and 30 years (N=87, 90.6 per cent),

while the older group, aged between 30 and 34, represents only 9.4 per cent (see Table 2). In

terms of the marital status, 63 (65.6 per cent) of the respondents were single, 30 of them were

married (31.3 per cent) and three respondents preferred not to disclose their marital status.

In terms of the respondents’ highest education qualification, 80 (83.3 per cent) respondents

have a bachelor’s degree, nine respondents (9.4 per cent) have a diploma certificate, six

respondents (6.3 per cent) have a master’s degree, and one respondent (1 per cent) is a high

school graduate. This profile shows that 89.6 per cent of the respondents have acquired at least
an undergraduate degree. This suggests that the opinion presented in this research are from

well-educated young adults.

Table 3 shows the respondents’ employment status. Most of the respondents (69.8 per cent)

were permanent employees, while 24 per cent of the respondents were temporary employees.

The remainders were either unemployed, entrepreneurs, freelancer or students and they

constitute 3.1 per cent, 2.1 per cent, and 2.0 per cent, respectively. In terms of salary, the

majority (57.3 per cent) of the respondents’ monthly income ranged between IDR 5,000,000

and IDR 10,000,000 1 (see Table 3). Meanwhile, according to the Indonesian Statistical Board

(2018), the average monthly salary of fresh graduates in Jakarta was IDR 3,600,000. Nearly 19

per cent of the respondents earned IDR 3,600,000 – IDR 5,000,000 a month, while another

13.5 per cent earned IDR 10,000,000 – IDR 20,000,000. Finally, 5.2 per cent of the respondents

earned less than IDR 3,600,000 monthly, below Jakarta’s minimum wage, and another 5.2 per

cent earned above IDR 20,000,000 monthly. It is sufficed to infer that most of the young adults

who participated in this survey could be categorised as middle-class income earners.

1 1 United States Dollar (USD) equals to Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) 15,189 (2018)
 Table 3: Employment profile of the respondents

Variables Frequency Percentage

Employment Status
Temporary employee 23 24.0
Permanent employee 67 69.8
Entrepreneur / freelancer 2 2.1
Unemployed 3 3.1
Others: student 1 1.0
Total 96 100
Salary
< IDR 3,600,000 5 5.2
IDR 3,600,000 – IDR 5,000,000 18 18.8
IDR 5,000,000 – IDR 10,000,000 55 57.3
IDR 10,000,000 – IDR 20,000,000 13 13.5
> IDR 20,000,000 5 5.2
Total 96 100

Working Experience
< 1 year 26 27.1
1 – 3 years 15 15.6
3 – 5 years 46 47.9
5 – 10 years 7 7.3
> 10 years 2 2.1
Total 96 100

The respondents’ years of working experience is also presented in Table 3. The respondents

who possessed three to five years working experience are the majority (47.9 per cent), followed

by the respondents who had less than one year of work experience at 27.1 per cent. About 15

per cent of the respondents had one to three years of work experience, and the rest 7.3 per cent

and 2.1 per cent of the respondents had five to ten years and more than ten years’ experience,

respectively.

Correlation Between the Respondents’ Personal Profile and Housing Status

Pearson’s Correlation (parametric test) was conducted (see Table 4) to examine the relationship

among various factors. The tests were conducted to investigate if there is any statistical

relationship among the young adults’ salary, employment status, length of work and their

homeownership. The results show that there are no statistically significant relationships among

salary and homeownership status, employment and homeownership status, and length of work

and homeownership status because all their p values (p-value = .811, .092, .148) are higher

than .05. This suggests that those factors do not influence young adults' homeownership.

Table 4: Pearson correlation test result

Variables Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

Salary and Homeownership Status -.025 .811 96

Employment and Homeownership Status .173 .092 96

Length of Work and Homeownership Status -.149 .148 96

Young Adults’ Housing Preference and Homeownership Drivers

According to the response of young adults in Jakarta, Table 5 illustrates their housing

preference. Eight of the factors were ranked as highly critical, while the other four factors were

ranked as critical. Table 5 shows that access to transportation and location are the most

important factors that drive the housing preference of young adults in Jakarta with MS of 4.65

and 4.64, respectively. These findings corroborate the study of Timmermans et al. (1994) who

reported that accessibility and location are important to consumers when they choose a housing

product. Commuting and location are the main concerns in Indonesia, especially in a big city

like Jakarta with its inefficient public transportation system and high dependency on the

privately-owned mode of transportation (Rahadi et al., 2015b). The importance of location to

property value formation was also reported by Abidoye and Chan (2016a).
Table 5: Factors that influence the respondents’ housing preference

Factors SD D N A SA Mean Score SD Rank Criticality

Access to transportation 0 0 5 23 68 4.65 0.58 1st H. Critical

Location 0 0 4 26 66 4.64 0.56 2nd H. Critical

Security 0 0 7 29 60 4.55 0.63 3rd H. Critical

Price or value 0 1 5 31 59 4.54 0.65 4th H. Critical

Neighbourhood 0 2 14 31 49 4.32 0.80 5th H. Critical

Access to work 0 0 17 35 44 4.28 0.75 6th H. Critical

Land and building size 0 1 25 39 31 4.04 0.94 7th H. Critical

Age of the property 1 2 20 45 28 4.01 0.83 8th H. Critical

Architecture or layout 0 3 37 37 19 3.75 0.81 9th Critical

Close to family or relative 1 8 35 31 21 3.65 0.95 10th Critical

Number of bedroom and bathroom 0 6 38 36 16 3.64 0.83 11th Critical

Size of bedroom and bathroom 0 8 45 29 14 3.51 0.85 12th Critical

Where SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree H. Critical = Highly Critical
Security was ranked as the third critical factor that influences the respondents’ housing

preference with MS of 4.55. This result corroborates the findings of Rahadi et al. (2015b) who

found that security is one of the most influential factors for residential consumers and, as a

result, it influences property values. Unpredictably, price and value are not the top three main

considerations when young adults choose a house, even though housing prices in Indonesia

have increased significantly over time (Rahadi et al., 2015b). It must be noted, however, that

the MS of ‘price or value’ is only slightly lower than the other main three factors. The number

and size of bedrooms and bathrooms were ranked as the least critical factors with MS values

of 3.65 and 3.51, respectively. This is probably because young adults are more concerned with

the land and building size than detailed features such as a property’s bedroom and bathroom

size.

In terms of the internal drivers of young adults’ homeownership in Jakarta (see Table 6), four

were ranked as highly critical, while three others were ranked as critical drivers. House as a

place to live was ranked as the first highly critical driver both in the internal factor category

and in the overall category with an MS value of 4.48. It can be argued that young adults want

to purchase a house as a functional attribute for them to live. It is also safe to conclude that a

driver for young adults’ homeownership follows the hierarchy of needs theory which places

housing as one of the most important basic needs (Van Ham, 2012).
Table 6: Drivers of homeownership
Category Overall
Factors SD D N A SA Mean Score SD Criticality
Ranking Ranking
Internal Factors
As a place to live 1 0 6 33 56 4.48 0.71 1st 1st H. Critical
Marriage 0 0 10 35 51 4.42 0.67 2nd 2nd H. Critical
Parenthood 1 2 14 42 37 4.16 0.82 3rd 5th H. Critical
Affordable percentage of mortgage down payment 1 1 21 42 31 4.05 0.82 4th 6th H. Critical
Investment opportunity 2 4 20 40 30 3.95 0.93 5th 9th Critical
Affordable mortgage repayment 1 5 22 46 22 3.86 0.86 6th 11th Critical
Personal / career accomplishment 2 5 29 40 20 3.73 0.92 7th 14th Critical
Family
Family background 4 7 26 39 20 3.66 1.02 1st 15th Critical
Family financial support 5 8 26 37 20 3.61 1.06 2nd 16th Critical
Family homeownership 7 9 28 38 14 3.44 1.08 3rd 17th Critical

External Factors
Housing price affordability 0 1 9 39 47 4.37 0.69 1st 3rd H. Critical
Affordable housing supply in the market 0 2 13 43 38 4.21 0.75 2nd 4th H. Critical
Credit accessibility/lending from the bank 3 2 15 48 28 4.00 0.90 3rd 7th H. Critical
Financial and economic condition 0 4 23 40 29 3.97 0.84 4th 8th Critical
Labour market/job opportunity 0 3 25 42 26 3.94 0.81 5th 10th Critical
Housing policy and regulation 1 6 21 46 22 3.85 0.88 6th 12th Critical
Welfare program of the country 1 2 35 27 20 3.76 0.84 7th 13th Critical
Where SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree H. Critical = Highly Critical
Marriage and parenthood with MS values of 4.42 and 4.16 were ranked as the second and third

most important internal drivers. This result is in line with previous studies such as Xu et al.

(2015), McDonald and Baxter (2005), Öst (2012) and Hirayama (2013) who found that young

adults’ life transition to get married and become parents is an influential driver for

homeownership. Similarly, Lauster (2008) found that there is a relationship between

homeownership and marital stability since couples who have already purchased a house are

less likely to be divorced. This is because the investments that a married couple makes in a

property (house) acquisition creates a more significant commitment to the marriage and

financial stability that goes along with marriage.

Lastly, buying a house as proof of personal or career accomplishment is the lowest-ranked

internal driver with an MS value of 3.73. These findings are in contrast with Ali and Purwandi

(2016) who stated that young adults in Jakarta symbolise their career achievement by acquiring

a house. The plausible reason for the contradiction might be because Ali and Purwandi (2016)

surveyed all the young adults in urban areas in many cities in Indonesia, unlike this research

which focuses only on Jakarta. Surprisingly, family factors, such as family background, family

financial support, and family homeownership, were ranked lowly for both the internal and

external drivers with MS values of 3.66, 3.61 and 3.44, respectively. The result is in contrast

to the study of Filandri and Bertolini (2016), Colic-Peisker and Johnson (2012) and Castro

Campos et al. (2016) who described that the support from family is a very critical factor for

young adults to attain homeownership status. Family factors are not regarded as highly critical

drivers by the respondents of this study probably because they do not depend on their parents

financially. In fact, many of the younger generation in Indonesia are regarded as a ‘Sandwich

Generation’ that is being in the middle of financial responsibility, not only to their children but

also to their parents (Aura, 2018).

There are three highly critical external drivers of young adults’ homeownership in Jakarta.

First, housing price affordability was ranked first with an MS value of 4.37. Housing

affordability remains a big challenge that needs interventions not only from the government

but also from the private sector. Second, affordable housing supply in the market was the

second highly critical driver with an MS value of 4.21. The third highly critical external factor

is credit accessibility or lending from the bank with an MS value of 4.00. Xu et al. (2015)

mentioned that credit accessibility plays an important role in attaining homeownership status.

If the mortgage requirements were tightened by the lenders, it would be more difficult for

young adults to obtain credit to purchase a house due to their weaker financial condition (Xu

et al., 2015). Lastly, the welfare program of the country was ranked as the least critical external

driver with an MS value of 3.76. This is probably because the respondents were not familiar

with the program of the government or they felt that the program is not helpful in their context.

Young Adults’ Homeownership Barriers

Table 7 shows the barriers that prevent young adults from becoming homeowners.

Unaffordable housing prices (MS = 4.34) and insufficient income (MS = 4.19) were ranked as

highly critical barriers. The World Bank (2016) explained that housing affordability remains a

key barrier to homeownership in Indonesia because only 20 per cent of the household can

acquire housing in the formal housing market. This barrier is followed by insufficient income,

which understandably plays a critical role when people enter the housing market (Clark &

Dieleman, 2017). The third critical barrier is the limited housing stock in the desired location

with an MS value of 3.97. The World Bank (2016) reported that the supply of new affordable

housing is often poorly located because of the high cost of land, pushing the urban people to

the city peripheries outside Jakarta.

 Meanwhile, personal circumstances is the least critical barrier with an MS value of 3.51. The

personal circumstances may include family and mental health issue or ineligibility to access

mortgage loans due to a lack of formal employment or a consistent income stream (Mungkasa,

2012). However, it is safe to conclude that once the housing price is affordable relative to

income, the barriers of the respondents’ homeownership would more likely be lower.

Table 7: Barriers that prevent young adults in Jakarta from owning a house

Factors SD D N A SA Mean Score SD Rank Criticality

Unaffordable housing price 2 0 6 43 45 4.34 0.77 1st H. Critical

Insufficient income 2 1 12 42 39 4.19 0.85 2nd H. Critical

Limited stock of housing in

0 7 19 39 31 3.97 0.91 3rd Critical
the desired location

Unaffordable mortgage
0 5 22 43 26 3.93 0.84 4th Critical
repayment

High percentage of down

0 4 24 42 26 3.93 0.83 5th Critical
payment

Loan or other debt burden 2 8 30 35 21 3.67 0.97 6th Critical

Personal circumstances 3 6 41 31 15 3.51 0.94 7th Critical

Where SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree, H. Critical = Highly Critical

Solutions to Young Adults’ Homeownership Challenges

Several potential solutions to overcome the homeownership challenges of young adults from

the findings of previous research are listed in Table 8. The respondents were asked to indicate

the extent to which they agree with those statements. The results show that the first and second

solutions are related to the housing affordability issue. The most highly critical solution is to

increase the supply of affordable housing as reflected in its MS of 4.30.

Table 8: Solutions to overcome homeownership challenges

Factors SD D N A SA Mean Score SD Rank Criticality

Increase the affordable housing

1 1 14 32 48 4.30 0.83 1st H. Critical
supply

Government intervention to control

1 3 16 35 41 4.16 0.89 2nd H. Critical
housing price

Decrease the mortgage interest 2 2 21 34 37 4.06 0.93 3rd H. Critical

Decrease the loan to value ratio for

4 1 21 41 29 3.93 0.97 4th Critical
down payment

Where SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree, H. Critical = Highly Critical

According to Rahadi et al. (2015b), Indonesia has experienced a fall in household formation

since 2000 due to the lack of housing supply. Nevertheless, because of the housing backlog,

this has aggravated the housing affordability in large cities. The government and the private

sector should devote more effort and resources to increase the supply of affordable housing for

young adults. The second highly critical solution is government intervention with an MS value

of 4.16. The respondents opined that the government needs to intervene through controlling

housing prices. Similarly, Rahadi et al. (2015b) argued that the lack of control and government

policies have exacerbated the increase in housing prices in Indonesia. The government should

be more proactive when making policies to control housing prices. The first and the second

solution are inter-related because if the supply of affordable housing is limited, housing prices

will automatically increase (Rahadi et al., 2015b), based on the laws of supply and demand.
Conclusions

Currently, knowledge about the homeownership of young adults in Indonesia is limited.

Therefore, this research aims to fill the gap by analysing the young adults’ opinion, perceptions

and experiences regarding homeownership opportunities in Jakarta, Indonesia. The research

found that access to public transportation facilities, location, and security are highly critical

factors that young adults consider when making housing decisions. The internal factors that

drive their homeownership are house as a place to live, marriage and parenthood while buying

a house as a proof of personal or career accomplishment is the least critical driver. The

homeownership is driven more by personal factors than just pride or social status

accomplishment. The critical external factors that drive the homeownership of young adults

are housing price affordability, the supply of affordable housing, and credit accessibility from

banks. On the other hand, the two crucial barriers that prevent the respondents from owning a

house are unaffordable housing price and insufficient income. To overcome the

homeownership barriers, increasing the supply of affordable housing, controlling housing price

through government intervention, and reducing the mortgage interest rates are considered as

the most feasible solutions. Those solutions are related to each other because the inflated

housing prices can be overcome if there are sustainable and long-term initiatives to increase

the supply of new housing units, which can then reduce the down payment required of the

prospective homebuyers.

The findings of this study in terms of the drivers and barriers of young adults’ homeownership

fills the gap in literature in Jakarta and Asia at large. The results of this study can be used as a

decision-supporting tool by property developers, banks, mortgage loan providers, real estate

agents and other stakeholders in the housing provision space when providing housing products,

finance, marketing strategies and lending programs that are specifically made for young adults.

Also, the Indonesian government can find this research useful when formulating policies and
strategies regarding homeownership of young adults in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a developing

country, the drivers and barriers of homeownership in Indonesia may differ from those of

developed countries. Furthermore, 96 valid responses were analysed, thus the results should be

carefully generalised and interpreted. Since this study only focuses on Jakarta, other big cities

in Indonesia such as Bandung, Surabaya, and Medan can be investigated to assist stakeholders

in solving the homeownership challenges in Indonesia at large.

References
Abidoye, R. B. (2017). Towards property valuation accuracy: A comparison of hedonic pricing model and
artificial neural network. (Doctorate Degree), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Retrieved from http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/bitstream/10397/70359/2/991021965755503411_pira.pdf
(LG51 .H577P BRE 2017 Abidoye)
Abidoye, R. B., & Chan, A. P. C. (2016a). Critical determinants of residential property value: Professionals’
perspective. Journal of Facilities Management, 14(3), 283-300.
Abidoye, R. B., & Chan, A. P. C. (2016b). A survey of property valuation approaches in Nigeria. Property
Management, 34(5), 364-382.
Ali, H., & Purwandi, L. (2016). Indonesia 2020: The urban middle-class millenials. Retrieved from Jakarta
Selatan, Indonesia:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314448735_Indonesia_2020_The_Urban_Middle_Class_Mill
enials.
Aura. (2018). Psychologist reveals reasons behind sandwich generation stress. Retrieved 23rd April 2019, from
Tempo.co https://en.tempo.co/read/923563/psychologist-reveals-reasons-behind-sandwich-generation-
stress
Azkia, F. (Producer). (2017, 13th October 2018). Monitor house price dynamics in Jakarta. Retrieved from
https://www.rumah.com/berita-properti/2017/11/164618/memantau-dinamika-harga-rumah-di-jakarta.
Bratt, R. G. (2002). Housing and family well-being. Housing Studies, 17(1), 13-26.
Bugeja-Bloch, F. (2013). Residential trajectories of young French people. In R. Forest & N. M. Yip (Eds.), Young
people and housing: Transitions, trajectories and generational fractures (pp. 179-198). New York,
USA: Routledge.
Caesario, E. B. (2016). Only 17% of millennials can buy houses in Jakarta. from The Economy
https://ekonomi.bisnis.com/read/20161216/48/612683/hanya-17-generasi-millenial-mampu-beli-
rumah-di-jakarta
Castro Campos, B., Yiu, C., Shen, J., Liao, K., & Maing, M. (2016). The anticipated housing pathways to
homeownership of young people in Hong Kong. International Journal of Housing Policy, 16(2), 223-
242.
Cheung, E., Chan, A. P., & Kajewski, S. (2012). Factors contributing to successful public private partnership
projects: Comparing Hong Kong with Australia and the United Kingdom. Journal of Facilities
Management, 10(1), 45-58.
Clapham, D., Mackie, P., Orford, S., Buckley, K., Thomas, I., Atherton, I., et al. (2012). Housing options and
solutions for young people in 2020. Retrieved from York, UK:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/young-people-housing-options-full_0.pdf.
Clark, W. A. V., & Dieleman, F. M. (2017). Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in the housing market.
New York, USA: Routledge.
Colic-Peisker, V., & Johnson, G. (2012). Liquid life, solid homes: Young people, class and homeownership in
Australia. Sociology, 46(4), 728-743.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach. California, USA: Sage Publications.
Daley, J., & Coates, B. (2018). Housing affordability: Re-imaging the Australian Dream (2018-04). Retrieved
from Melbourne, Australia: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/901-Housing-
affordability.pdf.
Dawes, J. G. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment
using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 51(1), 61-77.
Doling, J., & Ronald, R. (2010). Home ownership and asset-based welfare. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 25(2), 165-173.
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.-A., & Damian, D. (2008). Selecting empirical methods for software
engineering research. In F. Shull, J. Singer, & D. I. K. Sjøberg (Eds.), Guide to advanced empirical
software engineering (pp. 285-311). London: Springer.
Filandri, M., & Bertolini, S. (2016). Young people and home ownership in Europe. International Journal of
Housing Policy, 16(2), 144-164.
Fry, R. (2013). Young adults after the recession: Fewer homes, fewer cars, less debt. Retrieved from
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/21/young-adults-after-the-recession-fewer-homes-fewer-
cars-less-debt/.
Hablemitoglu, S., Ozkan, Y., & Purutcuoglu, E. (2010). The assessment of the housing in the theory of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs. European journal of social sciences, 16(2), 222-228.
Hirayama, Y. (2013). Housing and generational fractures in Japan. In R. Forrest & N. M. Yip (Eds.), Young people
and housing: Transitions, trajectories and generational fractures (pp. 161-178). New York: Routledge.
Idrus, N., & Ho, C. S. (2008). Affordable and quality housing through the low cost housing provision in Malaysia.
Paper presented at the Seminar of Sustainable Development and Governance, Toyohashi, Japan.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chin_Ho/publication/279662294_Affordable_and_quality_housin
g_through_the_low_cost_housing_provision_in_Malaysia/links/564293cd08ae997866c4b2d7/Afforda
ble-and-quality-housing-through-the-low-cost-housing-provision-in-Malaysia.pdf
Indonesian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Number of population of DKI Jakarta (Male and Female) by age group
2018. Retrieved 2nd September 2018, from Statistics Indonesia
https://jakarta.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2018/01/31/17/tabel-proyeksi-penduduk-2018.html
Indonesian Statistical Board. (2018). Monthly report of socio-economic data Retrieved from Jakarta:
https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2018/09/05/77e5a222021e1c844d609136/laporan-bulanan-data-
sosial-ekonomi-september-2018.html.
Indrianingrum, L. (2017, 5th – 6th October 2016). Housing ownership and affordability among low-income
society in the poorest sub-district of Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia. Paper presented at the AIP
Conference Semarang, Indonesia.
Kusno, A. (2012). Housing the margin: Perumahan Rakyat and the future urban form of Jakarta. Indonesia, 94(1),
23-56.
Lauster, N. T. (2008). Better homes and families: Housing markets and young couple stability in Sweden. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 70(4), 891-903.
McCallum, D., & Benjamin, S. (1985). Low-income urban housing in the Third World: Broadening the economic
perspective. Urban Studies, 22(4), 277-287.
McDonald, P., & Baxter, J. (2005). Home ownership among young people in Australia: In decline or just delayed?
Australian Journal of Social Issues, The, 40(4), 471-487.
McKee, K. (2012). Young people, homeownership and future welfare. Housing Studies, 27(6), 853-862.
McLeod, S. (2018). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved 18th September 2018, from Simply Psychology
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of The Republic of Indonesia. (2015). Ownership of dwelling of residency
house by forerign persons domiciled in Indonesia.pdf. (REGULATION NO. 103/2015). Jakarta:
Minister of Justice and Human Rights of The Republic of Indonesia Retrieved from
http://www.indonesia.cz/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Government-Regulation-PP-No.-103-
2015_EN.pdf.
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2012). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics:
Use and interpretation (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Mulder, C. H. (2006). Population and housing: A two-sided relationship. Demographic Research, 15(13), 401-
412.
Mulroy, E. A., & Ewalt, P. L. (1996). Affordable housing: A basic need and a social issue. Social work, 41(3),
245-249.
Mungkasa, O. (2012). Housing in Indonesia: Expanding access improving access. Retrieved from Jakarta,
Indonesia:
https://www.academia.edu/3513665/Housing_in_Indonesia._Expanding_Access_Improving_Efficienc
y.
National Housing Task Force. (1988). A decent place to live: The report of the National Housing Task Force
(Vol. 63). Washington D.C.: National Housing Task Force.
Öst, C. E. (2012). Parental wealth and first-time homeownership: A cohort study of family background and young
adults’ housing situation in Sweden. Urban Studies, 49(10), 2137-2152.
Poggio, T. (2012). The first steps into the Italian housing system: Inequality between generational gaps and family
intergenerational transfers. In R. Forrest & N.-M. Yip (Eds.), Young People and Housing (pp. 60-81).
London Routledge.
Rahadi, R. A., Wiryono, S. K., Koesrindartoto, D. P., & Syamwil, I. B. (2015a). Comparison of the property
practitioners and consumer preferences on housing prices in the Jakarta metropolitan region.
International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 8(3), 335-358.
Rahadi, R. A., Wiryono, S. K., Koesrindartoto, D. P., & Syamwil, I. B. (2015b). Factors influencing the price of
housing in Indonesia. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 8(2), 169-188.
Ronald, R. (2008). The ideology of homeownership: Homeowner societies and the role of housing. New York,
USA: Springer.
Siew, R. (2017). Affordable housing in Southeast Asia. Retrieved from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
https://theaseanpost.com/article/affordable-housing-southeast-asia.
The World Bank. (2016). National affordable housing program in Indonesia (PIDC26050). Retrieved from
Washington, D.C: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/299581479368540859/pdf/PID-Print-
P154948-11-17-2016-1479368535904.pdf.
Timmermans, H., Molin, E., & Van Noortwijk, L. (1994). Housing choice processes: Stated versus revealed
modelling approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 9(3), 215-227.
Tunas, D., & Peresthu, A. (2010). The self-help housing in Indonesia: The only option for the poor? Habitat
International, 34(3), 315-322.
Utomo, W. P. (2019). Indonesia millennial report 2019. Retrieved from Jakarta, Indonesia:
https://cdn.idntimes.com/content-documents/indonesia-millennial-report-2019-by-idn-times.pdf.
Van Ham, M. (2012). Housing behaviour. In D. Clapham, W. A. V. Clark, & K. Gibb (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook
of Housing Studies (pp. 47-65). London: SAGE.
Widoyoko, D. (2007). Good governance and provision of affordable housing in DKI Jakarta, Indonesia: Case
study. Leicestershire, UK: WEDC, Loughborough University.
Wilkinson, S., Antoniades, H., & Halvitigala, D. (2018). The future of the Australian valuation profession.
Property Management, 36(3), 333-344.
Wood, D., & Griffiths, K. (2019). Generation gap: Ensuring a fair go for young Australians (2019-07). Retrieved
from Australia: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/920-Generation-Gap.pdf.
World Bank. (2012). Housing in Indonesia: Expanding access, improving efficiency. Retrieved from Washington
DC:
https://www.academia.edu/3513665/Housing_in_Indonesia._Expanding_Access_Improving_Efficienc
y?auto=download.
Xu, Y., Johnson, C., Bartholomae, S., O'Neill, B., & Gutter, M. S. (2015). Homeownership among millennials:
The deferred American dream? Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 44(2), 201-212.
Zutshi, A., Parris, M. A., & Creed, A. (2007, 4 - 7 December). Questioning the future of paper and online survey
questionnaires for management research. Paper presented at the 21st ANZAM Conference, Sydney,
Australia.