Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Residential satisfaction in affordable housing: A mixed method study

⁎
Marziyeh Riazi, Ali Emami
Department of Architecture, Gonbad Kavoos Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gonbad Kavoos, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite the importance of residential satisfaction among low-income families, some residential complexes have
Residential satisfaction been constructed without the consideration of factors determining residential satisfaction. One of these projects
Mehr housing is Mehr housing – a mass affordable housing in Iran that caused various problems after implementation. Thus,
Mixed method this study has two notable purposes. First, it attempts to identify the satisfaction factors of 221 residents of Mehr
Planning policies
housing projects in Gonbad Kavoos, Iran. Secondly, it examines planning policies, design principles and inter-
Design principles
Interaction with neighbors
action with neighbors as determinants of residential satisfaction (DRS). The study used mixed method research.
First, it adopted an exploratory and qualitative approach to identify the satisfaction factors based on semi-
structured interviews and then it undertook a quantitative approach along with structured questionnaires. The
data analysis was conducted with Framework analysis and SmartPLS software. The structural model proved the
effect of DRS on residential satisfaction. Also, results revealed that ethnicity moderates the relationship between
interaction with neighbors and residential satisfaction. So that, among non-Persians, residential satisfaction
through interaction with neighbors was more than that of Persians.

1. Introduction
Residential satisfaction, based on the notion of “psychological
construct theory” (Galster, 1985), is an assessment of the extent to
which the present dwelling of residents and the quality of the en-
vironment is close to aspiration of their favorite one. Although re-
sidential satisfaction is vital among low-income residents, most studies
on affordable housing have been conducted in the area of planning to
increase affordable housing supply and less to evaluate the results of
planning policies on residential satisfaction (Crook & Whitehead, 2010;
Karki, 2015; van den Nouwelant, Davison, Gurran, Pinnegar, &
Randolph, 2015). Assessment of residential satisfaction helps housing
planners to make successful housing policies by identifying the factors
that determine satisfaction (Galster & Hesser, 1981).On the other hand,
dissatisfaction in most cases motivates families to relocate (Rossi, 1955)
and as Salleh (2008) argued the reason for the failure of many housing
projects could be lack of knowledge about the determinants of re-
sidential satisfaction.
An overview of empirical studies on residential satisfaction in low-
income housing revealed that there are several categories in this area.
These categories were often based on scale, from the macro level to the
micro level (neighborhood vs. dwelling) (Checa & Arjona, 2010; Huang,
Du, & Yu, 2015; Mohit, Ibrahim, & Rashid, 2010) or based on dimen-
sions (objective vs. subjective or physical vs. social) (Amérigo &
Aragones, 1997; Etminani-Ghasrodashti, Majedi, & Paydar, 2017; Ibem
& Aduwo, 2013). Moreover, it is evident that the production of af-
fordable housing has three stages which include policy making, design,
and post-occupancy evaluation. In this process, three major groups of
professionals including policymakers, designers and researchers are
involved. For instance, policymakers emphasize on financing options,
zoning and providing access to public facilities. Therefore, it can be said
that planning policies as a determinant of the residential satisfaction
includes all of these factors. The features of the dwelling and the
neighborhood are related to architects and urban designers; thus here
design principles play a determinant role. Regarding the social dimen-
sion, the root of all the determinants of previous empirical studies, such
as participation, social cohesion, and social ties are in the interaction
with neighbors. Only few researchers have investigated the cause of
these determinants. Accordingly, this article offers a new category for
residential satisfaction which can be more useful than previous ones. In
developing countries such as Iran, where they do not have vast ex-
periences in low-income housing projects, this category can help re-
levant experts in the development process of affordable housing. In-
deed, this study expresses that these three determinants of residential
satisfaction (DRS) are the cause of previous ones.
For the first time since 2010, Iranian government has delivered af-
fordable housing units entitled “Mehr housing scheme.” Nevertheless,
this scheme faced several deficiencies such as scarce financing, lack of
infrastructure and insecurity in projects. Residential satisfaction in af-
fordable housing is one of the most severe challenges of policymakers

⁎
Corresponding author at: Islamic Azad University of Gonbad Kavoos, Gonbad Kavoos 4971915775, Golestan, Iran.
E-mail address: ali.emami.iau@gmail.com (A. Emami).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.04.013
Received 14 December 2017; Received in revised form 13 March 2018; Accepted 27 April 2018
0264-2751/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Riazi, M., Cities (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.04.013
M. Riazi, A. Emami
around the world. However, there were insufficient studies on assess-
ment of residential satisfaction in Iran. Hence, this article attempts to
fill the gap in this area. This paper contributes to residential satisfaction
literature with affordable housing by assessing whether DRS improve
residential satisfaction. The main purpose of the research is to find out
the reasons for (dis)satisfaction in Mehr housing of Gonbad Kavoos.
Another purpose is to examine how DRS affects residential satisfaction.
The findings will help understand the housing needs of low-income
families as well as their housing expectations and reflect it in planning
systems and design principles. Based on purposes of the paper, this
study will answer the following questions:
(1) What items lead to (dis)satisfaction in the Mehr housing project of
Gonbad Kavoos?
(2) To what extent does DRS influence residential satisfaction?
2. Review of related theories
It is essential to have a multidisciplinary approach to understand the
complexity of emergence and development of residential satisfaction as
criteria for quality of life via different theories. Experts in different
disciplines including social sciences, architecture/urbanism, cultural
studies, demography, health and social/environmental psychology de-
veloped some theories expanding residential satisfaction. It would not
be useful to limit and select a few theories among a dynamic network of
such disciplines and linking residential satisfaction to them.
Riemer (1943) raised the sociological theory of “home adjustment,”
and he stated that home needs vary in family type and time. After a
couple of years, he published a paper about maladjustment of the fa-
mily house based on functions (Riemer, 1945). Indeed, he linked ar-
chitecture and sociology and developed the concept of (mal) adjust-
ment in a dwelling. Post-war studies on residential mobility process
extended with the famous book of Rossi (1955) named “why families
move.” He focused on residential behaviors especially migration/re-
location decision and found that households in life cycle face lack of fit
regarding their housing needs. These problems are caused by household
size, age, prestige, etc. and lead to dissatisfaction.
Wolpert (1966) combined two forgoing theories (adjustment theory
and housing needs) and created an ecological approach to deal with
environmental stress. He believed that families to adjust themselves to
some environmental factors (noisy vs. tranquil - green vs. gray, etc.)
decide to migrate. Morris and Winter (1975) established “Housing deficit
theory” which explains family's judgment through facing some norms.
They discussed that family housing adjustment (in situ or migration) is
a solution for incongruity with such norms. This cultural/normative
theory tried to explain residential mobility by housing adjustment
model.
Along with the development of cognitive psychology, Galster (1985)
raised a “psychological construct theory” regarding residential satisfac-
tion. Based on this theory, everyone's cognitive construct acts as a re-
ference to face with living conditions and lead to congruence or in-
congruence. In this process, everyone's schemata have a vital role to
play as a criterion for comparison. He further represented a new social
indicator to assess housing preference called “marginal residential im-
provement priority.” It explains that no matter in which dimension of
residential environment dissatisfaction occurs, to improve satisfaction
level, individuals give the first priority to dwelling quality. Speare
(1974) considered residential satisfaction as an intervening variable
between individuals and mobility. Nevertheless, Amérigo and Aragones
(1997) conceptualized residential satisfaction with subjective/objective
components of the environment, and they considered personal variables
as independent characteristics affecting residential satisfaction.
3. Review of empirical studies
Many empirical studies on residential satisfaction have used
2
Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
theories which have been reviewed above, and a prevalent topic in
these studies has been finding determinants of residential satisfaction.
Also, some other studies have been dedicated to planning methods to
increase the number of affordable housing (Crook & Whitehead, 2010;
Karki, 2015) without pay particular attention to evaluate the results of
planning policies on residential satisfaction. So studies are being re-
viewed here that have presented the effect of DRS on residential sa-
tisfaction in affordable housing:
3.1. Planning policies in residential satisfaction
Planning systems play an essential role in increasing affordable
housing supply through financing. Land supply includes large portions
of affordable housing costs; also it is one of the critical challenges for
countries. Recent research has revealed that remote sites would restrict
people's access to urban facilities and workplace (Asfour, 2017) as well
as create additional commuting costs that will not be affordable for low-
income families. Evaluation of the housing affordability level in Iran
showed that suburban-area households spent a larger portion of their
income on transportation than central distract households (Isalou,
Litman, Irandoost, & Shahmoradi, 2014; Isalou, Litman, & Shahmoradi,
2014). Two alternative strategies to promote affordable housing on-site
are “Mandatory requirement for private developers” and “Inclusionary
zoning mechanism” (Gurran & Whitehead, 2011; van den Nouwelant
et al., 2015). Albeit, incentives are needed to encourage private de-
velopers to construct affordable housing. Government subsidies, fee
reduction, zoning overrides and density bonus (Garde, 2016; Karki,
2015) are examples of such incentives in the United States.
Policymakers through different programs determine the tenure of
housing schemes for low incomes. Most studies indicated that home-
owners were more satisfied with their houses than renters (Dekker, de
Vos, Musterd, & van Kempen, 2011; Galster & Hesser, 1981; Ren &
Folmer, 2017). Pawson, Hulse, and Morris (2017) explained, despite
the increase in private renters in Australia, low-income tenants were
dissatisfied with the rental housing phenomenon. In addition, home-
ownership schemes in Malaysia confirmed that participation of private
sector and addressing people's housing needs help provide livable and
satisfactory affordable housing (Tan, 2012). Overall, due to consider-
able differences in economic conditions, planning policies cannot be
expected to have the same outcome in different countries.
3.2. Design principles in residential satisfaction
Design principles, before the implementation stage, are highly re-
commended for proper affordable housing. Many empirical studies
pointed the importance of users' needs in satisfaction with a housing
unit and housing types. Ibem and Aduwo (2013) suggested that self-
help approaches including incremental housing could better match with
user's need in Nigeria. Moreover, people are more likely to be satisfied
when they participate in developing process. Although these ap-
proaches are user-friendly, they could not be affordable in all countries
because of difference in land prices.
Residential satisfaction seems to depend on the type of buildings
such that; Winston (2017) revealed there was higher satisfaction with
detached dwellings than multi-family dwellings among residents. Also,
low-income families have expressed satisfaction with the availability of
public facilities in their housing environment that should be provided
by designers (Addo, 2016; Ibem & Aduwo, 2013). Evidence from some
surveys confirms that fear of crime considerably affects residential sa-
tisfaction (Adams & Serpe, 2000; Mohit et al., 2010; Robinson, Lawton,
Taylor, & Perkins, 2003). There is an effective link between physical
design and crime. Armitage, Monchuk, and Rogerson (2011) concluded
properties that have a garage with physical security were the least
vulnerable to burglary. In addition, Rollwagen (2016) stated that re-
sidents in high-rise apartments are less likely to be fearful than re-
sidents of single-family detached houses. Also, Djebarni and Al-Abed
M. Riazi, A. Emami
(2000) asserted that satisfaction with privacy in neighborhood depends
on the cultural background of society. Furthermore, Shuey, Leventhal,
and Coley (2016) pointed out families' racial/ethnic impacts on their
preferences for housing and neighborhood condition. With regard to all
the practices, design principles should be consistent with cultural
context so that they could not be predefined.
3.3. Interaction with neighbors in residential satisfaction
Many researchers have shown the positive impact of social inter-
actions on residential satisfaction. Indeed, “Interaction with neighbors”
and “frequent visit to neighbors” will affect residential satisfaction
(Amérigo & Aragones, 1997; Parkes, Kearns, & Atkinson, 2002). Em-
phasizing the role of interaction with neighbors in deciding whether to
stay or leave the neighborhood, Andersen (2008) stated that social
problems were important factors that lead to relocation. In addition, Li
and Wu (2013) advocated that social attachment is an essential factor
in residential satisfaction among migrants and low-income groups. In
fact, social ties encourage neighbors to participate in community social
activities. Through this means, they could know, trust each other and
feel safe (Walker, 2016).
However, strengthening the relationship between residents does not
always lead to satisfaction. According to Chaskin and Joseph (2011),
increasing opportunity for more interaction can lead to tension in low-
income housing. Some researchers have identified the social mix as an
effective strategy to increase the quality of the low-income neighbor-
hood (Arthurson, 2010; Lelévrier, 2013; Pinkster & Völker, 2009). The
question is under what circumstance social mix would be helpful. In
mixed neighborhoods, there should be a balance between proximity
and privacy. Arthurson (2010) expressed that too-fine-grained social
mix can cause conflict rather than social cohesion. In the context of
high-density, Buys and Miller (2012) also suggested that maximizing
resident's privacy could maximize social engagement.
4. Research framework
In the literature, studies that have demonstrated the effect of dif-
ferent components related to DRS on residential satisfaction had been
reviewed. One of the weaknesses in existing literature was lack of
clarity in the separation of determinants. On the other hand, some
determinants have different dimensions (like facility and management)
that have not been distinguished. According to the points mentioned,
our study proposed precise category based on new determinants. Thus,
DRS as a research context may provide more opportunities for the se-
paration and operationalization of concepts related to residential sa-
tisfaction for researchers and policymakers.
Our view on residential satisfaction was based on its subjective and
objective aspects that were established in psychological construct
theory (Galster, 1985). However, little empirical studies have con-
sidered that the extraction of residential satisfaction determinants for
research instruments based on previous studies would not be valid in
any population. In fact, extraction of the subjective aspects of re-
sidential satisfaction before quantitative measurement has often been
neglected. Moreover, Amérigo and Aragones (1997) in their model
stated that personal characteristics and subjective attributes of the re-
sidential environment have a moderating role in the impact of objective
attributes of residential environment on residential satisfaction. Such a
moderating role simultaneously included demographic variables (like
ethnicity and household type). Therefore, the combination of qualita-
tive and quantitative methods was adopted as a methodology in this
research. Consequently, an exploratory mixed method is an appropriate
method in a comprehensive deal with residential satisfaction as a
complex construct.
3
Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
5. Method
The present study used exploratory mixed method (Creswell, 2013)
and as Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) mentioned in purpose
aspect, it considered as development category in mixed methods.
Firstly, the qualitative stage of the research was conducted to explore
the residential (dis)satisfaction factors, and then the instrument of the
quantitative stage was provided by using items of the qualitative stage.
The dependent variable of the research was the residential satisfaction
on which DRS has an impact. Data gathering was carried out in No-
vember 2016.
In the qualitative stage, some interviews took place with service
providers to extract information about the planning process of the
housing projects. 60 semi-structured interviews (in three different Mehr
housing complexes) were also conducted face-to-face with residents.
The perceived residential satisfaction was investigated by questioning
residents about their decision to move or stay. Then, they were asked
their reason for leaving to find the problems within the housing pro-
jects. To recognize the factors of satisfaction, they were asked about the
specific issues that will make them regretful when moving. Each in-
terview recorded in a digital form took between 10 min to 20 min.
Finally, “Framework” analysis (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002) was applied to
analyze the data.
In the quantitative stage, a questionnaire based on the items arising
from the qualitative stage was developed. The questionnaire includes
the following sections: (1) the information on household characteristics,
including their ethnicity, wife's job and number of children under 18-
year, (2) The previous house's status in terms of housing type and te-
nure, section (3) and (4) comprised questions on residents' (dis)sa-
tisfaction with items extracted from interviews. Respondents were
asked to express how (dis)satisfied they were with these items on a
scale of one to five (One representing “very low” and five “too much”).
Regarding sampling, based on the rule of thumb, the minimum
sample size can be equal to or more than ten times the largest number
of structural paths directed at a particular construct in SEM-PLS (Hair,
Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). According to this rule, because the “design
principles” had the most items (16) in interviews, then the minimum
sample size should be 160. Nevertheless, the researchers should con-
sider some criteria in determining the minimum sample size including
the size and complexity of the structural model, the missing potential
data, and the quality of the frequency distribution of the data
(Marcoulides & Saunders, 2006). For the mentioned reasons, 250
questionnaires were distributed among population members by sys-
tematic random sampling. First, all residential units from the three sites
were numbered from 1 to 1782, according to the postcode. Then, from
the first seven units, one was picked randomly, and the other samples
were picked according to a fixed distance. Out of 250 distributed
questionnaires among women, 29 were excluded due to defects in
completing, and 221 were included. From the interviews, we found that
most of the women were housewives and they spent more time in their
physical and social environment than men. Therefore, we selected
women as respondents for the quantitative stage because our study was
assessing residential satisfaction and also interaction with neighbors
was one of its determinants. Thus, data gathering was done in the
morning when they were at home. All the questionnaires were set up in
Persian, which is the official language of Iran. Considering that the
inhabitants were multi-language; research worker, who delivered the
questionnaire to the samples home, translated them for non-Persian old
or low-educated housewives. After filling all questionnaires, the ques-
tions were divided into three categories: planning policies, design
principles, and interaction with neighbors. Then, SmartPLS software
was used for the data analysis.
5.1. About Mehr housing scheme
Mehr housing was initially a 99-year lease; that means the state
M. Riazi, A. Emami
owned the land, and it was not possible for homeowners to buy and sell,
but the government implemented a new bill that gave the land to
owners during the long-term installments. The governmental organi-
zations undertook this project in 2007 to build around 2 million
housing units for low-income families in Iran. The scheme is very
government-centered, such that the government does zoning, design,
and implementation of it. The governmental budget provided the pro-
ject funds and also, first-time owners contribute a portion of the cost.
Mehr housing buildings were planned and designed in large-scale
projects at peripheral locations of most cities (“Mehr Housing Plan,”,
2017).
There are two reasons for choosing Mehr housing scheme in our
study. First, it is a significant project for low-income families that was
implemented for the first time by the Iranian government and also little
studies have assessed residential satisfaction in these projects.
Secondly, we believed that our findings would be beneficial for future
affordable housing projects in Iran. In addition, it can contribute to
existing international literature on residential satisfaction in affordable
housing in other developing countries.
5.2. Study area
Approximately 1700 residential units have been constructed in
Fig. 1. Location of Mehr housing complexes.
4
Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Gonbad Kavoos. The entire buildings span 16.5 ha across three sites (see
Fig. 1). These projects have been selected for assessment because they
were delivered in 2010 while there are some buildings in other cities
still under construction. Thus, residents of Mehr housing in Gonbad
Kavoos have longer residential length than many other cities. Most of
the buildings in this scheme were apartment type and designed typi-
cally, and due to the same budget, they had similar quality of con-
struction. So these selected sites could be proper representative.
Gonbad Kavoos is a multi-ethnic small city located in the north-east
of Iran with 144.546 population. The current population of the city are
Persians, and non-Persians (Turkmens, Sistani, and Turks) and each
ethnic group lives in separate neighborhoods. In fact, Gonbad Kavoos
consists of some ethnic-based neighborhoods. Mehr housing complexes
in this city have been constructed in three different sites. Table 1 illu-
strated the characteristics of each residential complex.
6. Results
6.1. Qualitative data
According to service providers in Gonbad Kavoos financial problem,
inappropriate scheduling and unqualified contractors led to low-quality
housing units which also made them unaffordable for low-income
M. Riazi, A. Emami Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Table 1 (continued)

Characteristics of Mehr housing complexes.
Site1: Taghi-abad
Site1: Taghi-abad

Public facilities: Play area & parking Public facilities: Public open area & parking
Land Area: 34000 m2 Land Area: 55000 m2
Number of buildings: 85 Number of buildings: 29
Number of stories: 3stories above parking Number of stories: 6 stories above parking
Number of units per floor: 2 Number of units per floor: 4 or 8
Total units: 510 Total units: 648
Site2: Kaj

families. On the other hand, the type of housing and its location were
not suitable for residents.
Interview with residents was transcribed and coded by the frame-
work analysis. 36 items extracted from coding of the interviews. Based
- on these codes and the literature review, this study considered re-
sidential satisfaction as a dependent variable with ten items and three
independent variables: (1) planning policies with five items; (2) design
principles with 16 items; (3) interaction with neighbors with five items
(see Table 2). Therefore, these items were used in our model as the
factors that affect the residential satisfaction.

6.2. Quantitative data

6.2.1. Data analysis

Data analysis was carried out using SmartPLS version 2.0 M3 that
had novelty in the area of residential satisfaction. SmartPLS is a
Public facilities: Public open area & parking structural equation modeling software package based on the Partial
Land Area: 77000 m2 Least Squares (PLS) method for the assessment of a measurement model
Number of buildings: 39
(outer Model) and a structural model (inner model) (Tenenhaus, Vinzi,
Number of stories: 4 stories above parking
Number of units per floor: 4 Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005). PLS is a prediction-oriented, variance-based
Total units: 624 approach to Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) that makes no dis-
Site3: Pir-haji
tributional assumptions about the variables and no identification issues
with small sample size (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, 2012) compared
to more traditional maximum likelihood SEM techniques such as
LISREL, EQS & AMOS.

6.2.2. Demographic data

Table 3 shows the demographics of the samples. The ethnic diversity
of population was also observed in Mehr housing complexes. It is clear
that a large number of women were housewives. Moreover, > 75% of
families have at least one child under 18 years old. This feature of fa-
milies has significant implications for usage of residence and its en-
vironment. Results showed that only 7% of residents before coming to
Mehr housing complexes lived in an apartment. Most of the residents
were tenants in single-family houses or lived in their relative's house for
free. Also, the most favored housing type was a single-family house (see
Table 3).

5
M. Riazi, A. Emami Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3

Socializing with neighbors in public open space

Feeling safe because of neighbors in apartment
Respondents' characteristics.
Characteristics Frequency Percent

Sending children to neighbors' house

Residential complex

Children playing together outside

Kaj Mehr housing 74 33.50

Number and size of bedrooms

Pir-haji Mehr housing 84 38.00
Frequent visit to neighbors Taghi-Abad Mehr housing 63 28.50
Residential satisfaction

Trustworthy neighbors

Interior plan of houses

Housewife households 208 94.00

Public open space

Children under 18 years
Homeownership

Non 47 21.30
One or two 153 69.20
Three or four 21 9.50

Ethnicity
Turkmen 85 38.46
Persian 72 32.58
S10
S1
S2
S3

S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9

Sistani 26 11.77
Turk 38 17.19

Previous house
Neighbors' cooperation in payment of monthly charges and

Relative's house rent free 73 33.04

The sound of children playing in the public open space

Tenant at single-family house 46 20.82

Tenant at one floor of two-story house 42 19.00
Noise due to walking up and down on the staircase

Tenant at part of the one-story house 44 19.90

Tenant at apartment 16 7.24

Your favored housing type

Single-family house 191 86.40
Multi-family house 13 5.90
Three-story house without elevator 2 0.90
Four-story house with elevator 15 6.80
Conflict between neighbors

Large-scale residential complex 0.0 0.00

Interaction with neighbors

Profligate tenants

Table 4
Results of measurement mode.
cleaning

Construct Item Loading t-Value AVE CR CA

Planning policie P1 0.750 16.265 0.5488 0.8580 0.8127

P2 0.632 16.452
I1
I2
I3

I4
I5

P3 0.774 9.425
P4 0.813 36.285
Separated territory of each building through walls
Number of residents in total residential complex

P5 0.720 21.146
Designprinciples D1 0.695 12.860
The possibility of car accidents for children

Facing the windows to public open space

D2 0.644 11.015
Benches in public open spaces for adults

D3 0.721 15.726
The number of units in each building
Security for children in public areas

D4 0.687 14.110
D5 0.625 12.149
Suitable play areas for children

Security in stairs and corridors

D6 0.723 18.316
D7 0.794 31.549
Performance of elevators
Safety of cars at parking
Lighting of public areas

Safety of outdoor items

D8 0.792 30.724
Safety of indoor space

D9 0.785 28.634
Private open space
Design principles

D10 0.611 12.974

D11 0.761 22.403
D12 0.725 20.486
D13 0.648 14.994
Privacy

D14 0.771 27.165

D15 0.713 19.615
D16 0.576 11.153
D10
D11
D12
D13
D14
D15
D16
D1
D2
D3

D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9

Interaction with neighbors I1 0.739 9.611 0.5562 0.8612 0.7980

I2 0.745 6.354
Items extracted from interviews related to DRS.

Affordability of monthly payment of the loan

Quality of constructions and need for repair

I3 0.612 17.398
I4 0.841 18.493
I5 0.773 10.399
Residential satisfaction S1 0.782 29.328 0.5921 0.9353 0.9235
S2 0.796 34.352
S3 0.842 43.437
Distance to urban facilities
Distance to the workplace

S4 0.783 25.073
S5 0.826 29.728
S6 0.696 16.164
Planning policies

S7 0.773 22.094
Commuting cost

S8 0.760 22.292
S9 0.703 17.430
S10 0.719 18.496

AVE: Average Variance Extracted, CR: Composite Reliability, CA: Cronbach's Alpha.
Table 2

P1
P2
P3

P4
P5

6
M. Riazi, A. Emami Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 5 Table 6
Discriminant validity. Path coefficient & hypothesis testing.
Constructs 1 2 3 4 Effect of determinants/constructs (hypothesis) Path Coefficient t-Value Supported

1. Design principles 0.708 1 Planning policies → Residential 0.214 3.553 Yes

2. Interaction with Neighbors 0.527 0.746 satisfaction
3. Planning policies 0.321 0.269 0.741 2 Design principles → Residential 0.183 2.675 Yes
4. Residential satisfaction 0.397 0.429 0.346 0.769 satisfaction
3 Interaction with neighbors → Residential 0.278 3.928 Yes
*Diagonal elements are square roots of the average variance extracted. satisfaction

6.2.3. Measurement model

Table 4 examines convergent validity. Convergent validity can be
determined if the loadings are higher than 0.5, composite relia-
bility > 0.7 and the average variance extracted is > 0.5. The loadings
of the measures on their respective constructs ranged from 0.611 to
0.842, with all being significant at the 0.1% level. All the values of AVE
are above 0.5. Likewise, Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability
were above the recommended acceptable values. A measurement (or
structural) model needs the evaluation of discriminant validity (Götz,
Liehr-Gobbers, & Krafft, 2010). Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion
used to assess the discriminant validity of constructs: the square root of
AVE of each construct should be higher than the correlations with all
other constructs. Hence, each latent variable shows more variance with
its block of indicators compared to another latent variable that illus-
trates a different block of indicators. As shown in Table 5, the corre-
lations for each construct were less than the square roots its AVE that
indicates acceptable discriminant validity.
6.2.4. Structural model
Fig. 2 and Table 6 presented results of the structural model testing.
Fig. 2 illustrated the path coefficient and their significance levels.
Consistent with (Hair et al., 2011) bootstrapping (5000 resamples) used
to assess the path coefficients' significance. The effect of planning po-
licies on residential satisfaction had a significant value of 0.214; the
effect of design principles on residential satisfaction had a significant
value of 0.183; the effect of interaction with neighbors on residential
satisfaction also had a significant value of 0.278. Thus, all hypothesis,
1, 2 & 3, have been empirically proven.
The primary criterion for structural model assessment is the coef-
ficient of determination (R2), which represents the amount of explained
variance of the endogenous latent variable. The structural model ex-
plained 26.5% of the variance of residential satisfaction. It means the
explanatory power of the model was at a weak level. On the other hand,
the Stone-Geisser criterion Q2 values were greater than zero (i.e., 0.157
for residential satisfaction), which indicate the model's predictive re-
levance.
It is evident that some other factors affected the results. The study
tested ethnicity in the model to find these effective factors. In addition,
the comparison of satisfaction level scores between ethnic minorities
did not show any significant difference in the primary analysis. The
moderator effect of the ethnicity variable (Persian vs. non-Persian) on
the inter-relationships between constructs in the model of the research
was tested using non-parametric PLS-MGA; therefore, a continuous
sampling analysis of 5000 times for each subset was performed, then
based on the sequential sampling estimates and standard deviation,
path coefficients were compared in two sub-samples, the results of
which are presented in Table 7.
As shown in Table 7, there was a remarkable difference in re-
sidential satisfaction between non-Persian and Persian ethnicity
(P < 0.05). In other words, the ethnicity was moderated in the inter-
action with neighbors' as regards residential satisfaction. In other parts,
there was no significant difference between ethnicity coefficients
(P > 0.05).
7. Discussion
In our structural model, planning policies, design principles and
interaction with neighbors as the determinant of residential satisfaction
was confirmed. Interestingly, the role of interaction with neighbors was
dominant over the other determinants. This shows that interaction with
neighbors among low-income families was a stronger predictor of re-
sidential satisfaction than planning policies and design principles. In
addition, based on the interview with residents, it is evident that re-
sidential satisfaction was a combination of many factors and influential
ones were trustworthy neighbors and their social relations. Indeed,
findings support the previous studies (Chaskin & Joseph, 2011; Parkes
et al., 2002) that confirmed the positive impact of social interaction
with neighbors on residential satisfaction, especially among low-in-
come groups (Li & Wu, 2013). The finding of this study suggests that
financing policies and quantitative affordable housing production will
not be sufficient to enhance residential satisfaction in affordable
housing. The research calls for policymakers to better design and proper
interaction among neighbors as well. Therefore, the study presents the
mechanisms by which each DRS items work.
The qualitative data revealed that annoyance along with profligate
tenants and lack of neighbors' cooperation in payment of monthly

Table 7
MGA test: path coefficients & PLS-MGA values for Persians & non Persians.
Paths Non-Persian Persian p-value

Planning policies→ Residential 0.168 0.368 0.929

satisfaction
Design principles→ Residential 0.176 0.2383 0.699
satisfaction
Interaction with Residential 0.374 0.078 0.0219
neighbors→ satisfaction
Fig. 2. The result of SmartPLS software.

7
M. Riazi, A. Emami Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

charges or cleaning were the main causes of conflict. In fact, these items before coming to Mehr housing complexes lived in apartments. Most of
reflect the interaction with neighbor's components. According to lit- the residents were living in single-family houses. Therefore, it is rea-
erature, the too fine-grained social mix can lead to conflict (Arthurson, sonable to assume that adaption to apartment lifestyle was difficult for
2010). Also, in the study of Addo (2016), proper management strategies them. It is suggested that architects should increase the level of safety in
were suggested to eliminate the conflict over inadequate shared facil- projects by well-designed semi-public spaces, and also improve public
ities in Ghana. In addition to this solution, our study presents some facilities such as children play areas. Finally, it is critical to select
other recommendations to improve interaction with neighbors: (1) in- proper housing type regarding household's needs.
volvement of urban sociologists before allocating units to determine the Overall, these findings contribute to affordable housing develop-
scale of social mix in multi-ethnic projects; (2) applying design prin- ment process on taking DRS into consideration. On the other hand,
ciples to create better privacy and reduce annoyance; (3) avoiding according to our model and the finding of van Eijk (2012), “good”
crowded building blocks for low-income families, because it makes neighbor relationships could protect in “bad” neighborhoods. There-
management difficult for inhabitants; (4) keep homeowners in projects fore, it is recommended that policymakers should increase the level of
by paying attention to the their concerns regarding the housing needs. residential satisfaction in affordable housing by improving the inter-
The result of non-parametric PLS-MGA test illustrated the mod- action with neighbors. Furthermore, the social context is a significant
erator effect of ethnicity (Persian vs. non-Persian) between interaction issue for both stages of design and assignment of units to residents.
with neighbors and residential satisfaction. It means interaction with Given that other countries may differ from Iran regarding the physical
neighbors among non-Persian was more determinant in predicting re- and social environment, future studies should test our model in dif-
sidential satisfaction than Persian. Therefore, affordable housing pro- ferent cities to provide more practical experiences and expand this
viders should assign a high priority to ethnic minority groups' social study.
needs if they have made the decision to enhance residential satisfaction
through interaction with neighbors. For instance, determine proper
8. Conclusion
proximity for ethnic groups with low-willing to interact. Also, provide
common public space which can be seen as an opportunity to increase
The purpose of the study was to assess the residential satisfaction in
social interaction. Again the study suggests the involvement of urban
affordable housing. The study considered DRS to deal with this topic,
sociologists, because the incorrect mix of minorities (Arthurson, 2010)
and by the use of the exploratory mixed method, a proper instrument
may lead to dissatisfaction with neighbors.
for the quantitative stage and structural model was provided. This
Poor quality of constructions and need for repair along with un-
model confirmed the effect of planning policies, design principles and
affordable monthly payment of the loan were the most important items
interaction with neighbors as DRS on residential satisfaction.
that made planning policies' construct. It cannot be denied that fi-
Interaction with neighbors was more significant than the other de-
nancial problems and low budget can lead to low-quality housing units.
terminants, and also, the result revealed that ethnicity was the mod-
Mehr housing scheme was expected to be affordable housing for low-
erator variable in relationships between neighbors regarding residential
income families, but it was not because low-quality materials resulted
satisfaction. More studies are required to find out other moderators of
in unaffordable repair costs for them. It is notable that the low quality
the relationship between determinants and residential satisfaction.
of construction, similarly in the internal studies (Etminani-Ghasrodashti
Also, our study can add some theoretical contributions in existing
et al., 2017) and studies from other developing countries such as India
literature of residential satisfaction by looking into the cases. In re-
and South Africa, (Mukhija, 2004; Muyeba & Seekings, 2012) were
defining needs process (Galster, 1985), the mental reference of re-
known as a major cause of residents' dissatisfaction. The evidence of
sidents is based on their cognitive constructs. In this research, low-in-
developing countries such as India and Malaysia has shown that low-
come households did not have the purchasing power to relocate.
income housing when built by government alone, were not satisfactory.
However, in the short-term, homeownership was vital for them, in the
In most cases, due to scarce financing and locating in peripheral state
medium-term, their aspirations in the process of need fulfillment were
lands, they become slums (Mukhija, 2004; Tan, 2012). Based on this,
not limited to be just homeowner. In addition, residents change their
government participation in housing section was limited. Nowadays,
aspirations to adapt with the situation (Galster, 1985; Wolpert, 1966)
the private sector plays a central role in the construction of low-income
and they redefine their needs by comparing themselves with the other
housing. It seems this potential has been less used in Iran. Thus the
social groups and norms (Morris & Winter, 1975). Contrary to (Galster,
study suggests that government should support the private sector with
1985), the priority of residents in our study to face dissatisfaction was
incentives such as subsidy and density bonus. As can be observed in
not only their dwellings. In fact, they attempted to improve the inter-
results, residents were most satisfied with homeownership. Thus, pol-
action with neighbors, especially with those they had similar ethnicity
icymakers should pay attention to the families' dream of owning a
with. These interactions were environmental opportunities which pro-
house as much as possible. The other notable factors in planning policy
vided a new reference. Future studies can find more environmental
were the distance to work and lack of urban facilities that made un-
opportunities among the other groups, which are alternatives to re-
affordable commuting cost for residents. Therefore, this study re-
define their needs.
commended that if state land is used to provide affordable housing, it
The study has limitations in data gathering and sampling. The first
should be inside the municipal boundaries that have the urban infra-
limitation was lack of enough administrative data for Mehr housing
structure. Proximity to affordable public transportation and necessary
projects in Iran. Although we were analyzing planning policies, we had
urban facilities should be considered as an essential factor in land
limited access to planning documents of these projects. Another lim-
zoning. Also, inclusionary zoning can be a useful policy to deal with this
itation was related to sampling. Respondents in quantitative phase were
issue.
housewives. This article requires complementary research to examine
The substantial items in the determinant of design principles were
DRS and model in both men and women.
safety and public facilities in site design. It is quite likely that crowded
buildings and lack of semi-public area decrease outdoor safety in large-
scale projects. Similarly, in the study of Tan (2012) in Malaysia, per- Appendix A. Supplementary data
sonal security was the most crucial issue. Thus, the study provides more
empirical evidence to the ideas associated with the adverse effect of Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
fear of crime in residential satisfaction (Adams & Serpe, 2000; Mohit online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.07.006.
et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2003). In addition to the result of the These data include the Google map of the most important areas de-
model, respondents' demographic data showed that only 7% of families scribed in this article.

8
M. Riazi, A. Emami
References
Adams, R. E., & Serpe, R. T. (2000). Social integration, fear of crime, and life satisfaction.
Sociological Perspectives, 43(4), 605–629.
Addo, I. A. (2016). Assessing residential satisfaction among low income households in
multi-habited dwellings in selected low income communities in Accra. Urban Studies,
53(4), 631–650.
Amérigo, M., & Aragones, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the
study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 47–57.
Andersen, H. S. (2008). Why do residents want to leave deprived neighbourhoods? The
importance of residents' subjective evaluations of their neighbourhood and its re-
putation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23(2), 79–101. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10901-008-9109-x.
Armitage, R., Monchuk, L., & Rogerson, M. (2011). It looks good, but what is it like to live
there? Exploring the impact of innovative housing design on crime. European Journal
on Criminal Policy and Research, 17(1), 29–54.
Arthurson, K. (2010). Operationalising social mix: Spatial scale, lifestyle and stigma as
mediating points in resident interaction. Urban Policy and Research, 28(1), 49–63.
Asfour, O. S. (2017). The role of land planning policies in supporting housing afford-
ability: The case of the Gaza Strip. Land Use Policy, 62, 40–48.
Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2012). Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density
Brisbane, Australia: Role of dwelling design, neighbourhood and neighbours. Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(3), 319–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/09640568.2011.597592.
Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. L. (2011). Social interaction in mixed-income developments:
Relational expectations and emerging reality. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(2),
209–237.
Checa, J.-C., & Arjona, Á. (2010). Residential satisfaction in a context of urban exclusion.
Psyecology, 1(2), 221–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/217119710791175632.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods ap-
proaches. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
Crook, T., & Whitehead, C. (2010). Intermediate housing and the planning system. Making
housing more affordable: The role of intermediate tenures. vol. 101–119.
Dekker, K., de Vos, S., Musterd, S., & van Kempen, R. (2011). Residential satisfaction in
housing estates in European cities: A multi-level research approach. Housing Studies,
26(4), 479–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2011.559751.
Djebarni, R., & Al-Abed, A. (2000). Satisfaction level with neighbourhoods in low-income
public housing in Yemen. Property Management, 18(4), 230–242.
Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R., Majedi, H., & Paydar, M. (2017). Assessment of residential
satisfaction in Mehr housing scheme: A case study of Sadra New Town, Iran. Housing,
Theory and Society, 34(3), 323–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2017.
1298536.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research,
382–388.
Galster, G. C. (1985). Evaluating indicators for housing policy: Residential satisfaction vs
marginal improvement priorities. Social Indicators Research, 16(4), 415–448.
Galster, G. C., & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and con-
textual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735–758.
Garde, A. (2016). Affordable by design? Inclusionary housing insights from Southern
California. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36(1), 16–31.
Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models
using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. Handbook of partial least squares (pp.
691–711). Springer.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
11(3), 255–274.
Gurran, N., & Whitehead, C. (2011). Planning and affordable housing in Australia and the
UK: A comparative perspective. Housing Studies, 26(7–8), 1193–1214. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/02673037.2011.618982.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
Huang, Z., Du, X., & Yu, X. (2015). Home ownership and residential satisfaction: Evidence
from Hangzhou, China. Habitat International, 49, 74–83.
Ibem, E. O., & Aduwo, E. B. (2013). Assessment of residential satisfaction in public
housing in Ogun State, Nigeria. Habitat International, 40, 163–175. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.04.001.
Isalou, A. A., Litman, T., Irandoost, K., & Shahmoradi, B. (2014). Evaluation of the af-
fordability level of state-sector housing built in Iran: Case study of the Maskan-e-
Mehr project in Zanjan City. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 5014024.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000235.
Isalou, A. A., Litman, T., & Shahmoradi, B. (2014). Testing the housing and transportation
Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
affordability index in a developing world context: A sustainability comparison of
central and suburban districts in Qom, Iran. Transport Policy, 33, 33–39. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.006.
Karki, T. K. (2015). Mandatory versus incentive-based state zoning reform policiesfor
affordable housing in the United States: A comparative assessment. Housing Policy
Debate, 25(2), 234–262.
Lelévrier, C. (2013). Social mix neighbourhood policies and social interaction: The ex-
perience of newcomers in three new renewal developments in France. Cities, 35,
409–416.
Li, Z., & Wu, F. (2013). Residential satisfaction in China's informal settlements: A case
study of Beijing, shanghai, and Guangzhou. Urban Geography, 34(7), 923–949. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.778694.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Saunders, C. (2006). Editor's comments: PLS: A silver bullet? MIS
Quarterly, iii–ix.
Mehr Housing Plan (2017). Retrieved from http://old.bonyadmaskan.ir/En/SitePages/
MaskanMehr.aspx.
Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M., & Rashid, Y. R. (2010). Assessment of residential satisfaction in
newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat
International, 34(1), 18–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.04.002.
Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 79–88.
Mukhija, V. (2004). The contradictions in enabling private developers of affordable
housing: A cautionary case from Ahmedabad, India. Urban Studies, 41(11),
2231–2244.
Muyeba, S., & Seekings, J. (2012). Homeownership, privacy and neighbourly relations in
poor urban neighbourhoods in Cape Town, South Africa. South African Review of
Sociology, 43(3), 41–63.
Parkes, A., Kearns, A., & Atkinson, R. (2002). What makes people dissatisfied with their
neighbourhoods? Urban Studies, 39(13), 2413–2438.
Pawson, H., Hulse, K., & Morris, A. (2017). Interpreting the rise of long-term private
renting in a liberal welfare regime context. Housing Studies, 1–23.
Pinkster, F. M., & Völker, B. (2009). Local social networks and social resources in two
Dutch neighbourhoods. Housing Studies, 24(2), 225–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02673030802704329.
Ren, H., & Folmer, H. (2017). Determinants of residential satisfaction in urban China: A
multi-group structural equation analysis. Urban Studies, 54(6), 1407–1425.
Riemer, S. (1943). Sociological theory of home adjustment. American Sociological Review,
272–278.
Riemer, S. (1945). Maladjustment to the family home. American Sociological Review,
10(5), 642–648.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The
Qualitative Researcher's Companion, 573(2002), 305–329.
Robinson, J. B., Lawton, B. A., Taylor, R. B., & Perkins, D. D. (2003). Multilevel long-
itudinal impacts of incivilities: Fear of crime, expected safety, and block satisfaction.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), 237–274.
Rollwagen, H. (2016). The relationship between dwelling type and fear of crime.
Environment and Behavior, 48(2), 365–387.
Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move: A study in the social psychology of urban residential
mobility. Free Press.
Salleh, A. G. (2008). Neighbourhood factors in private low-cost housing in Malaysia.
Habitat International, 32(4), 485–493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.
01.002.
Shuey, E. A., Leventhal, T., & Coley, R. L. (2016). Housing characteristics over time:
Identifying patterns for low-income families. Journal of Poverty, 20(1), 102–125.
Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mo-
bility. Demography, 11(2), 173–188.
Tan, T.-H. (2012). Meeting first-time buyers' housing needs and preferences in greater
Kuala Lumpur. Cities, 29(6), 389–396.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling.
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.csda.2004.03.005.
van den Nouwelant, R., Davison, G., Gurran, N., Pinnegar, S., & Randolph, B. (2015).
Delivering affordable housing through the planning system in urban renewal con-
texts: Converging government roles in Queensland, South Australia and New South
Wales. Australian Planner, 52(2), 77–89.
van Eijk, G. (2012). Good neighbours in bad neighbourhoods: Narratives of dissociation
and practices of neighbouring in a “problem” place. Urban Studies, 49(14),
3009–3026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098012439110.
Walker, L. A. (2016). Public housing residents' neighbors and neighborhood: Good,
neutral, or troublesome/unstable. Journal of Social Service Research, 42(3), 332–351.
Winston, N. (2017). Multifamily housing and resident life satisfaction in Europe: An ex-
ploratory analysis. Housing Studies, 32(7), 887–911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02673037.2017.1280776.
Wolpert, J. (1966). Migration as an adjustment to environmental stress. Journal of Social
Issues, 22(4), 92–102.