See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331776010

Residential satisfaction in formal and informal neighborhoods: The case of

Istanbul, Turkey

Article in International Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-IJAR · March 2019

DOI: 10.1108/ARCH-12-2018-0030

CITATIONS READS

38 2,164

5 authors, including:

Handan Türkoğlu Fatih Terzi

Istanbul Technical University Istanbul Technical University
56 PUBLICATIONS 438 CITATIONS 103 PUBLICATIONS 641 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tayfun Salihoğlu Fulin Bölen

Gebze Technical University Istanbul Technical University
31 PUBLICATIONS 104 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Handan Türkoğlu on 29 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research
Residential satisfaction in formal and informal neighborhoods: the case of
Istanbul, Turkey
Handan Türkoğlu, Fatih Terzi, Tayfun Salihoğlu, Fulin Bölen, Gökçer Okumuş,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Handan Türkoğlu, Fatih Terzi, Tayfun Salihoğlu, Fulin Bölen, Gökçer Okumuş, (2019) "Residential
satisfaction in formal and informal neighborhoods: the case of Istanbul, Turkey", Archnet-IJAR:
International Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 13 Issue: 1, pp.112-132, https://doi.org/10.1108/
ARCH-12-2018-0030
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-12-2018-0030
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 18 March 2019, At: 09:43 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 83 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


ARCH
13,1
112
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)
Archnet-IJAR: International
Journal of Architectural Research
Vol. 13 No. 1, 2019
pp. 112-132
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2631-6862
DOI 10.1108/ARCH-12-2018-0030
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2631-6862.htm
Residential satisfaction in formal
and informal neighborhoods:
the case of Istanbul, Turkey
Handan Türkoğlu and Fatih Terzi
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, İstanbul Technical University,
Istanbul, Turkey
Tayfun Salihoğlu
Gebze Technical University, Gebze, Turkey
Fulin Bölen
İstanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, and
Gökçer Okumuş
İstanbul Commerce University, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – Residential satisfaction can be viewed as a part of life satisfaction. There are many studies related
to the relationship between residents’ satisfaction with their environments and the quality of those
environments. The purpose of this paper is to examine how this satisfaction differs according to the type of
residential environment.
Design/methodology/approach – It is based on empirical data on the quality of life in the different
residential environments of the Istanbul Metropolitan Area. The primary source of information was a
household survey.
Findings – In an attempt to find solutions to problems with the quality of residential environments, the
data were analyzed through several variables related to the subjective perceptions of residential
satisfaction. According to the results of the research, residents living in planned neighborhoods in the
city are more satisfied than those living in unplanned neighborhoods. The residents who live in the planned
sections of the city are satisfied with the attractiveness and accessibility of their neighborhoods,
while those who live in unplanned sections of the city are satisfied with their level of attachment to
their neighborhoods.
Practical implications – The study was designed to produce baseline data so that future changes in
residential conditions as perceived by the residents of Istanbul could be monitored to support decisions for
residential areas.
Originality/value – Comparative case studies, especially on planned vs unplanned environments, are
relatively limited in number. Therefore, there is a need for new researches examining differences between
different residential settings within cities. This study adds value to the field of comparative studies on
residential environments.
Keywords Istanbul, Informal housing, Residential quality, Residential satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Housing studies use residential satisfaction as an important indicator. Like “life
satisfaction,” it is a broad concept that encompasses social issues, design problems and
environmental policies, as well as the psychological and socio-demographic characteristics
of residents. Researchers from different disciplines approach the concept from different
perspectives, creating a pool of empirical and theoretical studies which, in our expectation,
will help develop an integrated picture of the attributes of residential satisfaction.
The research reported in this paper was supported by BIMTAS as a part of Istanbul Strategic Plan and
Istanbul Technical University Research Fund.
 Because of the inadequacy of the explanations of differing socio-spatial problems Residential
among neighborhoods having nearly the same housing pattern, policy makers, local satisfaction
governments, planners and developers need to understand the factors that lead to
residents’ satisfaction with their housing and the residential environment (Adriaanse,
2007). This is essential for the creation of successful and efficient urban environments that
will answer the needs and expectations of different groups of residents. Residents’
personal characteristics, needs and goals, and past experiences may affect how they 113
perceive the existing environment, and this perception will affect their satisfaction
(Lee and Park, 2012). Therefore, researchers have gravitated toward the idea of measuring
the quality of residential environments and residential satisfaction. Housing satisfaction
can be considered not only a factor in the quality of residential environment and urban
life, but also an important part of general life satisfaction.
There are many examples in the literature that consider residential satisfaction a result
of different predictors in various residential settings in an urban environment. Most of the
case studies are related to planned residential environments; a few discuss unplanned
urban settings.
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

This paper examines the predictors of residential satisfaction in different urban settings
in Istanbul through a comparative approach. Within this framework, planned, formal
residential neighborhoods, unplanned, informal, and illegal neighborhoods, mass housing
settlements, including both single and multifamily households, low-rise gated communities,
and high-rise, high-density, multifamily housing are considered representative of different
urban settings in Istanbul.

2. Literature review
Apart from its role as a predictor of stay or move behavior in mobility studies (Sirgy and
Cornwell, 2002), residential satisfaction is usually operationally defined as the gap between
the existing and expected condition of dwellings, houses or neighborhoods (Galster and
Hesser, 1981; Galster, 1987; Amerigo and Aragones, 1990; Varady and Carrozza, 2000;
Cao and Wang, 2016; Bonaiuto and Fornara, 2017). Residents’ evaluation of their housing
depends on the comparison between their housing needs, preferences and expectations,
which are influenced by previous experience, adaptation level and cultural values (Potter
and Cantarero, 2006; Adriaanse, 2007), and their actual situation (Campbell et al., 1976; Ibem
and Aduwo, 2013). If people’s perception of their neighborhood environment does not match
their expectations, dissatisfaction begins to accumulate (Kahana et al., 2003).
In the majority of previous research, residential satisfaction was considered a dependent
variable or an indicator of environmental quality. Studies on residential satisfaction were
carried out using either national samples (Marans and Rodgers, 1975; Campbell et al., 1976;
Davis and Fine Davis, 1981, 1991; Adriaanse, 2007) or city samples (Galster and Hesser,
1981; Turkoglu, 1997).
In general, residential satisfaction has been explored through the three main components
of the residential environment: the house, neighborhood and relationships with neighbors
(Ricardo et al., 1997; Van Poll, 1997; Amerigo and Aragones, 1990; Carp and Carp, 1982;
Canter and Rees, 1982).
Today we know that, as with more extensively explored spatial dynamics, residential
satisfaction in neighborhoods must be interpreted as a multifaceted construct (Potter and
Cantarero, 2006; Lovejoy et al., 2010; Hur et al., 2010; Mohit and Al- KhanbashiRaja, 2014).
In this construct, neighborhood attributes, socio-demographic characteristics and
neighborhood type appear as the main axes of residential satisfaction ( Jaafar et al., 2006;
Salleh et al., 2012; Mohit et al., 2010; Cao and Wang, 2016). Depending on the research frames,
these axes can be measured subjectively and/or objectively in different studies (Dassopoulos
and Monnat, 2011; Ibem and Aduwo, 2013; Mohit and Al- KhanbashiRaja, 2014).
 ARCH Subjective indicators are the measurements of the perception of different attributes in
13,1 neighborhoods. The perceived characteristics of a neighborhood are usually measured by
Likert-style “agreement with statement” questions (Dassopoulos and Monnat, 2011; Lu,
1999; Lovejoy et al., 2010; Cao and Wang, 2016; Adriaanse, 2007). Objective indicators such
as neighborhood density, access to social amenities, greenness, proximity to nature and
green areas, walkability, availability of social services, land use mix, intersection density,
114 building period, architectural styles and geographic location are usually measured with GIS
tools or externally gathered from neighborhood-level ready-to-use data of formal
institutions (Cao, 2015; Hur et al., 2010; Adriaanse, 2007; Lovejoy et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2017).
Although there are exceptions in the literature (Hur et al., 2010), researchers have
conceded that people’s perception of neighborhood attributes are better predictors of their
satisfaction than the objective indicators and social characteristics of residents (Campbell
et al., 1976; Permentier et al., 2011; Dassopoulos and Monnat, 2011; Cao and Wang, 2016;
Adriaanse, 2007; Lee et al., 2017), because this perception is a mediating variable between
objective attributes and satisfaction.
Even though residential satisfaction is a multifaceted phenomenon with both
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

subjective and objective aspects, according to Lovejoy et al. (2010), common variables in
studies on residential satisfaction include safety, upkeep, social ties, quietness, housing
quality, greenery, age and income level.

2.1 Neighborhood qualities

Like residential satisfaction, neighborhood qualities or attributes are also multidimensional
constructs which vary according to the content and components of different studies
(Bonaiuto and Fornara, 2017). However, it is possible to define certain common components
(Lovejoy et al., 2010). While accessibility to non-residential land uses, social relations and
attachment, attractiveness and aesthetics, physical and natural amenities, and local services
increase residential satisfaction, stressors like traffic, pollution, crowding and a lack of
safety have the opposite effect (Lovejoy et al., 2010; Bonaiuto and Fornara, 2017).
2.1.1 Attachment. Bonaiuto and Fornara (2017) described place attachment as “forms
and degrees of affect (e.g. feelings, moods and emotions) that people develop over time and
come to experience with reference to that place in which they are born, live, and act,”
considering it the “primarily affective component of the person–residence relation.”
Besides socio-demographical factors such as age, life cycle, length of residence and
tenant type, place attachment is mostly related to the quality of social relations and bonds
(family, friends and social networks) in the community (Addo, 2016; Galster and Hesser,
1981; Mohan and Twigg, 2007; Dassopoulos and Monnat, 2011; Cao and Wang, 2016).
Fostered by social interactions and solidarity between residents who share common goals,
attachment to a place increases people’s care for their houses and immediate surroundings
(Dassopoulos and Monnat, 2011). It also affects community participation, maintenance and
demands on local authorities for social and technical infrastructure.
People feel satisfied with their neighborhood if it is considered friendly, trusting and
supportive (Potter and Cantarero, 2006; Adriaanse, 2007). Residents’ evaluation of their
satisfaction is influenced by their attachment to their neighborhood (for the most part,
positively) (Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974; Dassopoulos and Monnat, 2011; Dassopoulos
et al., 2012).
According to Amerigo and Aragones (1990), attachment to the community
environment and social relations with neighbors are better predictors than other
neighborhood quality attributes.
Dassopoulos and Monnat (2011) argued that community participation and neighborhood
satisfaction vary depending on the level of social cohesion, support and control, finding that
 a strong sense of social cohesion has a positive correlation with community participation Residential
and satisfaction. The research works of Kahana et al. (2003) and Hur and Morrow-Jones satisfaction
(2008) support this conclusion, finding that participation in neighborhood activities
contributes to residential satisfaction.
Amerigo and Aragones (1997) put forward the importance of neighborly relations in
residential satisfaction. Other studies also indicate the importance of attachment (Theodori,
2001; Tabernero et al., 2016). 115
Paul et al. (2017), researching avenues other than the socio-demographic, explored the
influence of open spaces on residential attachment. They found that residents’ dependence
on and identity with a market square had positive significant impacts on their attachment to
the community.
Tabernero et al. (2016) studied how attachment affects residential satisfaction in a city
environment. Their findings demonstrate that neighborly relations, quality of housing and
intent to move act as the main predictors of their satisfaction.
According to the study of Lovejoy et al. (2010), attachment is higher in traditional
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

neighborhoods close to city centers than in new developments in the periphery.

2.1.2 Attractiveness. The physical aspects of the built environment also affect the
livability of a neighborhood (Gibson et al., 2011). Positive physical conditions create an
attractive neighborhood image that positively influences residential satisfaction. Residents
also tend to evaluate the attractiveness of a place not just by the specific aspects of a
neighborhood such as buildings, dwellings, streets and landscapes, but also in a more
abstract way (Ernawati and Moore, 2014); those who positively evaluate their neighborhood
in general (e.g. attractiveness, appropriateness for living, multiple amenities, etc.) also tend
to be satisfied with the neighborhood. The results of Permentier et al. (2011) show that the
perception of a neighborhood’s reputation is an alternative measure for attractiveness.
Gruber and Shelton (1987) found that the attractiveness of a neighborhood, measured by the
amount of open space, quietness, suitability for raising children, proximity to neighbors,
greenery and friendliness of fellow residents, is the primary component of respondents’
feelings about their neighborhood.
In the study of Cao and Wang (2016) in the twin cities (Minneapolis and St Paul),
attractiveness factors such as pedestrian safety, low crime rates, appearance, upkeep, and
interactions among residents are closely associated with residential satisfaction. The results
of Lee et al. (2017) support this association: perceptions of pedestrian safety, crime rates,
aesthetics are strongly correlated with neighborhood satisfaction in their Seattle and
Baltimore study on neighborhoods stratified by income and walkability levels.
In his Housing Demand Survey, Adriaanse (2007) employed factor analysis to determine
the components of residential satisfaction. “Internal neighborhood reputation,” which
concerned attributes such as the perceived general image and attractiveness of a
neighborhood, was one of three factors in his solution (the other factors were social climate
and dwelling satisfaction).
2.1.3 Accessibility. Accessibility, which involves the possibility of easy access from home
to relevant locations such as work, shopping and social spaces available to residents is
another important component in successful neighborhoods (Handy and Clifton, 2001; Haugen,
2011). Accessibility is inversely related to geographical distance (Haugen, 2011). Accordingly,
neighborhood satisfaction usually decreases when the distances to educational, employment
and medical centers increase (Awotona, 1991; Mohit and Al- KhanbashiRaja, 2014).
Addo (2016) found that proximity to CBD, market, workplaces, bus station, recreational
facilities and basic infrastructure was one of the main components of residential satisfaction
in Accra, together with dwelling characteristics and social networks. Dokoushkani et al.
(2014) examined the relationship between accessibility to welfare facilities such as
 ARCH recreational, educational and public services and residential satisfaction in Bandar Abbas.
13,1 They found that, together with household amenities, recreational and educational facilities
are significant predictors of residential satisfaction.
Berköz and Kellekçi (2007) studied mass housing environments in Istanbul’s
Bahcesehir neighborhood. They found that accessibility to various functions and the
city center, environmental features and security, neighbor relationships and the
116 appearance of the housing environment are factors affecting residential satisfaction
(Berköz et al., 2009). Jiboye’s (2009) Lagos case study supports the relationship between
dissatisfaction and a lack of access to public facilities and services. Studies like Clement
and Kayode (2012) demonstrate that people prioritize their accessibility needs in
accordance with various expectations and cultural issues. In this study, satisfaction with
accessibility to worship spaces was more important than that with accessibility to
recreation and healthcare in Ondo State.
2.1.4 Local facilities and municipal services. In general, a well-designed land-use mix,
specifically the availability and quality of neighborhood-level facilities, increases residential
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

satisfaction. Local services such as schools, police stations, markets, hospitals, libraries,
religious buildings, and public transport stops provide for the social needs of residents in
the neighborhood and increase their satisfaction with the residential area (Mohit et al., 2010;
Addo, 2016; Gruber and Shelton, 1987; Ha, 2008; Yuliastuti et al., 2018).
Mridha and Moore (2011), examining quality of life in Dhaka, Bangladesh, found that the
physical character of the neighborhood (cleanliness, traffic safety, parking facilities, noise
level, street conditions, crime, garbage disposal, the condition of open spaces, the
appearance of buildings and building maintenance) and recreational facilities (parks,
playing fields and libraries) are, alongside neighbor relationships, the major factors in
residential satisfaction.
It is also important for community members to live in a well-maintained environment.
Upkeep, cleanliness and the quality of municipal services create a positive perception of the
neighborhood (Basolo and Strong, 2002). Green spaces such as parks and playgrounds and
satisfaction with schools are primary concerns, especially for the families with children.
(Addo, 2016; Rioux and Werner, 2011; Parkes et al., 2002; Cao and Wang, 2016). On the other
hand, it is difficult even to discuss higher satisfaction in neighborhoods lacking basic
infrastructure (Sagert and Evans, 2003). Poorly maintained natural amenities may evoke a
fear of crime and could thus decrease residential satisfaction (Nassar and Jones, 1997).
According to Ha (2008), South Korean residents were most satisfied with the availability
of healthcare, shopping centers, banking facilities and post offices. However, they felt
dissatisfied with parking and landscaping.
2.1.5 Environmental stressors. Safety and environmental stressors are important factors
in measuring residential satisfaction. In most cases, negatively perceived conditions such as
a lack of safety and the presence of crime, accidents, noise and crowding usually decrease
the satisfaction of residents. People’s evaluation of their neighborhoods is negatively
affected when they feel unsafe and crowded (Basolo and Strong, 2002; Mohit et al., 2010;
Mohan and Twigg, 2007). Mohit and Al- KhanbashiRaja (2014) demonstrated that the issue
of safety from physical accidents might also be important in households’ evaluations.
Lu (1999) found a direct negative relationship between neighborhood satisfaction and
noise, crime, traffic, and litter. In their case studies of the US city of Crete, Nebraska, Potter
and Cantarero (2006) found that stressors including crime, lack of transportation, isolation,
discrimination and tension with neighbors have a significant influence on a community’s
residential satisfaction.
Much research has focused on how perceptions of safety in neighborhoods are related to
residential satisfaction (Amerigo and Aragones, 1997; Greenberg, 1999; Lovejoy et al., 2010).
 Greenberg (1999) found that neighborhood quality was linked to crime, vandalism, physical Residential
decay and the lack of a sense of environment in a case study in New Jersey, USA. Lovejoy satisfaction
et al. (2010) defined seven composite measures of neighborhood characteristics and found
that safety factors (including pedestrian safety, low crime rates, the ability for children to
play outdoors and quiet) are the most important predictors (together with attractiveness) of
satisfaction in both urban and suburban neighborhoods.
Parkes et al. (2002) examined factors in people’s dissatisfaction with their neighborhoods. 117
They found that friendliness, schools and safety are important factors in defining residential
satisfaction. Similarly, Bender et al. (1997) indicate in their case study of Geneva,
Switzerland that quiet and distance to green areas are two important factors in determining
residential satisfaction.
Bonaiuto et al. (1999, 2006, 2003) examined the relationship between residential
satisfaction and environmental quality, investigating how the attributes of a residential
environment influence satisfaction. They found that noise, green spaces, service facilities,
proximity to neighbors and friends, and environmental problems such as rubbish affect
residential satisfaction.
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

2.2 Socio-demographic characteristics

Our perception of the environment is influenced by individual characteristics, experiences,
attitudes and personality (Potter and Cantarero, 2006). Among household perception and
satisfaction studies, it is usual to investigate the effects of the characteristics of people and
households on these dependent variables. Gender, income, household size, life cycle stage,
past living conditions, age, education, social interaction, length of residency and
owner occupancy have been identified as the predictors of residential satisfaction in
neighborhood-level studies (Dassopoulos et al., 2012; Adriaanse, 2007; Lovejoy et al., 2010;
Mohit and Al- KhanbashiRaja, 2014).
The studies of Lu (2002), Parkes et al. (2002), Lovejoy et al. (2010), Permentier et al. (2011),
Salleh et al. (2012) and Lee et al. (2017) have demonstrated that due to higher expectations
and different preferences, younger people are less satisfied with their neighborhoods than
their elders.
Income is also another factor in residential satisfaction. Because of the wide range of
alternatives choices in housing, higher income groups are more satisfied with their
housing than lower ones (Parkes et al., 2002; Mohan and Twigg, 2007; Vera-Toscano and
Ateca-Amestoy, 2008; Dassopoulos and Monnat, 2011).
Other links between socio-demographic characteristics and residential satisfaction have
been explored: gender (Galster and Hesser, 1981; Ibem and Amole, 2012), length of residency
(Mohit et al., 2010), the presence of children (Lu, 1999; Permentier et al., 2011), and household
size (Lovejoy et al., 2010) all have an impact on residential satisfaction. Moreover, housing
satisfaction is higher among owner-occupiers than renters (Elsinga and Hockstra, 2005); it is
also greater for those with more education (Lu, 1999; Lovejoy et al., 2010).
It is important to note that most results concerning the relationship between
socio-demographic characteristics and residential satisfaction are heavily case-based and
falsifiable by studies of different countries and social groups (Lovejoy et al., 2010).

2.3 Neighborhood type

Lovejoy et al. (2010) stated that “more satisfying residential locations are also more likely to
be chosen.” Although it is not a broadly accepted predictor, residential satisfaction does
vary between different type of neighborhoods (Gruber and Shelton, 1987; Parkes et al., 2002).
The categorization of housing type also varies in studies. Some researchers have
focused on distinctions based on housing patterns, such as urban/suburban, mass
 ARCH housing/single-family housing, formal/informal, low income/high income, high rise/low rise,
13,1 planned/unplanned, center/periphery, public housing, gated communities, etc. (Lovejoy
et al., 2010; Cook, 1988).
Dassopoulos et al. (2012) identified three type of neighborhoods (core, suburban and
urban fringe) based on their distance from the urban core in Las Vegas, Nevada, finding that
older neighborhoods in the urban core negatively influenced the quality of residents’ lives.
118 On the other hand, the neighborliness factor, which includes a high level of trust, concern for
neighbors and a feeling of collective efficacy, is a significant predictor of neighborhood
satisfaction in all three types of neighborhoods.
Lovejoy et al. (2010) examined neighborhood differences in suburban vs traditional
neighborhoods and found that neighborhood satisfaction is higher in traditional
neighborhoods. While liveliness, neighborliness and diversity contribute to this
satisfaction, economic homogeneity is the main contributor in suburban settlements.
Gruber and Shelton (1987) investigated differences in residential satisfaction between
three housing types (conventional homes, mobile homes and apartments) in the 11 counties
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

of the Piedmont Region in North Carolina. They found that different clusters of variables
were closely correlated with overall satisfaction with the neighborhood for each housing
type: living in a pleasant area that lacked traffic and noise and provided good opportunities
for recreation affected the perceptions of residents living in conventional homes and
apartment type housing patterns more than those in mobile homes.
Neighborhoods with immigrants, blacks or other minority racial groups were more
dissatisfied than other neighborhoods in the studies of Clark (1992), Bobo and Zubrinsky
(1996) and Dassopoulos and Monnat (2011).
Ibem and Aduwo (2013) surveyed differences in satisfaction between public housing that
had been mortgaged, purchased outright or rented in Ogun State; a large proportion of those
satisfied with their housing conditions lived in mortgaged houses.
Mridha and Moore (2011) examined Uttara, Tejgaon, Mirpur, Mohammadpur, Dhanmondi,
and Ramna, finding significant differences between Uttara and Mohammadpur in terms of
residential satisfaction, the physical appearance of neighborhoods, building maintenance,
street conditions, and neighborhood cleanliness.
Another study by Addo (2016) demonstrated that the importance of residential
satisfaction factors varied between five communities (Madina, New Town, James Town,
Ashaiman and Tema Manhean) in the greater Accra metropolitan area.
Ge and Hokao (2006) designed a survey in the Japanese cities of Saga and Kitakyushu to
examine residential lifestyles in terms of residential preference, choice and satisfaction.
They found little difference in residential choices between the residents of the two cities: four
of the five residential satisfaction factors were the same (safety and comfort, convenience,
leisure and entertainment, and housing) in both cities. As the fifth factor, geographic
conditions are more significant in Kitakyushu than the other issues’ factor of Saga.
On the other hand, according to Cao and Wang (2016), some studies have argued that
satisfaction with a neighborhood does not differ significantly between different neighborhood
types and areas in the city. In these studies, residents might be satisfied even if the
neighborhood does not offer them much. Although they noted a lack of difference between
neighborhoods in the literature, the results of their study indicated the opposite. Upkeep, quiet
and access to downtown were significant for “movers” but insignificant for “nonmovers.”
Additionally, pedestrian safety, interaction with neighbors, access to shopping, off-street
parking and school quality were predictors only for the nonmovers’ residential satisfaction.
There are many studies that examine how environmental characteristics predict
residential satisfaction in planned urban settings. Some researchers have concentrated
specifically on planned, low-income housing areas (Fried and Gleicher, 1961; Lansing et al.,
1970) or public housing (Yancey, 1971; Onibokun, 1974, 1976; Rent and Rent, 1978;
 Amerigo and Aragones, 1990; Varady and Preiser, 1998). These authors have criticized Residential
housing policy and design. satisfaction
Researchers have also compared levels of residential satisfaction based on urban setting.
Turkoglu (1997) concentrated on comparing different types of residential environments.
Such research is generally concerned with understanding how residents perceive their
environment in different urban settings (Turkoglu, 1997).
From the literature reviewed in the beginning of the paper, it is possible to infer that 119
residential satisfaction is influenced by the availability of and access to non-residential land
uses in planned neighborhoods. However, place attachment is the most influential factor in
traditional, older and mostly unplanned settlements in cities. Several studies investigating
residential satisfaction in different urban settings have demonstrated that there are clear
differences between planned and unplanned neighborhoods in terms of social and spatial
equity. While most of the traditional settlements lack adequate social amenities, there is also
yearning for steady social bonds in amenity-rich planned neighborhoods.
It is also important to note that every unique contribution from different geographies that
examines differences between residential settings deepens the debate on social equity issues
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

in cities. Comparative case studies, especially on planned vs unplanned environments, are

relatively limited in number. Therefore, there is a need for new research works examining
differences between different residential settings within cities.

3. Residential structure of Istanbul

The Istanbul Metropolitan Area houses roughly 15m inhabitants that comprise around
20 percent of the total population of Turkey. It is also the nation’s dominant city, with the
highest employment rates, commercial activity and number of industrial establishments
(Figure 1).

Km
0 5 10 20 30 40

Figure 1.
Istanbul metropolitan
area
Source: Authors
 ARCH The residential structure of Istanbul is the result of its historic development in a
13,1 geographically unique location. Historically, the city developed around three ancient
settlements: the Historic Peninsula, Galata, which is separated from the historic peninsula
by the Golden Horn west of the Bosphorus, and Kadikoy, on the Anatolian Peninsula, east of
the Bosphorus. These three ancient settlements have formed the core around which the city
has grown.
120 During the twentieth century, the growth of the city was shaped by the circumstances of
distinct economic periods. The first period that made a heavy impact on the city was that of
industrialization after the 1950s, when Istanbul began to attract millions of migrants from
other regions of Turkey. This period was characterized by the rapid growth of squatter
settlements around industrial plants.
Municipal governments in the 1950s were unable to accommodate the growing number
of migrants with legal and planned residential areas. As a result, the newcomers built their
own squatter settlements on unplanned public land, without building permits (Figure 2).
In formal residential areas, traditional single-family houses were turned into four or
five-story multifamily apartments. The other formal housing type was low-cost cooperative
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

housing, which sprawled across agricultural lands outside the municipal boundaries,
creating incomplete, low-quality residential environments that lacked necessary urban
services and infrastructure.
During the 1980s, when liberal economic policies were adopted in Turkey, the mass
production of housing was encouraged. For the first time, urban-scale residential projects
began to be developed. These projects were encouraged by the Mass Housing Agency,
which emerged from the New Mass Housing Law in the 1980s to provide planned land and
financial support (housing loans). The main urban-scale residential projects in the city were
planned and constructed during this period.
While these projects provided housing for middle and higher income families, they did
not meet the housing needs of lower income groups. Existing squatter settlements were
pardoned by new plans that allowed construction of apartments of up to four stories on the
sites of one or two-story single-family houses. This process increased the density of the city
without improving the quality of its residential environments.

N
Legend
Formal Residential Areas
Informal Residential Areas
Figure 2. 0 3 6 12 18 24
Formal and informal Km

districts in Istanbul
Source: Authors
 By the year 2000, in the aftermath of the destructive earthquake in the Marmara Region, Residential
these low-quality illegal housing areas, which comprised more than 60 percent of the satisfaction
buildings in Istanbul, created concerns about disaster mitigation. This was also the period
when the concept of the “global city” was adopted by the government. Its adoption led to the
development of new gated communities growing toward the northern forests, away from the
fault line. During this period (following the year 2000), the Public Housing Agency (TOKI)
was given ownership of and planning power over all public land within municipal 121
boundaries. The Agency worked with the goal of completing 500,000 housing units in
Turkey by the year 2012, which resulted in high-density, high-rise residential areas not
necessarily on sites suitable for housing. At present, these developments are highly
criticized for their uniform character.
The global city objective increased private investment in housing, especially in large-scale,
mixed-use projects. Some of these projects were developed on old industrial sites, some on
inner city historic neighborhoods, and others in partnership with TOKI on public land.
Different historical developments have created unique types of residential areas in
Istanbul. Today’s residential structure can be observed as having evolved into three basic
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

categories (Plate 1):

(1) illegal (informal unplanned); residential areas including both the first and second-
generation squatters;
(2) legal (formal, planned) neighborhoods; and
(3) planned mass housing neighborhoods (including gated communities).

4. Research methodology
This research investigates the residential satisfaction of residents in formal and informal
settlements, employing quantitative methods and using case study as a research strategy.

Plate 1.
Examples of urban
characteristics in
Istanbul
Source: Authors
 ARCH For this study, the two following questions have been formulated in order to understand
13,1 whether formal residential areas provide better residential satisfaction than informal ones:
RQ1. What are the objective and subjective factors that explain residential satisfaction
in both formal and informal residential neighborhoods?
RQ2. Based on these factors, are there any differences between the residents’ perception in
122 formal and informal residential settlements of the quality of their neighborhoods?
A systematic random selection method was applied in conducting face-to-face surveys. The
methodology for selecting survey locations was planned in three steps.
The first step was to create the survey sampling basemap. It is essential to represent the
different characteristics of neighborhood units in a balanced way in the sampling pool.
Therefore, two variables were chosen as representative: population density and land value.
It was assumed that residential density reflects the character of the physical environment,
and land value was taken as an indicator of the attractiveness of a neighborhood.
Accordingly, a total of 941 neighborhood units in Istanbul were categorized based on their
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

population densities and land values in order to create the sampling pool. These categories
were low density, medium density and high density; and low land value, medium land value
and high land value neighborhoods (Turkoglu et al., 2006, 2011).
The second step was to establish the selection procedure of sampling points. In this step, the
nine categories of neighborhood units were associated with a number of buildings and dwelling
units in a GIS database. In total, 100 points were randomly selected for each group, and for the
nine groups a total of 900 points were determined for face-to-face survey employment.
The socio-demographic characteristics of the selected sample are summarized in Table I.
The third step was to determine the respondent selection procedure. A total of 423 points
were randomly selected from the 900 clusters depending on their representation ratio in the
nine categories. These 423 points are called “center buildings,” and were specifically set
apart for the selection procedure. The goal of this procedure was to find at least 25 dwelling
units, out of which six were selected to randomly represent the diversity of the quality of life
in central buildings. In total, 2,538 dwelling (423 × 6) units were selected for face-to-face
interviews. A Kish selection table was applied to determine the respondent among
the members within a household. With an average response rate of 64 percent, 1,635
face-to-face interviews were conducted in 2,538 dwelling units (Figure 3).
The sample survey is designed to measure following components:
• the quality of the residential environment, including average density and the
availability of social amenities and public transportation;
• socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, education, marital status, occupation,
birth place, family income, children in elementary school, home ownership, car
ownership and average residency time in Istanbul); and
• the resident’s perception of the environment.
Three consecutive statistical tests were applied to evaluate the survey results: factor
analysis, regression analysis and ANOVA. The purpose of the factor analysis was to
reduce the large set of neighborhood quality variables to a smaller number of factors.
Based on the test results, factor analysis was applicable to the data (Table II). Five factors
emerged from the analysis, explaining 62.299 percent of the variance (Table III). These are
identified with the following labels:
• Factor 1 was directed toward attractiveness (attractive, good to live, a lot to do).
• Factor 2 addressed the issue of attachment (near family and friends, known the area
and people).
 Items: Total number of respondents: 1,635 %
Residential
satisfaction
Family income
Less than 500 (low income) 19
501–1,000 (moderately low) 42
1,001–2,000 (moderate) 23
2,001–3,000 (moderately high) 5
More than 3,001 (high) 6 123
No answer 4
Children in elementary school
None 68
One or more child 32
House ownership
Renter 32
Owner 63
None paid 5
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

Car ownership
None 62
1 and more car 38
Respondents’ gender
Male 50
Female 50
Respondents’ education
None 14
Primary school 46
High school 25
University and more 16
Respondents’ age (years)
18–30 34
31–45 33
46–64 24
More then 65 9
Respondents’ birth place
Marmara Region 38
Black Sea Region 22
Eastern Anatolia Region 14
Mid Anatolia Region 12
South Eastern Anatolia Region 6
Aegean – Mediterranean Region 4
Abroad 3
Average residency time in Istanbul 25.7
Respondents’ occupation
Housewife 34
Retired 16
Worker 40
Self-employed
Student 4
No job 6
Respondents’ marital status
Married 70 Table I.
Single 21 Socio-demographic
Widow/divorced 9 characteristics of
Source: Authors the sample
 ARCH
13,1

124
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

Legend
Highway
Lake
Forest
Figure 3. Builtup Areas
Clusters for sample
points
Source: Authors

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.795

Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Approx. χ2 4,657.787
Table II. df 136
KMO and Sig. 0.000
Bartlett’s test Source: Authors

• Factor 3 addressed the evaluation of environmental stressors (clean air, less traffic
and quiet).
• Factor 4 referred mainly to the accessibility (workplace, schools, spare time activities
and shopping).
• Factor 5 referred to municipal services (trash collection, road maintenance, lighting)
(Figure 4).
After this reduction, the surveyed population was categorized into four sub-groups based on
different neighborhood types. The difference in neighborhood quality among the
neighborhood types in Istanbul was examined through a comparison of the factors’ mean
scores using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Based on a homogeneity test, one-way ANOVA
 Neighborhood quality items I II III IV V
Residential
satisfaction
It is an attractive place 0.780
It is appropriate to live 0.779
It is good to raise children 0.710
There are a lot of things to do 0.694
The people are familiar to me 0.857
Friends and relatives are near to me 0.808 125
Neighborhood familiar to me 0.777
It is not noisy 0.834
There are not much traffic 0.829
There is no air pollution 0.669
Good schools are available 0.751
Shops and social facilities are accessible 0.675
Spare time activities are accessible 0.670
Work is accessible 0.667
Maintenance of roads is good enough 0.754 Table III.
Trash is not a problem 0.718
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

The results of
It is well lit at night 0.696 principal component
Source: Authors analysis

can be applied to data for three variable: Attractiveness, Attachement and Accesibility
(Table IV ). A one-way ANOVA was performed to determine if there were significant
differences in the satisfaction of residents of formal and informal neighborhoods (Table V ).
Finally, the contribution of neighborhood quality factors to the overall residential satisfaction
of Istanbul residents was investigated through a regression analysis in which neighborhood
satisfaction was considered a dependent variable and the factor scores predictors.

5. Findings and discussion

One of the findings of the research has been that the perceived quality of a neighborhood’s
physical and social characteristics, such as attractiveness, attachment, accessibility,
municipal services and environmental stressors were found to be significant in determining
residential satisfaction in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area. Among these factors,
attractiveness was the most important for neighborhood satisfaction in general. This
observation is in line with some of the previous research (Amerigo and Aragones, 1997;
Ricardo et al., 1997; Van Poll, 1997; Thedori, 2001; Parkes et al., 2002; Bonaiuto et al., 1999,
2006, 2003; Potter and Cantarero, 2006; Tabernero et al., 2016). Accordingly, the government
should focus on providing social amenities, green and open urban spaces, and shopping
facilities, starting with the informal/unplanned areas of the city. In Istanbul, the districts
where such areas are located, especially the northern part of E5, lack necessary social
facilities and green spaces.
The second finding of the research arose from the comparison of residential satisfaction
between residential environments with different characteristics based on their legal status
as formal/planned and informal/unplanned neighborhoods. The factors attractiveness,
accessibility and attachment (3A) were found to be important for residential satisfaction in a
comparison of different urban settings (Table V ).
Residents living in the planned and mass housing areas of the city found their
neighborhoods more attractive than residents living in first- and second-generation squatter
areas. On the other hand, residents living in first- and second-generation squatter areas felt
more attached to their neighborhoods than those living in planned and mass housing areas.
Residents living in planned areas located near the inner city reported more satisfaction in
 ARCH
13,1

126

N
Attractiveness N
Attachment
Low Satisfaction Low Satisfaction
Medium Satisfaction Medium Satisfaction
High Satisfaction High Satisfaction
0 2.5 5 10 Km 0 2.5 5 10 Km
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

N
Environmental Pollution N
Accessibility
High pollution Low Satisfaction
Medium pollution Medium Satisfaction
Low pollution High Satisfaction
0 2.5 5 10 Km 0 2.5 5 10 Km

N
Municipal Services
Low Satisfaction
Figure 4. Medium Satisfaction

The maps of principal 0 2.5

Low Satisfaction
5 10 Km

component analysis
Source: Authors

terms of accessibility than those living in mass housing or first- and second-generation
squatter areas.
The contribution of the determined factors to overall neighborhood satisfaction was
explored through regression analysis. A stepwise regression analysis considered
neighborhood satisfaction a dependent variable and factor scores predictors. The results
of the model indicated that all the input neighborhood quality indicators have a significant
 impact on neighborhood satisfaction. In general, attractiveness has the strongest influence Residential
on neighborhood satisfaction, while municipal services had the least (Table VI). satisfaction
Nevertheless, the adjusted R2 value (0.349) suggest that the neighborhood quality factors
make modest contributions to neighborhood satisfaction. Since the study had no predictive

Levene Stat. df1 df2 Sig. F

127
Attractiveness 0.833 3 956 0.476
Attachment 0.770 3 956 0.511
Environmental pollution 50.247 3 956 0.001
Accessibility 0.887 3 956 0.447
Table IV.
Municipal services 5.137 3 956 0.002 Test of homogenity
Source: Authors of variances
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. F

Attractiveness
Between groups 50.432 3 16.811 18.222 0.000
Within groups 881.972 956 0.923
Total 932.404 959
Means MH 0.2849759 FGS −0.3034334 PF 0.1337957 SGS −0.2500136
Attachment
Between groups 25.561 3 8.520 8.684 0.000
Within groups 937.982 956 0.981
Total 963.543 959
Means MH −0.3590712 FGS 0.0929534 PF −0.0929641 SGS 0.1582053
Accessibility
Between groups 35.332 3 11.777 12.279 0.000
Within groups 916.966 956 0.959
Total 952.299 959
Means MH −0.1698446 FGS −0.2342103 PF 0.2274484 SGS 0.0258640 Table V.
Notes: MH, mass housing; FGS, first generation squatters; PF, planned-formal; SGS, second One-way ANOVA
generation squatters results (analysis
Source: Authors of variance)

Istanbul
Factors B SE B β

Attractiveness 0.497 0.044 ***

Attachment 0.267 0.044 ***
Environmental stressors 0.193 0.043 ***
Accessibility 0.084 0.044 ***
Table VI.
Municipal services 0.052 0.043 ** Factors as predictors
Adjusted R² 0.349 of neighborhood
Notes: B, standardized multiple regression coefficient, SE B, standard error of multiple regression coefficient, satisfaction in
β, standardized multiple regression coefficient. **p ⩽ 0.005; ***p ⩽ 0.001 Istanbul: Regression
Source: The authors analysis
 ARCH goals to quantify neighborhood satisfaction using independent variables, the adjusted R2
13,1 value is acceptable in explaining the causative relationship between neighborhood quality
and satisfaction.

6. Conclusion
This paper examines the satisfaction with residential areas in Istanbul. The primary source
128 of information was a household survey. The study was carried out as part of a strategically
planned process and intended to inform decision makers and planners of the residents’
perceptions of urban life in a large and rapidly growing region.
The residential environment was a central focus of the study since an important goal of
the strategic plan was to aid in the improvement of housing in and the quality of Istanbul
neighborhoods. The study was designed to produce baseline data so that future changes in
residential conditions as perceived by the residents of Istanbul could be measured through
the subsequent quality of urban life studies.
According to the results of the research, residents living in planned neighborhoods in the
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

city are more satisfied than those living in unplanned neighborhoods. The residents who
live in the planned sections of the city are satisfied with the attractiveness and accessibility
of their neighborhoods, while those who live in unplanned sections of the city are satisfied
with their level of attachment to their neighborhoods. Based on these findings, city
government policies should focus on providing social networks through community
participation. Obviously, neighbor and family relations are stronger in the unplanned
districts than in the planned parts of the city.
A more careful consideration of the results reveals that the residents of mass housing
areas, which is a type of planned urban area, are not satisfied with the accessibility of their
neighborhood to social facilities and work places.
The low level of satisfaction with accessibility observed in both these neighborhoods and
unplanned neighborhoods is due to the fact that these individual projects do not provide
high standards in urban facilities.
This is an important finding of the research, as it demonstrates that the substandard
provision of urban facilities has affected the satisfaction of mass housing residents as well
as the residents of unplanned neighborhoods. In Istanbul, mass housing areas are generally
constructed in areas far away from the city center; accessibility to the city center and several
social facilities is, therefore, problematic. New planned areas of the city, i.e. mass housing
areas located especially far away the city center, create an unsatisfactory environment.
City government policies should take these results into consideration when planning for
new developments and revitalization in urban areas. There is a need to improve the
accessibility of social, recreational and infrastructure services not only in unplanned,
informal areas, but also in planned mass housing settlements.
More detailed analyses of residents with respect to their socio-demographic differences
are suggested for further research.

References
Addo, I.A. (2016), “Assessing residential satisfaction among low income households in multi-habited
dwellings in selected low-income communities in Accra”, Urban Studies, Vol. 53 No. 4,
pp. 631-650.
Adriaanse, C.C.M. (2007), “Measuring residential satisfaction: a Residential Environmental Satisfaction
Scale (RESS)”, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 287-304.
Amerigo, M. and Aragones, J.I. (1990), “Residential satisfaction in council housing”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 313-325.
 Amerigo, M. and Aragones, J.I. (1997), “Theoretical and methodological approach of residential Residential
satisfaction”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 47-57. satisfaction
Awotona, A. (1991), “Nigerian government participation in housing, 1970–1980, Nigeria”, Social
Indicators Research, Vol. 25, pp. 63-98.
Basolo, V. and Strong, D. (2002), “Understanding the neighborhood: from residents’ perceptions and
needs to action”, Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 83-105.
Bender, A., Din, A., Favarger, P., Hoesli, M. and Laakso, J. (1997), “An analysis of perceptions 129
concerning the environmental quality of housing in Geneva”, Urban Studies, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 503-513.
Berköz, L. and Kellekçi, Ö.L. (2007), “Mass housing: residents satisfaction with their housing and
environment”, Open House International, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 41-49.
Berköz, L., Türk, Ş.Ş. and Kellekçi, Ö.L. (2009), “Environmental quality and user satisfaction in mass
housing areas: the case of Istanbul”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 161-174.
Bobo, L. and Zubrinsky, C.L. (1996), “Attitudes on residential integration: perceived status differences,
mere in-group preference, or racial prejudice?”, Social Forces, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 883-909.
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

Bonaiuto, A.A., Prerugini, M., Bonnes, M. and Ercolani, A.P. (1999), “Multidimensional perception of
residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment”,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 331-352.
Bonaiuto, M. and Fornara, F. (2017), “Residential satisfaction and perceived urban quality”, Reference
Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1-5.
Bonaiuto, M., Fomara, F. and Bonnes, M. (2003), “Index of perceived residential environment quality
and neighborhood attachment in urban environments: a confirmation study on the city of
Rome”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 65 Nos 1-2, pp. 41-52.
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F. and Bonnes, M. (2006), “Perceived residential environment quality in middle- and
low-extension Italian cities”, European Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. and Rogers, W. (1976), The Quality of American Life: Perceptions,
Evaluations and Satisfactions, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.
Canter, D. and Rees, K. (1982), “A multivariate model of housing satisfaction”, International Review of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 185-208.
Cao, X. (2015), “How does neighborhood design affect life satisfaction? Evidence from Twin cities”,
Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 5, pp. 68-76.
Cao, X.J. and Wang, D. (2016), “Environmental correlates of residential satisfaction: an exploration of
mismatched neighborhood characteristics in the twin cities”, Landscape and Urban Planning,
Vol. 150, pp. 26-35.
Carp, F.M. and Carp, A. (1982), “Perceived environmental quality of neighborhood: development of
assessment scales and their relation to age and gender”, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 245-312.
Clark, W.A.V. (1992), “Residential preferences and residential choices in a multiethnic context”,
Demography, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 451-466.
Clement, O.I. and Kayode, O. (2012), “Public housing provision and user satisfaction in Ondo State,
Nigeria”, British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 103-111.
Cook, C.C. (1988), “Components of neighborhood satisfaction: responses from urban and suburban
single-parent women”, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 115-149.
Dassopoulos, A. and Monnat, S. (2011), “Do perceptions of social cohesion, social support, and social
control mediate the effects of local community participation on neighborhood satisfaction?”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 546-565.
Dassopoulos, A., Batson, C.D., Futrell, R. and Brents, B.G. (2012), “Neighborhood connections, physical
disorder and neighborhood satisfaction in Las Vegas”, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 571-600.
 ARCH Davis, E.E. and Fine Davis, M. (1981), “Predictors of satisfaction with housing and neighborhood: a
13,1 nationwide study in the Republic of Ireland”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 9 Nos 2-4,
pp. 477-494.
Davis, E.E. and Fine Davis, M. (1991), “Social indicators of living conditions Ireland with European
comparison nationwide study”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 103-365.
Dokoushkani, F., Moradi, B., Mehrad, A., Razali, A. and Ostadagha, M. (2014), “Relationship between
130 environmental aspects of housing welfare and residential satisfaction”, International Journal of
Technical Research and Applications, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 36-40.
Elsinga, M. and Hockstra, J. (2005), “Homeownership and housing satisfaction”, Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 301-324.
Ernawati, J. and Moore, G.T. (2014), “Tourists’ and residents’ impressions of a heritage tourism site: the
case of Kampong Taman Sari, Indonesia”, International Journal of Architectural Research:
ArchNet-IJAR, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 181-194.
Fried, M. and Gleicher, P. (1961), “Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum”, Journal of
American Institute of Planners, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 305-315.
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

Galster, G.C. (1987), “Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: an empirical critique”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 537-568.
Galster, G.C. and Hesser, G.W. (1981), “Residential satisfaction compositional and contextual
correlates”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 735-758.
Ge, J. and Hokao, K. (2006), “Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of
residential preference, residential choice and residential satisfaction”, Landscape and Urban
Planning, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 165-178.
Gibson, M., Thomson, H., Kearns, A. and Petticrew, M. (2011), “Understanding the psychosocial
impacts of housing type: qualitative evidence from a housing and regeneration intervention”,
Housing Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 555-573.
Greenberg, M.R. (1999), “Improving neighborhood quality: a hierarchy of needs”, Housing Policy
Debate, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 601-624.
Gruber, K.J. and Shelton, G.G. (1987), “Assessment of neighborhood satisfaction by residents of three
housing types”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 303-315.
Ha, S.K. (2008), “Social housing estates and sustainable community development in South Korea”,
Habitat International, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 349-363.
Handy, S. and Clifton, K.J. (2001), “Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: possibilities and
practicalities”, Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 67-78.
Haugen, K. (2011), “The advantage of ‘near’: which accessibilities matter to whom?”, European Journal
of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 368-388.
Hur, M. and Morrow-Jones, H. (2008), “Factors that influence residents’ satisfaction with
neighborhoods”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 619-635.
Hur, M., Nasar, J. and Chun, B. (2010), “Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness
and openness”, Journal Environmental Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 52-59.
Ibem, E.O. and Aduwo, E.B. (2013), “Assessment of residential satisfaction in public housing in Ogun
State, Nigeria”, Habitat International, Vol. 40, pp. 163-175.
Ibem, E.O. and Amole, D. (2012), “Residential satisfaction in public core housing in Abeokuta, Ogun
State, Nigeria”, Social Research Indicators, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 563-581.
Jaafar, M., Hasan, N.L., Mahamad, O. and Ramayah, T. (2006), “The determinants of housing
satisfaction level: a study on residential development project by PENANG development
corporation (PDC)”, Journal of Kemanusiaan, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Jiboye, A.D. (2009), “Evaluating tenant’s satisfaction with public housing in Lagos, Nigeria”, Town
Planning and Architecture, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 239-247.
 Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B. and Kahana, M. (2003), “Person, environment and Residential
person–environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders”, Environment and satisfaction
Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 434-453.
Kasarda, J.D. and Janowitz, M. (1974), “Community attachment in mass society”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 328-339.
Lansing, J.B., Marans, R.W. and Zehner, R.B. (1970), Planned Residential Environment, Institute for
Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 131
Lee, E. and Park, N. (2012), “Perceived cultural housing differences and residential satisfaction: a case
study of Korean sojourners”, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 131-144.
Lee, S.M., Conway, T.L., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Cain, K.L. and Sallis, J.F. (2017), “The relation of
perceived and objective environment attributes to neighborhood satisfaction”, Environment and
Behavior, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 136-160.
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S. and Mokhtarian, P. (2010), “Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus
traditional environments: an evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California
neighborhoods”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 1, pp. 37-48.
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

Lu, M. (1999), “Do people move when they say they will? Inconsistencies in individual migration
behavior”, Population and Environment, Vol. 20, pp. 467-488.
Lu, M. (2002), “Are pastures greener? Residential consequences of migration”, Population, Space and
Place, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 201-216.
Marans, R.W. and Rodgers, W. (1975), “Toward an understanding of community satisfaction”, in
Hawley, A. and Rock, V. (Eds), Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspective, Halsted
Press, New York, NY, pp. 299-352.
Mohan, J. and Twigg, L. (2007), “Sense of place, quality of life and local socioeconomic context: evidence
from the survey of English housing 2002/03”, Urban Studies, Vol. 44 No. 10, pp. 2029-2045.
Mohit, M.A. and Al-KhanbashiRaja, A.M.M. (2014), “Residential satisfaction concept, theories and
empirical studies”, Planning Malaysia: Urban Planning and Local Governance, Vol. 3, pp. 47-66.
Mohit, M.A., Ibrahim, M. and Rashid, Y.R. (2010), “Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly
designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”, Habitat International, Vol. 34
No. 10, pp. 18-27.
Mridha, A.M.M.H. and Moore, G.T. (2011), “The quality of life in Dhaka, Bangladesh: neighborhood
quality as a major component of residential satisfaction”, in Marans, R. and Stimson, R. (Eds),
Investigating Quality of Urban Life, Social Indicators Research Series, Vol. 45, Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 251-278.
Nassar, J.L. and Jones, K. (1997), “Landscape of fear and stress”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 291-323.
Onibokun, A. (1974), “Evaluating consumer satisfaction with housing: an application of a systems
approach”, Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 189-200.
Onibokun, A. (1976), “Social system correlates of residential satisfaction”, Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 324-344.
Parkes, A., Kearns, A. and Atkinson, R. (2002), “What makes people dissatisfied with their
neighbourhoods?”, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 19, pp. 2413-2438.
Paul, A.O., Hisyam, R.M. and Ismail, S.B. (2017), “The influence of open space utilization on residents’
attachment with community: a case study of rural market square in South-West Nigeria”,
International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 44-66.
Permentier, M., Bolt, G. and Van Ham, M. (2011), “Determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction and
perception of neighbourhood reputation”, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 977-996.
Potter, J. and Cantarero, R. (2006), “How does increasing population and diversity affect
resident satisfaction, a small community case study”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 38
No. 5, pp. 605-625.
 ARCH Rent, G.S. and Rent, C.S. (1978), “Low income housing: factors related to residential satisfaction”,
13,1 Environment and Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 459-488.
Ricardo, G.M., Arce, C. and Sabucedo, J.M. (1997), “Perceived quality of neighborhoods in a city in
Northwest Spain an individual differences scaling approach”, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 243-252.
Rioux, L. and Werner, C. (2011), “Residential satisfaction among aging people living in place”, Journal
of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 158-169.
132
Sagert, S. and Evans, G.W. (2003), “Poverty, housing niches, and health in the United States”, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 569-589.
Salleh, A.N.A., Yosuf, B.N.A., Salleh, C.A.G. and Johari, D.N. (2012), “Tenant satisfaction in public
housing and its relationship with rent arrears: Majlis Bandaraya, Perak, Malaysia”, International
Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 10-18.
Salleh, A.N.A., Yosuf, B.N.A., Salleh, C.A.G. and Johari, D.N. (2012), “Tenant satisfaction in public
housing and its relationship with rent arrears: Majlis Bandaraya, Perak, Malaysia”, International
Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 10-18.
Sirgy, M.J. and Cornwell, T. (2002), “How neighborhood features affect quality of life”, Social Indicators
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 79-114.

Tabernero, C., Briones, E. and Cuadrado, E. (2016), “Changes in residential satisfaction and place
attachment over time”, Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 403-412.
Theodori, G.L. (2001), Examining the Effects of Community Satisfaction and Attachment on Individual
Well Being Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, pp. 618-628.
Turkoglu, H.D. (1997), “Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: the case of Istanbul, Turkey”,
Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 55-67.
Turkoglu, H.D., Bölen, F., Baran, P.K. and Marans, R.W. (2006), Measuring Urban Quality of Life,
Vol. II, Istanbul Metropolitan Planning and Design Center, Istanbul.
Turkoglu, H.D., Bölen, F., Baran, P.K. and Terzi, F. (2011), “Measuring quality of urban life in Istanbul”,
in Marans, R.W. and Stimson, R.J. (Eds), Investigating Quality of Urban Life: Theory, Methods,
and Empirical Research Series, Springer, Amsterdam, pp. 209-232.
Van Poll, R. (1997), “The perceived quality of the urban residential environment: a multi-attribute
evaluation”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen.
Varady, D. and Carrozza, M. (2000), “Toward a better way to measure customer satisfaction levels in
public housing: a report from Cincinnati”, Housing Studies, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 797-825.
Varady, D. and Preiser, W. (1998), “Scattered-site public housing and housing satisfaction: implications
for the new public housing program”, JAPA, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 189-207.
Vera-Toscano, E. and Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2008), “The relevance of social interactions on housing
satisfaction”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 257-274.
Yancey, W.L. (1971), “Architecture, interaction and social control: the case of a large scale public
housing project”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Yuliastuti, N., Sukmawati, A.M. and Purwoningsih, P. (2018), “Utilization of social facilities to reinforce
social interaction in formal housing”, International Journal of Architectural Research:
Archnet-IJAR, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 134-151.

Corresponding author
Handan Türkoğlu can be contacted at: handan.turkoglu@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 This article has been cited by:

1. SalamaAshraf M., Ashraf M. Salama. 2019. Prospects for research in architecture and urbanism.
Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 13:1, 2-7. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
Downloaded by 24.133.138.52 At 09:43 18 March 2019 (PT)

View publication stats