Assessment Of Residential Satisfaction In Mehr Housing Project (Case Study: Vahdat Complex Of Shiraz)

Subject Areas :

Ahmad Pour Ahmad ¹ (professor of geography and urban planning, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran)
hasan ashouri ² (master student of geography and urban planning, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran)
ahmad hatami ³ (master student of geography and urban planning, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran)

Received: 2018-05-13 Accepted : 2019-10-18 Published : 2020-01-21

Keywords: &quot, Assessment&quot, , Residential Satisfaction&quot, , &quot, Vahdat Complex &quot, , Mehr Housing&quot, , Shiraz city&quot, ,

Abstract :

         The studies in the field of residential satisfaction increase our understanding of success or failure level of housing projects, project quality, and the factors of residential satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In this regard, the goal of this research is to assess the residential satisfaction of Vahdat Mehr housing complex (located in Shiraz). The current research is a practical research in terms of objective and is a descriptive-analytic research in terms of methodology. Also, the survey data collection method has been performed by a researcher-made questionnaire to collect data. The research's statistical society is all the residents of the Vahdat Mehr housing complex of Shiraz and the sample size is 384 people that is randomly selected using Cochran formula. To analyze the information and data, the one-sample T-test was used. The results show that the housing strength index with total average of 2.58, the housing tenure index with total average of 3.26, the congestion index with total average of 3.13, the neighborhood quality index with total average of 3.04, and 8 out of 11 access indices with total average of 2.52 are less than average (3.50) and have an undesirable condition so that the residents are not satisfied with them. However, the other three access indices with total average of 4.21 as well as the indices of initial housing facilities (with total average of 4.06) are above average (3.5) and have a desirable condition so that the residents are satisfied with them.
 
Keywords: Assessment",Residential Satisfaction","Vahdat Complex ", Mehr Housing", Shiraz city"
 
 
Extended Abstract
Introduction:
           In the last half-century, one of the most important and most complicated social changes is urbanism and urban development. In fact, the urban population of the world has raised from 14 percent in 1900 to 50 percent in 2007. The housing sector can be considered as one of the most important parts of urban development in society. Despite the fact that governments have committed and attempted to provide sufficient, suitable, and high-quality housing for different income groups—with an emphasis on developing affordable housing—but there are still two major problems. The first is quantitative so that the number of houses provided isn’t enough for the demand of the low-income group. However, the second is qualitative so that the types of provided houses do not fit the family housing, comfortability, social, cultural, and religious requirements. The studies related to residential satisfaction are done for various purposes such as evaluating the current housing situation, needs and preferences, success or failure level of housing projects, and project quality. The necessity to study the residential satisfaction enhances our understanding of residents’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction of residents. On the other hand, these studies are very important for informing housing policies. The evaluation of housing quality through residents (how they think about their houses and how this matter affects their lives) has become a useful tool to measure the success level of residential projects. In this regard, this research evaluates the satisfaction level of Vahdat Mehr complex’s residents in Shiraz.
Methodology:
        The current research is practical in terms of purpose and is descriptive-analytic in terms of methodology. Data was collected by surveying and using a researcher-made questionnaire. The statistical society of the research is the residents of the Vahdat Mehr complex locating in shiraz. Also, the sample size (384 people) was selected using the Cochran formula and simple random method. The questionnaire was validated using content validation method and the indices tested in related studies as well as by consulting with professors and experts. Also, the reliability of the questionnaire was calculated by Cronbach’s Alpha method and the result was 0.960, showing the internal cohesion of the questionnaire. In this research, six indices were used to study the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the residents in Shiraz’s Vahdat Mehr Complex. These indices are the strength and beauty of the housing, basic facilities, type of housing occupation, density and congestion in residential unit, service accessibility in the neighborhood, and neighborhood quality. Furthermore, the one-sample t-test was employed to analyze data.
Results and discussion :
        In the current study, we attempted to evaluate the satisfaction level of the residents in Shiraz’s Vahdat Mehr Complex using mental indices including housing cohesion, basic facilities, type of housing occupation, density and congestion, service accessibility, and neighborhood quality. The findings of the research showed that respondents were satisfied only with the basic facilities and evaluated the other indices as weak.
Conclusion :
         The results of the research indicate that respondents were not satisfied with six out of seven housing cohesion indices. The overall mean of these six indices (2.37) was less than average (3.5) and undesirable. On the other hand, the index of building lighting during the day (3.85) was evaluated higher than average and desirable. Also, the residents were satisfied with the basic facilities of housing. The overall mean of this index was 4.06 which is more than average and desirable. The index of housing occupation with an overall mean of 3.26 was less than average and respondents evaluated it as undesirable. The evaluation of density and congestion showed that respondents were not satisfied because its overall mean (3.13) was less than average, implying the dissatisfaction of residents. Also, the residents were not satisfied with eight out of the eleven indices related to service accessibility in the neighborhood and evaluated them as weak (with the overall mean of 2.52). however, three out of those eleven indices were desirable so that their overall mean was higher than average; these desirable indices include access to supermarkets and retailers (4.43), access to mosque (4.41) access to public transportation including taxi and bus (3.80). The evaluation of residential satisfaction about neighborhood quality showed that respondents were not satisfied with fourteen out of seventeen related indices and evaluated them as weak. The overall mean of these fourteen indices was 2.92 which is less than average and undesirable. The other three indices of neighborhood quality were average. However, the final neighborhood quality index (3.04) was less than average, demonstrating the bad situation of neighborhood quality and dissatisfaction of residents.

References:

1. 1.      Adriaans, c. c. M. (2007): Measuring residential satisfaction: a residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Jornal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22, pp: 287-304.


2. 2.      Abdul Mohit, M. & KhanbashiRaja, A. (2014): Residential satisfa ction concept, theories and empirical studies, planning malaysia: urban Planning and Local Governance Volume III, pp: 47-66.


3. 3.      Caldieron, J. (2011): Residential satisfaction in La Perla informal neighborhood, San Juan, Puerto Rico. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 11, pp: 77-84.


4. 4.      Chen, L. Zhang, W. Z. & Yang, Y. Z. (2013): Disparities in residential environment and satisfaction among urban residents in Dalian, China. Habitat International, 40,pp: 100-108.


5. 5.       Djebuarni, R. & Al-Abed, A. (2000): Satisfaction level with neighbourhood in lowincome public housing in Yemen. Property Management, 18, pp: 230–242.


6. 6.      Economic Planning Unit (EPU). (2001): Eighth Malaysia plan (2001– 2005). Putrajaya:Prime Minister’s Department


7. 7.      . E. Shia (2010): An introduction to urban planning, university of science and technology publications, 1, Tehran.


8. 8.      Galster, G. C. (1987): Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: an empirical critique. Environment and Behavior, 19, pp: 539–568.


9. 9.      Huang, Z, & Du, X. (2015): Assessment and determinants of residential satisfaction with public housing in Hangzhou, China. journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ habit atint, 47, pp: 218-230.


10. 10.  H. Amid (1984): Amid Persian Dictionary, Amir Kabir publications, 1, Tehran.


11. 11.  Husna, S., & Nurijan, Y. (1987): Housing provision and satisfaction of low-income households in Kuala Lumpur. Habitat International, 11, pp: 27-38.


12. 12.  . Ibem, E. O. & Amole, D. (2012): Residential satisfaction in public core housing in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. Social Indicators Review, 113, pp: 563-581.


13. 13.  K. Habibi et al. (2010): Criticizing and scrutinizing the operational planning and policies of Mehr housing in Iran, Abadi quarterly, 19^th year, 69, Tehran, pp: 7-14.


14. 14.  K. Ziari (2010), Comparing the qualitative and quantitative indices of Mehr housing in Babel with those in urban points in country with a focus on the healthy city, Geographic Researches, 25^th year, 2, Mashhad, pp: 83-116.


15. 15.  K. Golkar (2001): the components of urban environment quality, Sofeh journal, 11^th year, 32, Tehran, pp: 38-68.


16. 16.  Lu, M. (1999): Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs regression models. Growth and Change, 30, pp: 264–287.


17. 17.  . Mahit, M. A., & Nazyddah, N. (2011): Social housing programme of selangor zakat board of Malaysia and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 26, pp: 143-164.


18. 18.  M. Pour-Mohammadi, and A. Asadi (2014):  Evaluating the housing projects in Zanjan, Geographic practical Research Journal, 14^th year, 33, pp: 171-192.


19. 19.  M. Por-Mohammadi (2013): Housing planning, Samt Publications, 1, Tehran.


20. 20.  M. Rafieian et al. (2014): Evaluating the residents’ satisfaction with the residential quality of Mehr housing, case study: Zahedan; Geography and Reginal-Urban Logistics, 4^th year, 12, Sistan-o-Baloochestan, pp. 135-150.


21. 21.  M. Rafieian, J. Moludi (2011): Approaches and methods on evaluating the urban residential environment quality, Azarakhsh publications, 1, Tehran.


22. 22.  M.R. Rahnama, and M. Kamandari (2015): Evaluating the residents’ satisfaction with residential environment quality in Kerman, case study: Mehregan city’s Mehr housing, urban zones studies journal, 2nd year, 2, Kerman, pp: 39-59.


23. 23.  M. Zanganeh, M. Ghahramani, and S. Goodarzi (207): Evaluating the residents’ satisfaction with the residential quality of Mehr housing in Hamedan, Haft-Hesar environmental studies, 6^th year, 22, Hamedan, pp: 31-44.


24. 24.  Oh, L.S. (2000): Housing satisfaction of middle income households in Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor. Dissertation, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia.


25. 25.  Parker, C. & Mathews, B. (2001): Customer satisfaction: contrasting academic and consumers’ interpretations", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19, pp: 38-44.


26. 26.  Razali, A. (1993): Transit house: privatisation of low-cost housing in peninsular Malaysia. In International seminar and exhibition on low-cost housing. Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.


27. 27.  Salleh, A. G. (2008): Neighbourhood factors in private low-cost housing in Malaysia. Habitat International, 32, pp: 485-494.


28. 28.  S.J. Hejazi, (2014): Evaluating the situation of Mehr housing from residents’ viewpoint; case-study: Mehr housing in Mahshahr, Social Development quarterly, 9^th year, 2, Ahvaz, pp: 239-256.


29. 29.  Sh. Hasanpour (1997): Reviewing the seminar held for ‘housing development policies in Iran’, Cooperation Journal, 16^th year, 68, Tehran, pp: 24-27.


30. 30.  Sulong, M. (1984): Perumahan Awam Kos Rendah di Terengganu: Isu, Masalah dan Penerimaan Masyarakat. Malaysia: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.


31. 31.  Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2013a) an Action Agenda for ‌Sustainable‌ Development.http ://unsdsn. org/files /2013/11/An-ActionAgenda-for-Sustainable-Development.pdf


32. 32.  Ukoha, O. M. & Beamish, J. O. (1997): Assessment of resident’s satisfaction with public housing in Abuja, Nigeria. Habitat International, 21, pp: 33,445-460.


33. 33.  Varady, D. P. & Carrozza, M. A. (2000): Towards a better way to measure customer satisfaction levels in public housing: a report from Cincinnati. Housing Studies,15, pp: 797–825.


34. 34.  Yang, Y. (2008): A tale of two cities: physical form and neighborhood satisfaction in metropolitan Portland and Charlotte. Journal of American Planning Association,74, pp: 307-323.