Objective and Subjective Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction in the Context of Retrofitting Suburbs
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Context and Aim of the Research
1.2. Theoretical Framework
1.2.1. Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction
1.2.2. Objective and Subjective Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction—Suburban Context
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. General Concept
2.2. Study Area
- Józefosław is an urban village adjacent to Warsaw that is connected to the city by public buses and was populated by 10,497 inhabitants in 2020 (data retrieved from the website of the municipality of Piaseczno: http://bip.piaseczno.eu/artykul/55/4150/demografia; accessed on 7 September 2021). It is diversified in terms of building types (single-family and multi-family houses). It is dominated by gated communities and private cul-de-sacs. It offers 38 units of other than residential functions (units of non-residential functions include bars, restaurants, banks, cash machines, pharmacies, shops, schools, post offices, local community centers, and churches [18]). Pedestrian infrastructure and recreational spaces are insufficient in relation to the area and the number of inhabitants. Józefosław represents a peripheral accretion form of urban sprawl.
- Żółwin and Owczarnia are two villages located much further from Warsaw than Józefosław, but are well connected to the city by commuter train, populated by 1637 (Żółwin) and 1455 (Owczarnia) inhabitants in 2019 (both data retrieved from the website of the municipality of Brwinów: https://bip.brwinow.pl/gmina-brwinow-w-liczbach; accessed on 7 September 2021). They are characterized by dispersed development, poor road and pedestrian infrastructures (the sidewalk along the main road makes the conditions for walking in Owczarnia much better than in Żółwin), and poor access to retail and services. Żółwin offers nine and Owczarnia five units with non-residential functions. Street layout in Żółwin consists of four intersecting main roads with cul-de-sacs perpendicular to them, while Owczarnia extends along one main road with cul-de-sacs on both sides. Only in the northern part of the village the road network is more grid-like. The whole area of Żółwin resembles a patchwork of houses, fields, and wasteland in between, so it represents the most dispersed type of urban sprawl, i.e., leap-frogging development. Owczarnia, in its larger part, is an example of ribbon sprawl (linear development) with intensive development along the main road and a rural landscape in the background.
2.3. Measurement of Objective Neighborhood Characteristics
2.4. Measurement of Subjective Neighborhood Characteristics
3. Results
- Factor 1. Assessed suburban assets. The first factor explains 16.3% of the total common variance and is represented by eight components relating to the level of satisfaction with the most important assets of the suburb. These assets, considered to be the factors attracting new residents, are as follows: landscape, the density of buildings (lower than in the city), little traffic and noise, safety, the possibility of walking, relaxing, and spending time in a natural setting.
- Factor 2. Assessed accessibility. The second factor explains 14.5% of the total common variance and is represented by seven components. It reflects satisfaction with the potential of the place of residence to meet basic needs (access to shops, schools, etc.) and to pursue aspiration, passions, and interest. The assessed accessibility also includes public transport and time spent commuting, as well as the access to places to spend free time. This factor can be referred to as accessibility, a category of the quality of suburban living environment (accessibility was used also in the assessment of the level of spatial chaos representing objective neighborhood characteristics).
- Factor 3. Assessed walkability. The third factor explains 10.9% of the total common variance and is represented by four components directly related to the level of the walkability of the suburb (conditions for walking and cycling, satisfaction with the safety of pedestrians and cyclists). Walkability, as with accessibility, was included in the synthetic indicator of spatial chaos.
- Factor 4. Assessed mental and social attitude. The fourth factor explains 10.5% of the total common variance. It includes five components, which determine wellbeing as well as mental and social predispositions of suburbanites towards the place of residence and co-residents (mental health, wellbeing, feeling of pride in the place of residence, satisfaction with relationships with people from the neighborhood, and possibilities to participate in social life).
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ewing, R. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1997, 63, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patacchini, E.; Zenou, Y. Urban Sprawl in Europe. Brook.-Whart. Pap. Urban Aff. 2009, 10, 125–149. [Google Scholar]
- Mantey, D. Żywiołowość’ Lokalizacji Osiedli Mieszkaniowych na Terenach Wiejskich Obszaru Metropolitalnego Warszawy [Spontaneity of Location of Housing Estates in Rural Areas of the Metropolitan Area of Warsaw]; Uniwersytet WarszawskiWydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych: Warsaw, Poland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kajdanek, K. Pomiędzy Miastem a Wsia˛. Suburbanizacja na Przykładzie Osiedli Podmiejskich Wrocławia [Between the City and the Village. Suburbanization on the Example of Wrocław Suburban Housing Estates]; NOMOS: Kraków, Poland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Tsenkova, S.; Nedović-Budić, Z. The Urban. Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe: Space, Institutions and Policy; Physica-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Sykora, L.; Ourednicek, M. Sprawling Post-Communist Metropolis: Commercial and Residential Suburbanisation in Prague and Brno, the Czech Republic. In Employment Deconcentration in European Metropolitan Areas: Market. Forces versus Planning Regulations; Dijst, M., Razin, E., Vazquez, C., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 209–234. [Google Scholar]
- Pichler-Milanović, N.; Gutry-Korycka, M.; Rink, D. Sprawl in the Post-Socialist City: The Changing Economic and Institutional Context of Central and Eastern European Cities. In Urban Sprawl in Europe, Landscape, Land-Use Change and Policy; Couch, C., Leontidou, L., Petschel-Held, G., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 102–135. [Google Scholar]
- Tammaru, T.; Ahas, R.; Leetmaa, K.; Silm, S. Temporal and Spatial Dynamics of the New Residential Areas Around Tallinn. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2009, 17, 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hirt, S. Iron Curtains: Gates, Suburbs and Privatization of Space in the Post-Socialist City; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK; Malden, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Stanilov, K.; Sýkora, L. Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Post-Socialist Central and Eastern Europe; JohnWiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Dinić, M.; Mitković, P. Suburban design: From “bedroom communities” to sustainable neighborhoods. Geod. Vestn. 2016, 60, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taubenböck, H.; Gerten, C.; Rusche, K.; Siedentop, S.; Wurm, M. Patterns of Eastern European urbanisation in the mirror of Western trends—Convergent, unique or hybrid? Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2019, 46, 1206–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zuziak, Z. Strefa podmiejska w architekturze miasta. W stronę nowej architektoniki regionu miejskiego [The suburban area in the city’s architecture. Towards a new architecture of the urban region]. In Problem Suburbanizacji [The Problem of Suburbanization]; Lorens, P., Ed.; Urbanista: Warsaw, Poland, 2005; pp. 17–32. [Google Scholar]
- Chmielewski, J.M. Problemy rozpraszania się zabudowy na obszarze metropolitalnym Warszawy [Problems of building dispersion in the metropolitan area of Warsaw]. In Problem Suburbanizacji [The Problem of Suburbanization]; Lorens, P., Ed.; Urbanista: Warsaw, Poland, 2005; pp. 52–62. [Google Scholar]
- Zimnicka, A.; Czernik, L. Kształtowanie Przestrzeni wsi Podmiejskiej. Raport z Badań Obszaru Oddziaływania Miasta Szczecin [Shaping the Space of a Suburban Village. Research Report on the Area of Influence of the City of Szczecin]; Hogben: Szczecin, Poland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Springer, F. Wanna z kolumnadą [A Bath with the Colonnade]; Wyd. Czarne: Wołowiec, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Solarek, K. Struktura Przestrzenna Strefy Podmiejskiej Warszawy: Determinanty Współczesnych Przekształceń [Spatial Structure of the Warsaw Suburban Zone: Determinants of Contemporary Transformations]; Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej: Warsaw, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Mantey, D.; Pokojski, W. New Indicators of Spatial Chaos in the Context of the Need for Retrofitting Suburbs. Land 2020, 9, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunham-Jones, E.; Willianson, J. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban. Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Marique, A.F.; Reiter, S. Retrofitting the Suburbs: Insulation, density, urban form and location. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 3, 138–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Talen, E. Retrofitting Sprawl: Addressing Seventy Years of Failed Urban Form; University of Georgia Press: Athens, GA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Tachieva, G. Sprawl Repair Manual; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Newman, M. The Compact City Fallacy. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2005, 25, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Permentier, M.; Bolt, G.; Van Ham, M. Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction and Perception of Neighborhood Reputation. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 977–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campbell, A.; Converse, P.E.; Rodgers, W.L. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfaction; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Larimian, T.; Sadeghi, A. Measuring Urban Social Sustainability: Scale Development and Validation. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2021, 48, 621–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grogan-Kaylor, A.; Alaimo, K.; Gant, L.; Gilster, M.; Karb, R.; MacFarlane, P.; Gant, L.; Woolley, M. Predictors of Neighborhood Satisfaction. J. Community Pract. 2006, 14, 27–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hur, M.; Morrow-Jones, H. Factors that influence residents’ satisfaction with neighborhoods. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 619–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galster, G.C.; Hesser, G.W. Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environ. Behav. 1981, 13, 735–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Young, R. Environmental Psychology. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Alexander, D.E., Fairbridge, R.W., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Hingham, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Galster, G. Homeowners and Neighborhood Reinvestment; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, M. Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. regression models. Growth Change 1999, 30, 264–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parkes, A.; Atkinson, R.; Kearns, A. What makes people dissatisfied with their neighborhoods? Urban Stud. 2002, 39, 2413–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodgers, W.L. Density, crowding, and satisfaction with the residential environment. Soc. Indic. Res. 1981, 10, 75–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mantey, D. Podmiejskie tereny otwarte–oczekiwania mieszkańców a lokalne dokumenty planistyczne (przykład podwarszawskiej gminy Lesznowola) [Suburban open areas-residents’ expectations and local planning documents (example of the Lesznowola municipality near Warsaw)]. Prace i Studia Geograficzne 2016, 61, 51–70. [Google Scholar]
- Wirth, L. Urbanism as a way of life. Am. J. Sociol. 1938, 44, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Jia, B.; Lau, S.S.Y. Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanization economy. Habitat Int. 2008, 32, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bramley, G.; Brown, C.; Dempsey, N.; Power, S.; Watkins, D. Social sustainability and urban form: Evidence from five British cities. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41, 2125–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, C.C. Components of neighborhood satisfaction responses from urban and suburban single-parent women. Environ. Behav. 1988, 20, 115–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howley, P.; Redmond, D.; Scott, M. Sustainability versus liveability: An investigation of neighborhood satisfaction. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 847–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arundel, R.; Ronald, R. The role of urban form in sustainability of community: The case of Amsterdam. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2017, 44, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrison, P.S. Subjective wellbeing and the city. Soc. Policy J. N. Z. 2007, 31, 74–103. [Google Scholar]
- Berry, B.J.L.; Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. An urban-rural happiness gradient. Urban Geogr. 2011, 32, 871–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballas, D.; Tranmer, M. Happy people or happy places? A multilevel modeling approach to the analysis of happiness and well-being. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2012, 35, 70–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sørensen, J.F.L. Rural-urban differences in life satisfaction: Evidence from the European Union. Reg. Stud. 2014, 48, 1451–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovejoy, K.; Handy, S.; Mokhtarian, P. Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An Evaluation of Contributing Characteristics in Eight California Neighborhoods. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basolo, V.; Strong, D. Understanding the neighborhood: From residents’ perceptions and needs to action. Hous. Policy Debate 2002, 13, 83–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R. Nature at the door step: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 1985, 2, 115–127. [Google Scholar]
- Kearney, A.R. Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction: Impacts of density and nearby nature. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 112–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, D. Why are whites and blacks averse to black neighbors? Soc. Sci. Res. 2001, 30, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohan, J.; Twigg, L. Sense of place, quality of life and local socioeconomic context: Evidence from the survey of English housing, 2002/03. Urban Stud. 2007, 44, 2029–2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peiser, R. Decomposing urban sprawl. Town Plan. Rev. 2001, 72, 275–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, N. Unearthing the roots of urban sprawl: A critical analysis of form, function and methodology. In CASA Working Papers 47; Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (UCL): London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Purevtseren, M.; Tsegmid, B.; Indra, M.; Sugar, M. The Fractal Geometry of Urban Land Use: The Case of Ulaanbaatar City, Mongolia. Land 2018, 7, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ye, Y.; van Nes, A. Quantitative tools in urban morphology: Combining space syntax, spacematrix and mixed-use index in a GIS framework. Urban Morphol. 2014, 18, 97–118. [Google Scholar]
- Blanchard, P.; Volchenkov, D. Mathematical Analysis of Urban Spatial Networks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Walk Score®. Available online: https://www.walkscore.com/ (accessed on 29 September 2021).
- Zhang, Y.; Van den Berg, A.E.; Van Dijk, T.; Weitkamp, G. Quality over Quantity: Contribution of urban Green space to neighborhood satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mesch, G.S.; Manor, O. Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 504–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Youjae, Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.M.; Cain, K.L.; Conway, T.L.; Frank, L.D.; Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F. The Relation of Perceived and Objective Environment Attributes to Neighborhood Satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 136–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruin, M.J.; Cook, C.C. Understanding constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income single-parent families. Environ. Behav. 1997, 29, 532–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dyck, D.; Cardon, G.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Deforche, B. Do adults like living in high-walkable neighborhoods? Associations of walkability parameters with neighborhood satisfaction and possible mediators. Health Place 2011, 17, 971–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacCulloch, A. Housing density as a predictor of neighborhood satisfaction among families with young children in urban England. Popul. Space Place 2012, 18, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, C.D.; Kweon, B.; Lee, S. Retail land use, neighborhood satisfaction and the urban forest: An investigation into the moderating and mediating effects of trees and shrubs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 74, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kweon, B.; Ellis, C.D.; Leiva, P.; Rogers, G.O. Landscape components, land use, and neighborhood satisfaction. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2010, 37, 500–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Stockard, J. Do smart-growth environments benefit single mothers? Evidence from thirty MSAs using the American Housing Survey data. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2013, 33, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beim, M. Modelowanie Procesu Suburbanizacji w Aglomeracji Poznańskiej [Modeling the Suburbanization Process in the Poznań Agglomeration]; Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Poznań, Poland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kajdanek, K. Suburbanizacja po Polsku [Suburbanization in the Polish Version]; NOMOS: Kraków, Poland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Leslie, E.; Cerin, E. Are perceptions of the local environment related to neighborhood satisfaction and mental health in adults? Prev. Med. 2008, 47, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jong, K.; Albin, M.; Björk, J.; Grahn, P.; Skärbäck, E. Perceived green qualities were associated with neighborhood satisfaction, physical activity, and general health: Results from a cross-sectional study in suburban and rural Scania, southern Sweden. Health Place 2012, 18, 1374–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hur, M.; Nasar, J.L. Physical upkeep, perceived upkeep, fear of crime and neighborhood satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mantey, D. Wzorzec Miejskiej Przestrzeni Publicznej w Konfrontacji z Podmiejską Rzeczywistością [A Model of Urban Public Space in Confrontation with Suburban Reality]; WUW: Warsaw, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Jansen, S. Why is housing always satisfactory? A study into the impact of preference and experience on housing appreciation. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 113, 785–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jansen, S. Why is housing always satisfactory? A study into the impact of cognitive restructuring and future perspectives on housing appreciation. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 116, 353–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Józefosław Peripheral Accretion | Owczarnia Linear Development | Żółwin Leap-Frogging Development | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Original Values | ||||
spatial density of the public road network | d | 7228 | 9265 | 7188 |
the number of four- or three-way intersections in relation to the number of cul-de-sacs | d | 1.9 | 1.32 | 1.61 |
the length of public roads with a pavement in relation to the total length of roads | d | 48 | 6 | 6 |
the type of pedestrian design | d | 4 | 2 | 2 |
the number of units of non-residential functions concentrated in clusters in relation to the total number of such units | d | 60 | 57 | 33 |
the average straight line distance between all units of non-residential functions | s | 853 | 917 | 749 |
straight line distance from the center of gravity of the suburb to the nearest public objects | s | 310 | 603 | 568 |
the longest walking distance among all walking distances between a house located in the suburb and a nearest grocery | s | 1320 | 2900 | 2550 |
the location of the main local park | d | 3 | 2 | 1 |
public open space area per 1000 residents in relation to the standard value of 2.83 ha/1000 people | d | 0.33 | 0.42 | 0.44 |
Synthetic indicator of spatial chaos | ||||
0.047 | 0.090 | 0.093 |
Characteristic | Owczarnia | Żółwin | Józefosław | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
Gender | ||||
Male | 28 (51.9) | 67 (41.4) | 101 (45.3) | 196 (44.6) |
Female | 26 (48.1) | 95 (58.6) | 122 (54.7) | 243 (55.4) |
Age | ||||
18–25 years | 9 (16.7) | 17 (10.4) | 35 (15.8) | 61 (13.9) |
26–35 years | 16 (29.6) | 44 (27.0) | 54 (24.3) | 114 (26.0) |
18–25 years | 12 (22.2) | 49 (30.1) | 59 (26.6) | 120 (27.3) |
46–55 years | 10 (18.5) | 23 (14.1) | 34 (15.3) | 67 (15.3) |
56–65 years | 5 (9.3) | 17 (10.4) | 21 (9.5) | 43 (9.8) |
above 65 years | 2 (3.7) | 13 (8.0) | 19 (8.6) | 34 (7.7) |
Place of residence: | ||||
gated community | 4 (7.3) | 14 (9.0) | 129 (58.1) | 147 (33.9) |
outside of gated community | 51 (92.7) | 142 (91.0) | 93 (41.9) | 286 (66.1) |
Type of building: | ||||
flat in multifamily building (3 floors or more) | 3 (5.4) | 1 (0.6) | 26 (11.7) | 30 (6.8) |
flat in multifamily building (up to 3 floors) | 5 (8.9) | 12 (7.3) | 99 (44.6) | 116 (26.2) |
detached or semidetached house | 48 (85.7) | 152 (92.1) | 97 (43.7) | 297 (67.0) |
Total | Owczarnia | Żółwin | Józefosław | ANOVA | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
Neighborhood satisfaction | ||||||||||
2. Taking into account the location of your home and the overall conditions related to the neighborhood you live in, how satisfied you are with your current place of residence? | 445 | 1.29 | 0.787 | 1.37 | 0.879 | 1.45 | 0.775 | 1.15 | 0.723 | ** |
Subjective assessment of walkability/bikeability | ||||||||||
9. To what extent does your neighborhood encourage you to cycle? | 440 | 0.63 | 1.152 | 0.64 | 1.034 | 0.71 | 1.227 | 0.58 | 1.126 | |
11.a. How much do you agree with the statement that there are many places in your neighborhood that you can easily walk to? | 437 | 0.49 | 1.231 | 0.98 | 1.080 | 0.34 | 1.263 | 0.47 | 1.217 | ** |
11.b. How much do you agree with the statement that you have many alternative routes in the surroundings of your place of residence? | 433 | 0.26 | 1.183 | 0.69 | 1.006 | 0.38 | 1.197 | 0.06 | 1.179 | ** |
3.k. How satisfied are you with the possibility to walk in your neighborhood? | 439 | 1.35 | 0.894 | 1.61 | 0.620 | 1.63 | 0.762 | 1.08 | 0.962 | ** |
3.m. How satisfied are you with the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in your neighborhood? | 445 | 0.51 | 1.188 | 0.74 | 1.044 | 0.55 | 1.299 | 0.43 | 1.132 | |
Subjective assessment of accessibility | ||||||||||
3.d. How satisfied are you with the ability to meet basic needs in your neighborhood? | 446 | 0.82 | 1.136 | 0.60 | 1.237 | 0.87 | 1.173 | 0.84 | 1.078 | |
3.e. How satisfied are you with the access to attractive places FOR YOU to spend free time near the place of residence? | 443 | 0.31 | 1.215 | 0.04 | 1.264 | 0.35 | 1.297 | 0.35 | 1.133 | |
3.f. How satisfied are you with the access to attractive places FOR YOUR UNDERAGE CHILDREN to spend free time near the place of residence? | 339 | 0.19 | 1.137 | 0.02 | 1.300 | 0.24 | 1.160 | 0.20 | 1.075 | |
3.g. How satisfied are you with public transport (access and frequency?) | 436 | 0.05 | 1.276 | 0.36 | 1.128 | 0.12 | 1.269 | −0.08 | 1.303 | * |
3.h. How satisfied are you with commuting time to work/studies? | 397 | 0.15 | 1.323 | 0.27 | 1.330 | 0.57 | 1.101 | −0.19 | 1.380 | ** |
Subjective assessment of the typical spatial assets of the suburban living environment | ||||||||||
3.a. How satisfied are you with the landscape of your neighborhood? | 448 | 1.28 | 0.842 | 1.37 | 0.899 | 1,53 | 0.718 | 1.08 | 0.862 | ** |
3.b. How satisfied are you with the density of buildings in your neighborhood? | 445 | 0.68 | 1.145 | 1.16 | 1.082 | 1.10 | 0.963 | 0.25 | 1.126 | ** |
3.c. How satisfied are you with the type (single-family versus multi-family) and height of buildings that dominate in your neighborhood? | 439 | 1.03 | 0.986 | 1.44 | 0.918 | 1.33 | 0.847 | 0.71 | 0.994 | ** |
3.i. How satisfied are you with the general level of traffic on the roads and traffic noise in your neighborhood? | 444 | 0.71 | 1.236 | 0.84 | 1.306 | 1.16 | 0.940 | 0.35 | 1.299 | ** |
3.j. How satisfied are you with the possibility of spending time in a natural setting near your place of residence? | 445 | 1.42 | 0.845 | 1.60 | 0.678 | 1.72 | 0.661 | 1.17 | 0.922 | ** |
3.l. How satisfied are you with the general level of safety (except road safety) in your neighborhood? | 445 | 1.13 | 0.908 | 1.34 | 0.837 | 1.25 | 0.920 | 0.99 | 0.896 | ** |
3.n. How satisfied are you with the general conditions for rest, relaxation, or stress relief in your neighborhood? | 447 | 1.17 | 0.988 | 1.28 | 0.921 | 1.57 | 0.724 | 0.84 | 1.060 | ** |
4.d. To what extent the area where you live allows you to spend your free time in a way that suits you best? | 440 | 0.81 | 1.487 | 0.54 | 1.293 | 1.07 | 1.046 | 0.59 | 1.017 | ** |
4.b. To what extent does your current place of residence allow you to pursue your aspirations, passions, and interests? | 443 | 0.59 | 1.054 | 0.32 | 1.162 | 0.85 | 1.041 | 0.47 | 0.999 | ** |
Subjective assessment of overall wellbeing and mental predisposition | ||||||||||
3.o. How satisfied are you with your overall mental health, wellbeing, and attitude to life? | 448 | 1.27 | 0.893 | 1.40 | 0.728 | 1.40 | 0.892 | 1.14 | 0.917 | ** |
Subjective assessment of the social environment | ||||||||||
4.a. To what extent do your relationships with people in the neighborhood meet your expectations? | 445 | 0.81 | 1.051 | 0.93 | 0.997 | 0.90 | 1.057 | 0.71 | 1.056 | |
4.c. To what extent does the area of residence allow you to participate in social life? | 442 | 0.49 | 1.129 | 0.32 | 1.227 | 0.64 | 1.138 | 0.42 | 1.089 | |
10. To what extent do you feel proud of your neighborhood? | 445 | 0.77 | 1.003 | 0.67 | 1.170 | 0.98 | 0.978 | 0.65 | 0.954 | ** |
11.c. How much do you agree with the statement that you feel a kind of closeness to people who live in your neighborhood? | 428 | 0.48 | 1.217 | 0.65 | 1.109 | 0.70 | 1.193 | 0.28 | 1.233 | ** |
Factors and Components (Numbers of Questions) | Factor Loading Range | Eigenvalues | % Variance Explained after Rotation | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1: Assessed suburban assets (3.j, 3.n, 3.i, 3b, 3.c, 3.k, 3.l, 3.a) | 0.560–0.719 | 7.028 | 16.277 | 0.818 |
Factor 2: Assessed accessibility (3.e, 3.d, 4.d, 3.g, 3.f, 3.h, 4.b) | 0.521–0.789 | 2.310 | 14.534 | 0.768 |
Factor 3: Assessed walkability (11.a, 11.b, 3.m, 9) | 0.618–0.738 | 1.898 | 10.943 | 0.697 |
Factor 4: Assessed mental and social attitude (11.c, 4.a, 4.c, 10, 3.o) | 0.403–0.687 | 1.303 | 10.490 | 0.666 |
Total | 52.244 |
Unstandardized Coefficients (B) | Standard Errors | Standardized Coefficients (Beta) | Partial Correlations | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | 1.085 | 0.115 | <0.001 | ||
Assessed suburban assets | 0.136 | 0.036 | 0.200 | 0.229 | <0.001 |
Assessed accessibility | 0.323 | 0.034 | 0.453 | 0.508 | <0.001 |
Assessed walkability | 0.104 | 0.033 | 0.155 | 0.197 | 0.002 |
Assessed mental and social attitude | 0.210 | 0.035 | 0.292 | 0.355 | <0.001 |
Synthetic indicator of spatial chaos | 4.341 | 1.586 | 0.146 | 0.169 | 0.007 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mantey, D. Objective and Subjective Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction in the Context of Retrofitting Suburbs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111954
Mantey D. Objective and Subjective Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction in the Context of Retrofitting Suburbs. Sustainability. 2021; 13(21):11954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111954
Chicago/Turabian StyleMantey, Dorota. 2021. "Objective and Subjective Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction in the Context of Retrofitting Suburbs" Sustainability 13, no. 21: 11954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111954