Exploring the Factors Affecting User Satisfaction in Poverty Alleviation Relocation Housing for Minorities through Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Case Study of Pu’er
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Minority Poverty Alleviation Relocation
2.2. Residential Environment Theory Perspective
2.3. Post-Occupancy Evaluation Methods and Housing Satisfaction Factors
3. Material and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Evaluation Framework
3.3. Formatting of Mathematical Components
3.4. Data Collection and Testing
4. Result
4.1. Satisfaction Evaluation Results
4.2. Influence of Sub-Variable Satisfaction Elements on Overall Satisfaction
4.3. Influence of Socio-Demographic Variables on Overall Satisfaction
5. Discussion and Recommendations
- Improvement of dwelling units.
- The study shows that housing space design has the strongest correlation with overall satisfaction, but it performs poorly in terms of satisfaction, while household size and income are significant influencing factors. In future design, designers should consider reserving space for expansion, which can allow residents to add on the second floor or other spaces when they have the financial ability. In addition, villagers pay more attention to outdoor private space and auxiliary space than living space, and future design should consider breeding space, planting space, storage space, and parking space for agricultural machinery to maximize space utilization. To solve the problem of the physical environment, we can try to adopt high-science and low-technology construction technology [76] and combine modern materials with traditional materials [77] to improve thermal comfort performance and reduce energy use and thus the burden on homes [78]. Likewise, building durability is an important factor in improving satisfaction, and resettlement houses, which perform poorly in terms of water and moisture resistance and renovation quality, should be inspected and monitored throughout the building construction phase. In PAR construction, good housing quality contributes to integration into the new community [79].
- Perfection of the community environment.
- The ESPAR project relocates poor people to areas with better living conditions, and the villagers are more satisfied with the performance of infrastructure and environmental livability. It is worth noting that production facilities strongly correlate with overall satisfaction, so it is necessary to consider planning adjacent production land or planning new production methods in the village design to achieve the goal of PAR increase and livelihood restoration [14]. As for the regional characteristics, we should deeply interpret the characteristics of the traditional houses of ethnic minorities, adopt the strategy of “local technology, local materials and local labor” [80], train local craftsmen, and build new houses with ethnic characteristics while reducing economic pressure. Furthermore, the future design should pay more attention to the local attachment needs, living habits, and cultural customs of ethnic minorities, such as preserving and improving the space of fire pits and inheriting the landscape genes, etc., and continuously explore economically affordable and technically feasible ways to update the built environment and ethnic culture, so as to prevent the relocation of relocated people who have not adapted to the environment and experience homesickness.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hu, W.; Xie, Y.; Yan, S.; Zhou, X.; Li, C. The Reshaping of Neighboring Social Networks after Poverty Alleviation Relocation in Rural China: A Two-Year Observation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Xu, J.; Li, J. The Influence of Poverty Alleviation Resettlement on Rural Household Livelihood Vulnerability in the Western Mountainous Areas, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, C.; Guo, M.; Li, S.; Feldman, M. The Impact of the Anti-Poverty Relocation and Settlement Program on Rural Households’ Well-Being and Ecosystem Dependence: Evidence from Western China. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2021, 34, 40–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, S.; Li, J.; Lo, K.; Guo, H.; Li, C. China’s Rapidly Evolving Practice of Poverty Resettlement: Moving Millions to Eliminate Poverty. Dev. Policy Rev. 2020, 38, 541–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lestrelin, G. Rethinking State–Ethnic Minority Relations in Laos: Internal Resettlement, Land Reform and Counter-Territorialization. Political Geogr. 2011, 30, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Withers, G. Reconstituting Rural Communities and Economies: The Newfoundland Fisheries Household Resettlement Program, 1965–1970. Ph.D. Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- McClure, K.; Schwartz, A.F. Neighbourhood Opportunity, Racial Segregation, and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program in the United States. Hous. Stud. 2021, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aliprantis, D. Racial Inequality, Neighborhood Effects, and Moving to Opportunity. Econ. Comment. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marais, L.; Ntema, J. The Upgrading of an Informal Settlement in South Africa: Two Decades Onwards. Habitat Int. 2013, 39, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, D.; Jia, Z.; Zhou, Z. Place Attachment in the Ex-Situ Poverty Alleviation Relocation: Evidence from Different Poverty Alleviation Migrant Communities in Guizhou Province, China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, K.; Xue, L.; Wang, M. Spatial Restructuring through Poverty Alleviation Resettlement in Rural China. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 496–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Development and Reform Commission. The Task of China’s Ex-Situ Poverty Alleviation Relocation during the 13th Five-Year Plan Period Has Been Completed. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/fzggw/wld/zcx/lddt/202012/t20201203_1252215.html (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Leng, G.; Feng, X.; Qiu, H. Income Effects of Poverty Alleviation Relocation Program on Rural Farmers in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 891–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Li, S.; Feldman, M.W.; Li, J.; Zheng, H.; Daily, G.C. The Impact on Rural Livelihoods and Ecosystem Services of a Major Relocation and Settlement Program: A Case in Shaanxi, China. Ambio 2018, 47, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Webber, M.; McDonald, B. Involuntary Resettlement, Production and Income: Evidence from Xiaolangdi, PRC. World Dev. 2004, 32, 673–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagani, A.; Binder, C.R. A Systems Perspective for Residential Preferences and Dwellings: Housing Functions and Their Role in Swiss Residential Mobility. Hous. Stud. 2021, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Y.; He, J.; Han, H.; Zhang, W. Evaluating Residents’ Satisfaction with Market-Oriented Urban Village Transformation: A Case Study of Yangji Village in Guangzhou, China. Cities 2019, 95, 102394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kshetrimayum, B.; Bardhan, R.; Kubota, T. Factors Affecting Residential Satisfaction in Slum Rehabilitation Housing in Mumbai. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Y.; de Sherbinin, A.; Liu, Y. China’s Poverty Alleviation Resettlement: Progress, Problems and Solutions. Habitat Int. 2020, 98, 102135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Development and Reform Commission. China’s Ex-Situ Poverty Alleviation Relocation Policy. Alleviation Relocation Policy. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/fzggw/jgsj/dqs/sjdt/201803/t20180330_1050716.html (accessed on 22 May 2022).
- Zhang, L.; Hong-Ru, D.U.; Lei, J.Q.; Xia, F.Q.; Huo, J.W. Influencing Factors of Reconstructing the Rural Residential Areas in Minority Area in Hotan, Xinjiang. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2016, 26, 136–147. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, Z.; Li, Y.; Yin, H. Selection of Relocation Program for Poverty Alleviation Based on GIS Technology in Lushui County. Trop. Geogr. 2009, 29, 567–571. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Xiong, J.; Yang, H. Study on the Impact of Farmers’ Poverty-alleviation Relocation on Livelihood in Minority Areas Based on Quasi-natural Experimental. China Soft Sci. Mag. 2022, 129, 135–148. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ma, M.; Chen, S.; Tao, S.; Cao, Z. Livelihood strategy, livelihood capital and family income of immigrants involved in poverty alleviation relocation in deeply impoverished ethnic minority areas of Yunnan province. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2021, 35, 1–10. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- HU, W.; UBAURA, M. A Study on Social Integration after Collective Relocation Projects for Poverty Alleviation in China (Part 1): Focusing on Social and Spatial Isolation. J. Archit. Plan. 2021, 86, 925–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, R.; Xu, Q.; Wang, Z. A Study on Cultural Conflict in Relocation Areas for Poverty Alleviation in Ethnic Areas. Inn. Mong. Sci. Technol. Econ. 2020, 21, 15–16. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Luo, C.; Yang, H. Cultural Identity of Migrants and the Development of Ethnic Relations-Take the Ex-Situ Relocation in Enle Township, Zhen Yuan County of the Ku Cong Tribe as an Example. J. Simao Teach. Coll. 2011, 27, 13–16. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liu, L.; Huang, B. Relocation and Protection and Inheritance of National Culture-Take Qianxinan Prefecture as an Example. J. Xingyi Norm. Univ. Natl. 2020, 3, 89–93. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, X.; Duan, Y. Study on the Mode of Poverty-Alleviation Resettlement of Yi People Scattering in Laojun Mountain. J. Dali Univ. 2022, 7, 58–63. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xie, D.; Yang, X.; Qi, F.; Li, L. Multi-Ethnic Embedding Model and Effectiveness Evaluation of Relocation Communities for Poverty Alleviation in Xinjiang. Minzu Trib. 2021, 3, 94–101. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Peng, H. Study on the Application of Yao Culture in Landscape Design of Relocation Aimed at Poverty Alleviation of Resettlement Areas. Design 2020, 33, 150–151. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Tan, L.; Yan, Z.; Yang, L. Research on Regeneration of Traditional Immature Soil Dwellings. Archit. Cult. 2007, 6, 42–44. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Sarkar, A.; Bardhan, R. Socio-Physical Liveability through Socio-Spatiality in Low-Income Resettlement Archetypes—A Case of Slum Rehabilitation Housing in Mumbai, India. Cities 2020, 105, 102840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalinowski, S. A Multidimensional Comparative Analysis of Poverty Statuses in European Union Countries. Int. J. Econ. Sci. 2022, 11, 146–160. [Google Scholar]
- Rapoport, A. Housing, Culture, and Design: A Comparative Perspective; University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2016; ISBN 1-5128-0428-2. [Google Scholar]
- Henilane, I. The evaluation of housing situation in latvia. In Proceedings of the XVI Turiba University Conference Towards Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Europe: Challenges for Future Development, Riga, Latvian, 29 May 2015; pp. 93–106. [Google Scholar]
- Doxiadis, C.A. Ekistics, the Science of Human Settlements: Ekistics Starts with the Premise That Human Settlements Are Susceptible of Systematic Investigation. Science 1970, 170, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asami, Y. Residential Environment: Methods and Theory for the Evaluation; Tokyo University Press: Tokyo, Japan, 2001; ISBN 978-4-13-062202-8. [Google Scholar]
- Ge, J.; Hokao, K. Residential Environment Index System and Evaluation Model Established by Subjective and Objective Methods. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 2004, 5, 1028–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Zhang, W.; Yang, Y.; Yu, J. Disparities in Residential Environment and Satisfaction among Urban Residents in Dalian, China. Habitat Int. 2013, 40, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skalicky, V.; Čerpes, I. Comprehensive Assessment Methodology for Liveable Residential Environment. Cities 2019, 94, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Sun, H.; Chen, B.; Xia, X.; Li, P. China’s Rural Human Settlements: Qualitative Evaluation, Quantitative Analysis and Policy Implications. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, G.; He, Y.; Tang, C.; Yu, T.; Xiao, G.; Zhong, T. Dynamic Mechanism and Present Situation of Rural Settlement Evolution in China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2013, 23, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Qin, X.; Li, Y. Satisfaction Evaluation of Rural Human Settlements in Northwest China: Method and Application. Land 2021, 10, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preiser, W.F.; White, E.; Rabinowitz, H. Post-Occupancy Evaluation (Routledge Revivals); Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Zimring, C.M.; Reizenstein, J.E. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An Overview. Environ. Behav. 1980, 12, 429–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, P.; Froese, T.M.; Brager, G. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: State-of-the-Art Analysis and State-of-the-Practice Review. Build. Environ. 2018, 133, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- British Standards Institute(BSI). Building Performance Evaluation of Occupied and Operational Buildings(Using Data Gathered from Tests, Measurements, Observation and User Experience); British Standards Institute(BSI): London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Sanchez Leitner, D.; Christine Sotsek, N.; de Paula Lacerda Santos, A. Postoccupancy Evaluation in Buildings: Systematic Literature Review. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2020, 34, 03119002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leaman, A.; Stevenson, F.; Bordass, B. Building Evaluation: Practice and Principles. Build. Res. Inf. 2010, 38, 564–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X. An Environmental Quality Post Occupancy Evaluation on Habitable Space of Typical Affordable Housing in Guangzhou and Exploration on the Sensitivity of Evaluation Indexes. J. Hum. Settl. West China 2017, 32, 23–29. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Adaji, M.U.; Adekunle, T.O.; Watkins, R.; Adler, G. Indoor Comfort and Adaptation in Low-Income and Middle-Income Residential Buildings in a Nigerian City during a Dry Season. Build. Environ. 2019, 162, 106276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becerra-Santacruz, H.; Patlakas, P.; Altan, H. Evaluation and Visualisation of Mexican Mass Housing Thermal Performance. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Sustain. 2019, 172, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moustafa, W.S.; Abdelrahman, M.M.; Hegazy, I.R. Building Performance Assessment of User Behaviour as a Post Occupancy Evaluation Indicator: Case Study on Youth Housing in Egypt. In Proceedings of the Building Simulation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 11, pp. 389–403. [Google Scholar]
- Galster, G.C.; Hesser, G.W. Residential Satisfaction: Compositional and Contextual Correlates. Environ. Behav. 1981, 13, 735–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, M. Determinants of Residential Satisfaction: Ordered Logit vs. Regression Models. Growth Chang. 1999, 30, 264–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, A.M.M. Residential Satisfaction in Housing Estates: A Hong Kong Perspective. Autom. Constr. 1999, 8, 511–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wongbumru, T.; Dewancker, B. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of User Satisfaction: A Case Study of “Old” and “New” Public Housing Schemes in Bangkok. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2016, 12, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowaltowski, D.C.; da Silva, V.G.; Pina, S.A.; Labaki, L.C.; Ruschel, R.C.; de Carvalho Moreira, D. Quality of Life and Sustainability Issues as Seen by the Population of Low-Income Housing in the Region of Campinas, Brazil. Habitat. Int. 2006, 30, 1100–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kantrowitz, M.; Nordhaus, R. The Impact of Post-Occupancy Evaluation Research: A Case Study. Environ. Behav. 1980, 12, 508–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibem, E.O.; Opoko, A.P.; Adeboye, A.B.; Amole, D. Performance Evaluation of Residential Buildings in Public Housing Estates in Ogun State, Nigeria: Users’ Satisfaction Perspective. Front. Archit. Res. 2013, 2, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Husin, H.N.; Nawawi, A.H.; Ismail, F.; Khalil, N. Improving Safety Performance through Post Occupancy Evaluations (POE): A Study of Malaysian Low-Cost Housing. J. Facil. Manag. 2018, 16, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, F.; Liu, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Yan, H.; Zhang, Y.; Li, L.-H. Evaluation of the Human Settlements Environment of Public Housing Community: A Case Study of Guangzhou. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dikmen, N.; Elias-Ozkan, S.T. Housing after Disaster: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of a Reconstruction Project. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 19, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharmin, T.; Khalid, R. Post Occupancy and Participatory Design Evaluation of a Marginalized Low-Income Settlement in Ahmedabad, India. Build. Res. Inf. 2022, 50, 574–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, W.; Han, M. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Review of Methods and State-of-the-Art Techniques. Time Archit. 2019, 4, 46–51. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H. Pu’er Ethnic Culture Overview; Yunnan University Press: Kunming, China, 2009; ISBN 78-7-81112-851-2. [Google Scholar]
- People’s Government of Pu’er City. Pu’er Overview. Available online: http://www.puershi.gov.cn/pegk/rkmz.htm (accessed on 5 July 2022).
- Development and Reform Commission of Pu’er. Typical Cases of Ex-Situ Poverty Alleviation Relocation in Pu’er City. Available online: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_10448936 (accessed on 5 July 2022).
- Sinha, R.C.; Sarkar, S.; Mandal, N.R. An Overview of Key Indicators and Evaluation Tools for Assessing Housing Quality: A Literature Review. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2017, 98, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamane, T. An Introductory Analysis of Statistics; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, Y.; He, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, D. Impact of Building Environment on Residential Satisfaction: A Case Study of Ningbo. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borgersen, T.A. Social Housing Policy in a Segmented Housing Market: Indirect Effects on Markets and Individuals. Int. J. Econ. Sci. 2019, 8, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Souksavath, B.; Nakayama, M. Reconstruction of the Livelihood of Resettlers from the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project in Laos. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2013, 29, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, B.; Ahsan, M.N.; Mallick, B. Analysis of Residential Satisfaction: An Empirical Evidence from Neighbouring Communities of Rohingya Camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wan, L.; Ng, E. High Science and Low Technology for Sustainable Rural Development. Archit. Des. 2020, 90, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, J.; Lu, S. The Renovation of Folk Houses of Enthnic Groups under Critical Regionalism: A Case Study of Lisu Folk Houses in Ganyita Village, Nu River Valley, Yunnan Province. South Archit. 2017, 5, 109–115. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Čermáková, K.; Hromada, E. Change in the Affordability of Owner-Occupied Housing in the Context of Rising Energy Prices. Energies 2022, 15, 1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabaieh, M.; Alwall, J. Building Now and Building Back. Refugees at the Centre of an Occupant Driven Design and Construction Process. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, X.; Ng, E.; Wan, L. How to Provide “Better” Rammed-Earth Buildings to Villagers after Earthquake in Southwest China-A Case Study of Ludian Reconstruction Project. In Proceedings of the PLEA 2017 EDINBURGH, Edinburgh, UK, 16 August 2017. [Google Scholar]
Target Layer | Field Layer | Index Layer |
---|---|---|
Post-occupancy evaluation of minority ESPAR housing | H Housing space design | H1 Living spaces |
H2 Indoor support spaces | ||
H3 Private outdoor space (courtyard, vegetable garden, etc.) | ||
P Physical environment | P1 Thermal comfort (ventilation, shade, temperature, humidity) | |
P2 Daylighting | ||
P3 Acoustic insulation | ||
P4 Indoor air quality | ||
BS Building Safety | BS1 Protection safety (includes barrier-free) | |
BS2 Structural safety | ||
BS3 Fire safety | ||
BS4 Anti-theft security | ||
BS5 Geo-security | ||
BD Building durability | BD1 Envelop enclosure | |
BD2 Decoration | ||
BD3 Waterproof and moisture-proof | ||
BD4 Equipment and pipeline | ||
I Infrastructure | I1 Transport facilities (roads, parking, street lamps, signs) | |
I2 Production facilities (workshops/factories, farms, arable land, etc.) | ||
I3 Public service facilities (educational facilities, recreational facilities, medical stations, community centers, etc.) | ||
I4 Municipal public facilities (water supply, electricity, network systems, public toilets, sanitation, etc.) | ||
I5 Commercial facilities | ||
E Environmental Livability | E1 Ecological environment (ecology, pollution, taboos) | |
E2 Social environment (public security, organization) | ||
E3 Greening environment | ||
E4 Planning layout | ||
E5 Traffic convenience | ||
R Regional Features | R1 Minority architectural style | |
R2 Minority cultural customs | ||
R3 Local building materials | ||
R4 Local landscape gene |
Variable | Attribute | Percentage (%) | Mean | Std. Dev. |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 56.6 | 1.43 | 0.5 |
Female | 43.4 | |||
Age (years) | 15–29 | 15.9 | 2.36 | 0.84 |
30–44 | 39.2 | |||
45–59 | 37.5 | |||
≥60 | 7.4 | |||
Education | Primary school or under | 77.5 | 1.31 | 0.64 |
Junior high school | 16.2 | |||
Senior high school | 4.7 | |||
College or above | 1.7 | |||
Household income (yuan/year/per) | ≤3000 | 0 | 3.27 | 0.72 |
3001–5000 | 16.2 | |||
5001–10,000 | 40.2 | |||
>10,000 | 43.6 | |||
Income source | Planting industry | 56.6 | 1.67 | 0.88 |
Breeding industry | 22.5 | |||
Out-migration for work | 18.4 | |||
Self-employed | 2 | |||
Other | 0.5 | |||
Family size | Single | 4.2 | 3.34 | 0.86 |
Married without child | 6.1 | |||
Two generations | 47.8 | |||
Three generations | 35.3 | |||
Four generations | 6.6 |
Explanatory Variable | Mean | Std. | r | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1 Living spaces | 4.10 | 0.60 | 0.430 *** | 0.000 |
H2 Indoor support spaces | 3.91 | 0.79 | 0.527 *** | 0.000 |
H3 Private outdoor spaces | 3.85 | 0.84 | 0.572 *** | 0.000 |
Housing space design | 3.95 | 0.58 | 0.667 *** | 0.000 |
P1 Thermal comfort | 3.86 | 0.79 | 0.708 *** | 0.000 |
P2 Daylighting | 4.42 | 0.61 | 0.440 *** | 0.000 |
P3 Acoustic insulation | 4.53 | 0.50 | 0.430 *** | 0.000 |
P4 Indoor Air Quality | 4.67 | 0.48 | 0.362 *** | 0.000 |
Physical environment | 4.37 | 0.48 | 0.628 *** | 0.000 |
BS1 Protection safety | 4.49 | 0.59 | 0.487 *** | 0.000 |
BS2 Structural safety | 4.34 | 0.66 | 0.501 *** | 0.000 |
BS3 Fire safety | 4.45 | 0.56 | 0.354 *** | 0.000 |
BS4 Anti-theft security | 4.33 | 0.66 | 0.442 *** | 0.000 |
BS5 Geo-security | 4.68 | 0.49 | 0.489 *** | 0.000 |
Building Safety | 4.46 | 0.45 | 0.602 *** | 0.000 |
BD1 Envelop enclosure | 3.94 | 0.71 | 0.544 *** | 0.000 |
BD2 Decoration | 3.77 | 0.73 | 0.561 *** | 0.000 |
BD3 Waterproof and Moisture-proof | 3.46 | 0.69 | 0.609 *** | 0.000 |
BD4 Equipment and Pipeline | 4.61 | 0.49 | 0.375 *** | 0.000 |
Building durability | 3.95 | 0.53 | 0.660 *** | 0.000 |
I1 Transport facilities | 4.54 | 0.56 | 0.308 *** | 0.000 |
I2 Production facilities | 4.25 | 0.81 | 0.553 *** | 0.000 |
I3 Public service facilities | 4.62 | 0.51 | 0.358 *** | 0.000 |
I4 Municipal public facilities | 4.59 | 0.51 | 0.336 *** | 0.000 |
I5 Commercial facilities | 4.39 | 0.64 | 0.263 *** | 0.000 |
Infrastructure | 4.48 | 0.45 | 0.502 *** | 0.000 |
E1 Ecological environment | 4.53 | 0.61 | 0.443 *** | 0.000 |
E2 Social environment | 4.52 | 0.60 | 0.438 *** | 0.000 |
E3 Greening environment | 4.61 | 0.53 | 0.369 *** | 0.000 |
E4 Planning layout | 4.11 | 0.75 | 0.529 *** | 0.000 |
E5 Traffic convenience | 4.29 | 0.64 | 0.352 *** | 0.000 |
Environmental Livability | 4.41 | 0.48 | 0.561 *** | 0.000 |
R1 Minority architectural style | 4.02 | 0.81 | 0.595 *** | 0.000 |
R2 Minority cultural customs | 3.89 | 0.77 | 0.674 *** | 0.000 |
R3 Local building materials | 4.11 | 0.75 | 0.572 *** | 0.000 |
R4 Local landscape gene | 4.59 | 0.56 | 0.469 *** | 0.000 |
Regional Features | 4.15 | 0.64 | 0.665 *** | 0.000 |
Variable | Coef | Std. Error | t | Sig. | VIF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Constant) | 0.027 | 0.188 | 0.141 | 0.888 | |
Housing space design | 0.324 *** | 0.043 | 7.542 | 0.000 | 2.168 |
Physical environment | 0.079 | 0.063 | 1.262 | 0.208 | 3.238 |
Building Safety | 0.018 | 0.073 | 0.250 | 0.803 | 3.739 |
Building durability | 0.248 *** | 0.055 | 4.517 | 0.000 | 2.945 |
Infrastructure | 0.062 | 0.072 | 0.855 | 0.393 | 3.782 |
Environmental Livability | 0.087 | 0.074 | 1.180 | 0.239 | 4.432 |
Regional Features | 0.156 *** | 0.042 | 3.666 | 0.000 | 2.566 |
F-value | 94.974 *** | ||||
R-squared | 0.624 |
Housing Space Design | Physical Environment | Building Safety | Building Durability | Infrastructure | Environmental Livability | Regional Features | Overall Satisfaction | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Constant) | 3.857 *** | 4.327 *** | 3.985 *** | 3.759 *** | 4.299 *** | 4.288 *** | 5.09 *** | 4.109 *** |
Gender | −0.103 * | −0.069 | −0.052 | −0.058 | −0.045 | −0.06 | −0.076 | −0.06 |
Age | −0.094 * | −0.049 | −0.001 | −0.122 ** | −0.072 * | −0.087 * | −0.392 *** | −0.149 *** |
Education | −0.088 | −0.039 | −0.003 | 0.000 | −0.098 * | −0.005 | −0.214 *** | 0.038 |
Household income | 0.345 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.268 *** | 0.242 *** | 0.198 *** | 0.224 *** | 0.243 *** | 0.251 *** |
Income source | −0.065 | −0.092 * | −0.102 ** | −0.034 | −0.054 | −0.082 * | 0.031 | −0.059 |
Family size | −0.132 *** | −0.097 ** | −0.045 | −0.053 | −0.005 | −0.052 | −0.141 *** | −0.128 *** |
F-value | 29.568 *** | 15.164 *** | 13.039 *** | 19.336 *** | 7.111 *** | 13.514 *** | 72.116 *** | 36.065 *** |
R-squared | 0.307 | 0.185 | 0.163 | 0.224 | 0.096 | 0.168 | 0.519 | 0.350 |
Variable | Overall Impact | Indirect Impact | Direct Impact | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Housing Space Design | Building Durability | Regional Features | |||
Gender | −0.033 | −0.033 | _ | _ | _ |
Age | −0.27 | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.061 | −0.149 |
Education | −0.033 | _ | _ | −0.033 | _ |
Household income | 0.461 | 0.112 | 0.06 | 0.038 | 0.251 |
Income source | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ |
Family size | −0.193 | −0.043 | _ | −0.022 | −0.128 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. 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
Bai, X.; Xie, Z.; Dewancker, B.J. Exploring the Factors Affecting User Satisfaction in Poverty Alleviation Relocation Housing for Minorities through Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Case Study of Pu’er. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215167
Bai X, Xie Z, Dewancker BJ. Exploring the Factors Affecting User Satisfaction in Poverty Alleviation Relocation Housing for Minorities through Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Case Study of Pu’er. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215167
Chicago/Turabian StyleBai, Xue, Zhaoyu Xie, and Bart Julien Dewancker. 2022. "Exploring the Factors Affecting User Satisfaction in Poverty Alleviation Relocation Housing for Minorities through Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Case Study of Pu’er" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215167