ISSN: 2717-4417

Document Type : Research Paper



Residential satisfaction has been a major and popular research topic for the following reasons. First, individual's evaluations of housing and neighborhoods determine the way they respond to residential environment and form the basis for public policy feedback. Second, residential satisfaction is recognized as important components of an individual's quality of life. Furthermore, high satisfaction among residents encourages them to stay on and induces others to move in, and low satisfaction with the neighborhood environment urges current residents to move out.
On the other hand, although physical characteristics of housing units are known to be very effective in the residential satisfaction rating by many scholars, it should be noted that the dwelling unit itself is not the only factor of satisfaction but it is only a subsystem of the whole residential livability system. In this sense, humans interact with multiple components in their living environment, and continuously influence the environment and are affected by it. This interaction alters an individual’s feeling toward their residential environment. thus, this interaction can be examined in the form of a system that includes residential units, neighborhood and neighbors. In regards to neighborhood satisfaction, although some researches find that the physical characteristics are the most important factors and planners support the importance of physical characteristics, residents consider social factors more important in judging a neighborhood.  The current study assesses the level of residential satisfaction in two neighborhoods of Tehran and compares them to create a basis for evaluating urban policies and decisions in recent years and shows the effectiveness of different factors on the satisfaction of residents of different neighborhoods by comparing them. For this purpose, the operating model to measure satisfaction was derived by examining studies of different researchers in the form of approaches (including the belief-affect approach, the commitment approach and the availability approach), factors (individual's characteristics, characteristics of residential environment, feeling and perception of residents etc.) and models (Amerigo model, comparing the level of satisfaction in culturally homogeneous and heterogeneous neighborhoods model etc.). In the proposed model, attention has been paid to all three levels of person, dwelling unit and residential environment and factors which affect satisfaction have been classified under five categories: objective criteria related to the individual, objective criteria related to the environment, objective criteria related to the dwelling unit, subjective criteria related to the individual and subjective criteria related to the environment through a survey questionnaire. Satisfaction levels of residents of neighborhood 1 (located in region three of Tehran municipality) and residents of neighborhood 2 (located in region 11 of Tehran municipality) were compared with each other. A total of 100 questionnaires were completed for each neighborhood. Findings of the study show that the highest and lowest satisfaction in neighborhood 1 were linked to the objective criteria related to the dwelling unit and objective criteria related to the environment and in neighborhood 2,  to subjective criteria related to the environment and subjective criteria related to the individual. Overall satisfaction in neighborhood 1 (between moderate and satisfied) was higher than neighborhood 2 (between dissatisfied and moderate).  


Main Subjects

  1. A. Omar, A. (2003). an evaluation of low income housing project in developing countries, case study: Tripoli-Libya. thesis submitted to the University of Salford for the degree of doctor philosophy.
  2. Abdul Ghani, S., & Noraini, Y. (2006). residential satisfaction in low-cost housing in malaysia. report of research. funded by USM short term research grant.
  3. Amerigo, M., & Aragones, J. (1997). a Theoretical and Methodological Approach To The Study Of Residential Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 47-57.
  4. Amole, D. (2009). Residential Satisfaction and Levels of Environment in Students’ Residences. environment and behavior, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 866-879.
  5. Cabrita, A. R., Freitas, M. J., & Pedro, J. B. (1998). Understanding Housing Satisfaction. XXV IAHS World Housing Congress, engineering faculty of the University of Porto, Portugal.
  6. Choudhury, I. (2005). A conceptual model of resident satisfaction with reference to neighborhood composition. XXXIII IAHS World Housing Congress: "Transforming Housing Environment through Design", September 27-30, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
  7. Fleury-Bahi, G., Felonneau, M.-L., & Marchand, D. (2008). processes of place identification and residential satisfaction. environment and behavior, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 669-682.
  8. Gosh, S. (2004). Distiguishing ‘house’ from ‘home’ : Residential Satisfaction Of Indian Bengalis & Bangladeshis in Toronto. International Conference of Adequate and Affordable Housing for All. 24-27 June, Center for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
  9. Grzeskowiak, S., Sirgy, M., & Widgery, R. (2003). Residents’ Satisfaction with Community Services: Predictors and Outcomes. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, no. 33, pp. 1-36.
  10. Hur, M., & Morrow-Jones, H. (2008). Factors That Influence Residents' Satisfaction With Neighborhoods. environment and behavior, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 619-635.
  11. Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., & Kahana, M. (2003). person, environment and person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders. environment and behavior, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 434-453.
  12. L.Day, L. (2000). choosing a house: the relationship between dwelling type, perception of privacy and residential satisfaction. journal of planning education and research, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 265-275.
  13. Laan Bouma-Doff, W., & Land, M. (2007). Little to Choose, Much to Lose: Freedom of Choice and Residential satisfaction. International Conference of Sustainable Urban Areas, OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies. Delft University of Technology, pp. 1-21.
  14. Oh, S. (2001). An Analysis of Models and Methodologies to Research the Residential satisfaction. Chungnam Development Institute, Proceedings of Architectural Institute, pp. 53-64 .
  15. Oussadou, A. (1988). residential satisfaction in the new urban housing projects in Algeria, a case study of Ain-Allah,Algiers. thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of doctor of philosophy.
  16. Part Consulting Engineers. (2007). Detailed Plan of Region 11 of Tehran Municipality.[in Persian]
  17. Potter, J., & 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.
  18. R. Kearney, A. (2006). residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction, impacts of density and nearby nature. environment and behavior, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 112-139.
  19. Rafieian, M., Asgari, A., & Asgari Zadeh, Z. (2009). Assessment of Residential Satisfaction of Navvab Residents. Human Geography Research Journal, no. 67, pp. 53-68.[in Persian]
  20. Sharan Consulting Engineers. (2006). Detailed Plan of Region 3 of Tehran Municipality.[in Persian]
  21. Wen, M., & Wang, G. (2009). Demographic, Psychological, and Social Environmental Factors of Loneliness and Satisfaction among Rural-to-Urban Migrants in Shanghai, China . international journal of comparative sociology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 155-182.