ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Bali Medical Journal (Bali Med J) 2018, Volume 7, Number 3: 544-549
P-ISSN.2089-1180, E-ISSN.2302-2914
544 Open access: www.balimedicaljournal.org and ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/bmj
CrossMark
Published by DiscoverSys
ABSTRACT
Background: The population of Iran is rapidly aging, and there is no
specific housing policy and urban space planning for the elderly. It is
vital and necessary to consider urban space and residential environment
in order to meet elderly’s different needs, preferences, desires, and
aspirations to maintain and improve their quality of life (QOL).
Aim: This study aims to evaluate the aging urban space and residential
preference because urban space situation influences the residential
satisfaction that leads to the quality of life.
Methods: In this study, 400 old adults residing in Karaj, Iran were
surveyed. Independent sample t-test was used to examine the
relationship between socio-demographic factors and urban space
preferences.
Results: There are no differences among genders for urban space
preferences, but there are differences in marital status for urban space
preferences among elderlies in Karaj, Iran. The results also showed that
most participants emphasized Convenience, Accessibility followed by
Safety, and Citizen Participation.
Conclusion: Marital status was found to play a significant role in
urban space preferences.
Keywords: residential preferences, aging, urban space, Karaj, Iran.
Cite This Article: Fallahi,B., Momtaz, Y.A. 2018. The relationship between gender and marital status and urban space preferences among elderlies
in Karaj, Iran. Bali Medical Journal 7(3): 544-549. DOI:10.15562/bmj.v7i3.1183
Urban Space Preferences among Older Adults
from a Sociodemographic Perspective
Bahare Fallahi,1 Yadollah Abolfathi Momtaz2*
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, some mechanisms are oered in many
countries to promote the elderly’s quality of life
(QOL). An important factor aecting the QOL is
an urban area. According to Akbari Neisiani, etal.
(2016), the aging preferences of urban space are
dierent from the others because of mental and
physical problems.1 e development of policies
and strategies, which considers aging requirements
and desires, can improve QOL.2 e elderly are also
dependent on the amenities available in the urban
space. Neighborhood facilities and services in
urban space are vital and important for this group.
Moreover, supportive urban space for welfare
for all age groups is an area priority in the World
Health Organization’s (WHO) strategy for welfare
in Europe.3 Make sure a “better fit” amongst aging
inhabitants and urban spaces is recognized as an
issue of earnestness in the interior social policy, a
significant policy for local action on health equity,
and a key matter for the inclusive, sustainable urban
planning.4 A growing body of study is showing the
influence of the neighborhood and urban space on
elderly health, activity, and welfare.5,6 e signifi-
cant dimensions and structures, and more generally,
how to conceptualize and implement age-friendly
societies,7,8 are nonetheless a subject of debate.
A recently important section is the formation of
walkable public areas and actively living societies.9
Growing evidence on the significance of social and
physical neighborhood variables for the elderly’s
participation and QOL10,11 emphasizes the advan-
tages of cooperation among the public health and
urban planning to design the environment support-
ing the people of all ages and abilities.
Tan (2012) claimed that selecting a place is a
multidimensional exercise comprising neighbor-
hoods and locations, so neighborhood preferences
are determined by several features.12,13 e prefer-
ences might be considered dierent factors such as
the access to neighborhood facilities and the quality
of the natural environment.14 In addition, urban
area preferences refer to residents’ overall assess-
ment of their neighborhood and environment.15
Rojo Perez etal. in their article “Ageing in place:
predictors of the elderly’s residential satisfaction”
have shown the impact of neighborhood on the
elderly’s satisfaction in Madrid and indicated that
satisfaction influenced the street conditions and
tracked works.16 In a sample of aging U.S citizens,
the results showed that certain urban characteristics
such as safety, quietness, cleanliness, and proximity
to amenities were found to be connected to urban
space satisfaction.17 On the contrary, Tan (2011)
stated that the neighborhood facilities such as being
close to the hospital and sports centers have an
insignificant relationship with the elderly’s urban
1Ph.D. Housing Policy, University of
Putra, Malaysia
2Iranian Research Center on
Aging, University of Social Welfare
and Rehabilitation, Tehran, Iran/
Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor,
Malaysia
*Correspondence to:
Yadollah Abolfathi Momtaz,
Iranian Research Center on Aging,
University of Social Welfare and
Rehabilitation, Tehran, Iran/
Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor,
Malaysia
yabolfathi@gmail.com
Received: 2018-05-14
Accepted: 2018-5-21
Published: 2018-8-1
Volume No.: 7
Issue: 3
First page No.: 544
P-ISSN.2089-1180
E-ISSN.2302-2914
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v7i3.1183
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
545
Published by DiscoverSys | Bali Med J 2018; 7(3): 544-549 | doi: 10.15562/bmj.v7i3.1183
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
space satisfaction.18 In Greenville, North Carolina,
findings revealed that the crime rate in urban area
influences the residential satisfaction.15 A similar
finding was reported by Rashid in Iraq who found
that people select the neighborhood with respect to
security, neighborhood facilities and social envi-
ronment significantly related to their level of urban
space satisfaction.19 In an aging sample, the impact
of urban space on satisfaction was studied. e
results indicated that security and access to green
areas were related to aging urban space satisfac-
tion.20 Ge and Hokao (2006) conducted a study to
examine the residential preferences in Japan. ey
found that neighborhood facilities such as access
to shops, public transportations, and sports centers
impact the urban space satisfaction.21
METHODS
Research methods
is is a quantitative study. e questionnaire
survey provided information on the urban space
preferences variables hypothesized to promote
the residential satisfaction among 400 elderlies in
order to enhance the QOL. e target population is
the elderlies residing in Karaj, Iran. e study iden-
tified elderlies aged 60 and over. For selecting the
sample size, the researcher used Cochran (1977)
proposed using equation to determine the size.22
In this study, convenience sampling was used for
sampling.13,15,16
Instruments
As a data collection tool, the questionnaire is
well accepted within the urban space paradigm.
Multiple questionnaires have been developed
to assess the aging preferences in urban space.
Cross-sectional surveys have been used in several
previous studies to investigate the aging urban
space. Face-to-face interviews were conducted.
is allowed for increased response rate and the
inclusion of elderlies with limited access to the
Internet or limited ability to read or write. e
questionnaire was modified from previous studies,
and involved eight variables based on a 5-point
Likert scale; each construct had five items to
measure. e questionnaire was pilot tested among
30 respondents to examine the reliability. All items
showed good reliability values. e variables are as
follows: accessibility, convenience, safety, citizen
participation, vitality and dynamism, culture facil-
ity, control and monitoring, legibility.
e Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
soware (SPSS; Version 16) was used to analyze the
data. is involved two steps:
1. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the
sample characteristics and find patterns in the
data.
2. Independent group’s t-test was used to test the
study hypotheses.
Study area
Alborz Province is one of the 31 Iran’s provinces,
centered inKaraj. Salleh (2008) found that the main
factors determining preferences in urban area are
neighborhood services, safety infrastructure, and
central facilities.23 Hosting a population around
1.96 million, as recorded in the 2011 Census, Karaj
has 110,000 elderlies. It is the fourth-largest city in
Iran, aerTehran,Mashhad, andIsfahan.24
RESULTS
Characteristics of samples
e socioeconomic characteristics of the residents
showed that most of them were married, and the
majority of respondents were males. e majority
had certificates below high school. Furthermore,
the majority was retired (Table 1).
Preference perceived by the elderlies in
Karaj, Iran
In this section, the descriptive data on the level of
urban space preferences amongst the respondents
are presented. Table 2 shows the inhabitants’ pref-
erences, most of which emphasized Convenience
(94%) followed by Safety (92.7%), and Citizen
Participation (92.2%).
Hypothesis
H0: ere is no significant relationship between
marital status and urban space preferences.
H0: ere is no significant relationship between
gender and urban space preferences.
Bivariate analyses, independent t-test were
conducted to examine the relationship between
the socio-demographic factors and elderly’s urban
space preferences in Karaj, Iran.
An independent sample t-test was conducted
to compare the urban space preferences between
male and female respondents. As shown in Table3,
there was no significant dierence in terms of
urban space preferences among male and female.
e result showed that there are no dierences
among genders for urban space preferences. us
no significant dierences were found in terms
of the mean scores among the groups. e study
assumed that the population variances are relatively
equal. e t-test significance indicates p> 0.05 and
therefore is not significant. As a result, the null
546 Published by DiscoverSys | Bali Med J 2018; 7(3): 544-549 | doi: 10.15562/bmj.v7i3.1183
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
hypothesis is accepted and the alternative hypoth-
esis is rejected; for Accessibility p>0.05 =0.870;
Convenience, p > 0.05= 0.45; Safety, p > 0.05=
0.89; Citizen’s Participation, p > 0.05=0.94;
Vitality and Dynamism, p > 0.05=0.187; Legibility,
p> 0.05=0.057; Control and Monitoring,
p>0.05=0.61, Cultural Facility, p>0.05=0.48.
Another independent sample t-test was
conducted to compare the urban space preferences
between married and unmarried respondents
(Table 4).
An independent sample t-test was conducted
to compare the urban space preferences between
unmarried and married respondents. As shown in
Table 4, there was a significant dierence in urban
space preferences between unmarried and married
respondents. us, the result showed that there
are dierences between unmarried and married
respondents in terms of elderly’s urban space pref-
erences in Karaj, Iran. us, a significant dierence
was found in terms of mean scores between the
groups. e t-test significance indicates p≤.05 and
therefore is significant, and the null hypothesis is
rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted;
Accessibility p≤.05 =0.021; Convenience p≤.05
=0.007; Safety, p≤.05 = 0.029; Citizen’s Participation,
p≤.05 =0.000; Vitality and Dynamism, p≤.05 =0.002;
Legibility, p≤.05 =0.001; Control and Monitoring,
p≤.05=0.003. ere are dierences between unmar-
ried and married participants in terms of elderly’s
urban space preferences Karaj, Iran. However, for
Culture facility, p> 0.05=0.35 there is no dierence
between unmarried and married participants in this
regard. us, no significant dierences are found in
terms of the mean scores (Table 4).
DISCUSSION
According to the WHO (2007) model of
age-friendly communities and existing lines of
discussion in aging preferences in urban area,
the present study found that most of the elderlies
emphasized Convenience, Accessibility followed
by Safety and Citizen’s Participation in urban space
which are consistent with the findings by Lu (1999)
and Speare (1974).25,26 ey found that residents
put emphasis on neighborhood characteristics
such as social environment. Similarly, Fang (2006),
Mohit and Azim (2012), Oh (2003), Kauko (2006)
and Wang and Li (2006) stated that neighborhood
facilities and social environment are among the
important factors emphasized by the public and
aect urban space satisfaction.27-31 To support
these findings, a conceptual approach developed
by Speare (1974) and Fredrickson etal. (1980) was
adopted to understand and explain the residential
preferences. ey argued that location and social
bonds are important factors in evaluating a place by
the public and are measured in relation to a person’s
threshold for dissatisfaction.26,32
e results of the independent group t-test
showed that there was no significant dierence in
urban space preferences between male and female.
us, the result showed that there are no dierences
Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
Demographic characteristics n M SD
Sex Male 212
Female 187
71.82 7.773
Education Secondary 72
Diploma 27
Bachelor 12
Master 4
Primary school 284
Occupation
Status
Unemployed 19
Retiree 209
Work at Company 34
Self-employed with no workers 120
Self-employed with workers 8
Work for Government 9
Marital Status Single 20
Married 271
Divorced 17
Widowed 87
Separated 4
Table 2 Distribution of urban space preferences
Variable
Range value
Low Moderate High
% n % n % n
Accessibility 0.8 3 19.3 77 79.9 319
Convenience 0.5 2 5.5 22 94 375
Safety 0.5 2 6.8 27 92.7 370
Citizen’s Participation 0.8 3 7 28 92.2 368
Vitality and
Dynamism 0.8 3 12.3 49 87 347
Legibility 1 4 8 32 91 363
Control and
Monitoring 0.5 2 11.3 45 88.2 352
Cultural Facility 8.3 33 25.8 103 65.9 263
547
Published by DiscoverSys | Bali Med J 2018; 7(3): 544-549 | doi: 10.15562/bmj.v7i3.1183
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
between both genders in terms of urban space
preferences. No significant dierence was found in
mean scores. e study assumed that the popula-
tion variances were relatively equal. As a result, the
finding revealed no significant dierence in terms
of male and female’s preferences and aspirations in
urban space. erefore, the first hypothesis was not
confirmed. is finding did not support previous
studies which found gender dierences in terms of
urban space preferences among elderlies.33-35
Another independent sample t-test was
conducted to compare the urban space prefer-
ences between married and unmarried respon-
dents. Significant dierences were found in terms
of mean scores among the groups, and the study
assumed that the population variances were not
relatively equal. erefore, the second hypothesis
was confirmed. is finding was consistent with
the findings by Ham and Feijten (2008) who found
a relationship of neighborhood preferences with
the household size and number of children.36 is
result supported residential mobility theory by
Rossi (1955) and Dieleman (2001) which stated
that household size and marital status determine
the choice of a neighborhood.37,38 e increase in
household size might increase the neighborhood
preferences and expectations in the neighborhood
such as preferences to access more facilities and
services. is finding was also parallel with those
recorded by Wang and Li (2004), Gentile ( 2005),
Adelman (2005) and Boehm and Schlottmann
(2006) who stated that socio-demographic charac-
teristics influence the urban space and neighbor-
hood preferences.39-42
is study may provide important insights for
decision-makers to assess priorities during the
implementation process of neighborhood devel-
opments to enhance the elderly’s QOL. In urban
planning, convenience, safety and security, and citi-
zen’s participation are viewed as a vital element that
influences satisfaction and QOL and is an import-
ant urban planning issue to address.
CONCLUSION
Since urban space and the factors that might
maintain the residential preferences in Karaj,
Iran was not studied adequately; this study
aimed to determine the relationship between
the socio-demographic factors and urban space
preferences. The findings of this applied study
add to the growing body of literature in the
area of ecological aging person- environment fit.
Marital status was found to play a significant role
in urban space preferences. Our findings high-
light the importance of Convenience followed
by Safety and Citizen’s Participation in urban
space important for the elderlies in urban space.
These preferences create a challenge for natural
resource agencies and policymakers in order to
provide appropriate neighborhood and environ-
ment for the elderlies in the urban areas and wish
Table 3 Mean scores of urban space according to socioeconomic
factors
Variable n P value t SD M
Accessibility Female 187 0.87 0.50 4.92 37.37
Male 212 4.58 37.13
Convenience Female 0.45 -0.37 3.79 38.04
Male 2.93 38.16
Safety Female 0.89 -1.15 1.86 17.05
Male 1.57 17.25
Citizen Participation Female 0.94 0.68 2.06 16.99
Male 1.63 16.86
Vitality and Dynamism Female 0.187 -1.72 1.62 12.52
Male 1.28 12.77
Legibility Female 0.057 -0.06 1.267 8.45
Male 0.949 8.68
Control and Monitoring Female 0.61 -0.67 1.48 12.86
Male 1.27 12.95
Culture Facility Female 0.48 -0.98 3.67 14.80
Male 3.45 15.15
*p≤.05,**p<.01
Table 4 Mean scores of urban space preferences according to
socioeconomic factors
Variable n P value t SD M
Accessibility Unmarried 128 0.021 ** 0.89 5.786 37.5859
Married 271 4.15 37.0812
Convenience Unmarried 0.007** -0.983 4.41 37.82
Married 2.72 38.24
Safety Unmarried 0.029 ** -2.66 2.095 16.78
Married 1.47 17.33
Citizen’s Participation Unmarried 0.000** -2.17 2.44 16.58
Married 1.46 17.08
Vitality and
Dynamism
Unmarried 0.002** -2.63 1.81 12.34
Married 1.23 12.80
Legibility Unmarried 0.001** -3.93 1.42 8.21
Married 0.88 8.75
Control and
Monitoring
Unmarried 0.003** -2.67 1.65 12.6094
Married 1.20 13.0443
Cultural Facility Unmarried 0.35 -0.25 3.79 14.92
Married 3.45 15.02
*p≤.05,**p<.01
548 Published by DiscoverSys | Bali Med J 2018; 7(3): 544-549 | doi: 10.15562/bmj.v7i3.1183
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
to reach out a better serving of these residents.
Survey results can also potentially inform poli-
cymakers by management and improvement of
one’s environment fit. Perhaps current services,
activities, and amenities do not match the elder-
ly’s desires, needs, aspirations, and preferences.
Perhaps there are other structural constraints that
limit the participation. Future study of recreation
preferences among diverse urban populations
can extend these findings by exploring how other
demographic and social factors (e.g., ethnicity)
influence the preferences and behaviors exam-
ined in the present research. To further explore
the role of age in determining urban space pref-
erences and policy decisions, such study could
examine data using a multi-method (i.e., qualita-
tive and quantitative) and longitudinal approach.
LIMITATIONS
As with other studies, there are some limitations on
this research, which might oer opportunities for
future study. e first is the cross-sectional nature
of this research, which prevents the possibility of
drawing conclusions about casual associations
amongst the variables. is research considered
the association amongst socio-demographic factors
and urban space preferences. is study was
conducted among elderlies and only in Karaj, not
in the whole of Iran.
DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Since this study is one of the very few studies
examining the impact of socio-demographic
factors on urban space preferences among the
elderlies in Karaj, Iran, it might provide oppor-
tunities for future studies. Future studies among
larger samples of elderlies from different coun-
tries and cultures are needed to validate the
results of this study. As little is known about the
ways to promote satisfaction among elderlies,
it is suggested that future studies focus on how
to strengthen satisfaction in urban space and
neighborhood. Since this study was conducted
in a cross-sectional design, a longitudinal study
is required to clarify the causal relationship
between urban space preferences and residential
satisfaction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
e authors are thankful to the study participants.
is study was supported by grant No 1358 in
university of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation
Science, Tehran, Iran.
REFERENCES
1. Akbari Neisiani, B., Seyedan, S. M., & Radfar, E. (2016).
Urban green spaces assessment approach to health, safety
and environment.International Journal of Human Capital
in Urban Management,1(2), 123-132.
2. Turel, H. S., Yigit, E. M., & Altug, I. (2007). Evaluation of
elderly people’s requirements in public open spaces: A case
study in Bornova District (Izmir, Turkey). Building and
Environment,42(5), 2035-2045.
3. World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly
cities: A guide. Retrieved from http:// whqlibdoc.who.int/
publications/2007/9789241547307_eng.pdf?
4. Barton, H., & Grant, M. (2006). A health map for the local
human habitat.e Journal for the Royal Society for the
Promotion of Health,126(6), 252-253.
5. Clarke, P., & Nieuwenhuijsen, E. R. (2009). Environments
for healthy ageing: a critical review.Maturitas,64(1), 14-19.
6. Yen, I. H., Michael, Y. L., & Perdue, L. (2009). Neighborhood
environment in studies of health of older adults: a system-
atic review.American journal of preventive medicine,37(5),
455-463.
7. Buel, T., Phillipson, C., & Scharf, T. (2012). Ageing
in urban environments: Developing ‘age-friendly’cit-
ies.Critical Social Policy,32(4), 597-617.
8. Cachadinha, C. (2012). Characteristics of an age-friendly
neighbourhood built environment: comparison of age-
friendly community models with empirical evidence.
In Proceedings of the 38th IAHS World Congress on
Housing Science. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University,
International Association for Housing Science (pp. 677-683).
9. Sallis, J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A.,
Kra, M. K., & Kerr, J. (2006). An ecological approach
to creating active living communities.Annu. Rev. Public
Health,27, 297-322.
10. Van Cauwenberg, J., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., De Meester, F.,
Van Dyck, D., Salmon, J., Clarys, P., & Deforche, B. (2011).
Relationship between the physical environment and phys-
ical activity in older adults: a systematic review. Health &
place,17(2), 458-469.
11. Kerr, J., Rosenberg, D., & Frank, L. (2012). e role of the
built environment in healthy aging: community design,
physical activity, and health among older adults.CPL bibli-
ography,27(1), 43-60.
12. Tan, T. H. (2012). Meeting first-time buyers’ housing needs
and preferences in greater Kuala Lumpur. Cities, 29(6),
389-396.
13. Hurtubia, R., Gallay, O., & Bierlaire, M. (2010). Attributes
of households, locations and real-estate markets for land
use modeling.Sustain City Deliverable,2.
14. Menchik, M. (1972). Residential environmental prefer-
ences and choice: empirically validating preference mea-
sures.Environment and Planning A,4(4), 445-458.
15. Hur, M., Nasar, J. L., & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood
satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and open-
ness.Journal of Environmental Psychology,30(1), 52-59.
16. Rojo Perez, F., Fernandez-Mayoralas Fernandez, G., Pozo
Rivera, E., & Manuel Rojo Abuin, J. (2001). Ageing in place:
Predictors of the residential satisfaction of elderly.Social
Indicators Research,54(2), 173-208.
17. Carp, F. M., & Christensen, D. L. (1986). Technical envi-
ronmental assessment predictors of residential satisfac-
tion: A study of elderly women living alone.Research on
Aging,8(2), 269-287.
18. Tan, T. H. (2011). Determinants of housing satisfaction in
Klang Valley, Malaysia. School of Business Occasional Paper
Series No. 2. Sunway University.
19. Rashid, S. T., bin Ngah, I., & Eluwa, S. E. (2013).
Neighbourhood choice factors and residents satisfaction
in old and new neighborhoods of Slemani City, Kurdistan-
Iraq. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3(2), 72-80.
20. Kahana, E., Kahana, B., & Kercher, K. (2003). Emerging life-
styles and proactive options for successful ageing. Ageing
International,28(2), 155-180.
549
Published by DiscoverSys | Bali Med J 2018; 7(3): 544-549 | doi: 10.15562/bmj.v7i3.1183
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
21. Ge, J., & Hokao, K. (2006). Research on residential life-
styles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of resi-
dential preference, residential choice and residential
satisfaction.Landscape and urban planning,78(3), 165-178.
22. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques, 3rd Edition.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
23. Salleh, A. G. (2008). Neighbourhood factors in private
low-cost housing in Malaysia.Habitat International,32(4),
485-493.
24. Irani, M.(2016). Population in Karaj. http://www.meh-
rnews.com.
25. Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction:
ordered logit vs. regression models. Growth and Change,
30(2), 264–287.
26. Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an interven-
ing variable in residential mobility. Demography, 11(2),
173-188.
27. Fang, Y. (2006). Residential satisfaction, moving intention
and moving behaviours: a study of redeveloped neigh-
bourhoods in inner-city Beijing. Housing Studies, 21(5),
671-694.
28. Mohit, M. A, & Azim, M. (2012). Assessment of residential
satisfaction with public housing in Hulhumale’, Maldives.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 756–770.
29. Oh, JH. (2003). Social bonds and the migration intentions
of elderly urban residents: e mediating eect of residen-
tial satisfaction. Population Research and Policy Review,
22(2), 127-146.
30. Kauko, T. (2006). Expressions of housing consumer prefer-
ences: proposition for a research agenda. Housing, eory
and Society, 23(2), 92-108.
31. Wang, D, & Li, S. (2006). Socio-economic dierentials and
stated housing preferences in Guangzhou, China. Habitat
International, 30(2), 305–326.
32. Fredrickson, C, Heaton, T. B., Fuguitt, G. V., & Zuiches,J.
(1980). Residential preferences in a model of migration
intentions. Population and Environment, 3(3-4), 280-297.
33. Berween, M. (2002). e fundamental human rights: an
islamic perspective. e International Journal of Human
Rights, 6(1), 61-79.
34. Jabareen, Y. (2005). Culture and housing preferences in a
developing city. Environment and Behavior, 37(1), 134-146.
35. Opoku, R. A., & Abdul-Muhminb, A. G. (2010). Housing
preferences and attribute importance among low-income
consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat International, 34(2),
219–227.
36. Ham, M. V, & Feijten, P. (2008). Who wants to leave
the neighbourhood? e eect of being dierent from
the neighbourhood population on wishes to move.
Environment and Planning 40(5), 1151 – 1170.
37. Rossi, P.H. (1955). Why families move. A study in the social
psychology of Urban residential mobility: Glencoe.
38. Dieleman, F. M. (2001). Modelling residential mobility; a
review of recent trends in research. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 16(3-4), 249-265.
39. Wang, D, & Li, S. (2004). Housing preferences in a tran-
sitional housing system: the case of Beijing, China.
Environment and Planning, 36(1), 69-88.
40. Gentile, M. ( 2005). Urban residential preferences and sat-
isfaction in the former Soviet Union: results from a sur-
vey in Ust’-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan. Urban Geography,
26(4), 296-327.
41. Adelman, R. M. (2005). e roles of race, class, and res-
idential preferences in the neighborhood racial compo-
sition of middle-class blacks and whites. Social Science
Quarterly, 86(1), 209-228.
42. Boehm, T. P., & Schlottmann, A. (2006). A comparison of
household mobility for owned manufactured, traditional
owned, and rental units using the American Housing
Survey. Journal of Housing Economics, 15(2), 126-142.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
