Content uploaded by Riza Yosia Sunindijo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Riza Yosia Sunindijo on Jul 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
This paper is published in: Abidoye, R.B., Puspitasari, G., Sunindijo, R. and Adabre, M. (2020), “Young
adults and homeownership in Jakarta, Indonesia”, International Journal of Housing Markets and
Analysis, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHMA-03-2020-0030
Young Adults and Homeownership
in Jakarta, Indonesia
Rotimi Boluwatife Abidoye, Gitta Puspitasari and Riza Sunindijo
Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia, and
Michael Adabre
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, Hong Kong
Abstract
Purpose – Homeownership, especially for young adults, is a significant challenge in nearly
every country, and Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world is not exempted.
Its capital city, Jakarta, has the lowest homeownership rate when compared with other cities,
and if this challenge remained unresolved, it could lead to more social and economic issues in
the country. Hence, this research is conducted to investigate the homeownership of young
adults in Jakarta, focusing on young adults’ opinions, perceptions and experiences regarding
homeownership opportunities.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from
young adults in the study area. The collected data was analysed using the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 24.0 software. Descriptive analysis, Cronbach’s alpha test,
Pearson’s correlation test and Mean Score (MS) ranking were adopted to analyse the collected
data.
Findings – The result shows that homeownership is driven by factors that are more functional
and realistic (in terms of a place to live, marriage, and parenthood) rather than those related to
pride or social status representation (as a personal or career accomplishment). Unaffordability
and insufficient income were ranked as crucial barriers to homeownership. Increasing the
supply of affordable housing, controlling housing prices through the government’s
intervention, and reducing mortgage interests are potential solutions to address this issue.
Practical implications – The result of this research would be useful to young adults who are
the participants of this study, property developers, lending institutions, and the government
concerning homeownership policy formulation, loan provision, affordable housing supply,
among others.
Originality/value – Specific studies that focused on the young adults’ homeownership in
Jakarta, Indonesia is limited, therefore, this research provides an insight into the issue of young
adults’ homeownership in the country. Also, the findings could be applicable in other
developing countries that have similar characteristics to Indonesia.
Keywords Young adults, Homeownership, Housing, Housing supply, Jakarta, Indonesia
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Housing is one of the basic needs of human beings is housing, which is as important as food
and health (Widoyoko, 2007). The role of housing is more than just a shelter, but it has a
substantial impact on the standard of living of its habitants. The key that opens the door to meet
other essential human needs is a safe, affordable, and permanent housing (Mulroy & Ewalt,
1996). Moreover, Doling and Ronald (2010) outlined that housing is an important source of
wealth and an ‘asset’ that can be used to secure future wellbeing. The wellbeing of a nation is
reflected in its people enjoying a certain standard of living (Idrus & Ho, 2008). Therefore,
homeownership is usually a topical issue in every country.
Mulder (2006) stated that when the supply of houses is limited and house prices are high, it
will become more difficult for young adults to access the housing market. Ronald (2008) also
argued that getting on the homeownership ladder has become so frustrating for many
households, especially the younger generation with low to middle income, while the more
mature housing investors often have made huge gains from their property investments. The
difficulties of access to homeownership are not only experienced in developed countries such
as the UK and France (Clapham et al., 2012; Bugeja-Bloch, 2013), but also in developing
countries. In Indonesia, the average rate of homeownership stood at 79.61 per cent (Indonesian
Statistical Board, 2018). However, the capital city, Jakarta, is ranked the lowest with only 48.33
per cent homeownership rate (Indonesian Statistical Board, 2018). The limited supply of land
and housing, coupled with the increase in population, have inflated the housing price in Jakarta
(Rahadi et al., 2015b), and have worsened the homeownership challenges.
Since income plays a critical role for people to enter the housing market (Clark & Dieleman,
2017), it is becoming very challenging for the young adults to access homeownership without
financial support from their family or relatives (Filandri & Bertolini, 2016). The median
housing price in Central Jakarta is IDR 27.92 million or USD 1,838 per square meter (Azkia,
2017), meaning it could take up to 20 years for young adults to save money for the 20 per cent
down payment, assuming there is no significant increase of housing prices every year. World
Bank (2012) reported a significant delay in the homeownership of citizens between the age of
30 to 45 in Indonesia. This fact was corroborated by Caesario (2016) who mentioned that the
inability of the younger generation to purchase a house would be a serious challenge in the
future. Therefore, it is crucial to address the homeownership challenge of young adults in
Indonesia, since the housing condition of young adults is a key driver for future social changes
(Hirayama, 2013). In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives were formulated: 1)
to examine the factors that drive young adults’ homeownership in Jakarta, 2) to evaluate the
barriers that prevent young adults from owning a house in Jakarta; and 3) to recommend
solutions to overcome the homeownership challenges faced by young adults in Jakarta.
Literature Review
Housing Needs
Housing is generally a crucial issue in every country because it forms the basic foundation of
human activities (Bratt, 2002). Maslow’s theory proposes a five-tier model of human needs,
comprising physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs,
and finally, the self-actualization. Maslow explained that in order to satisfy the self-
actualization as the highest hierarchy of needs, individuals need to fulfil the lower needs first
(McLeod, 2018). In this hierarchy of needs, housing falls under the category of safety needs.
According to Van Ham (2012), a dwelling fulfils the most basic needs, such as the need for
shelter to feel safe and a place to call home. Additionally, housing has a critical role in people’s
wellbeing which can contribute to the physical and psychological health, safety and security
outcomes, love, and belongingness needs.
Hablemitoglu et al. (2010) conducted a study about defining homeownership according to
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The findings show that homeownership has significant effects
on the physical and social wellbeing of the occupants and the economic features of the
household. Homeownership has many advantages for individuals in terms of better mental and
physical health and for communities, such as social engagement and involvement (Xu et al.,
2015). National Housing Task Force (1988) stated that a proper home allows people to get
ahead in society, by taking benefit of opportunities in education, health and employment. In
brief, homeownership has an important contribution to fulfil the basic needs of human beings,
providing safety and security, which influences the behaviour, prosperity, and physical
wellness of not only the occupants but also the neighbourhood, and society.
Housing in Indonesia
In Indonesia, the importance of housing is stated in the National Congress of Housing and
Settlement in 2009, which declared housing as the responsibility of the state, based on the 1945
Constitution and Human Right Law of Indonesia. Both constitutions declare that every
Indonesian citizen has the right to live well, both materially and spiritually, and has the right
to live not only in a good house but also in a healthy neighbourhood (Kusno, 2012). Kusno
(2012) also stated that housing is considered as a human right, rather than simply a human need
for shelter.
However, most of the Indonesian citizens, especially the low-income earners in the urban areas,
experience difficulties in accessing homeownership. According to Siew (2017), Indonesia had
housing backlog of 11.4 million units in 2017. Although the average homeownership rate in
Indonesia remains high at 79.61 per cent, the rate of homeownership in the urban capital city,
Jakarta, stood at the lowest level at 48.33 per cent (Indonesian Statistical Board, 2018). Rapid
urbanisation due to economic and political factors have caused Jakarta to expand into a
megacity (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). As a result, Jakarta has the highest density with 15,624
people per km2, while the average density in Indonesia is only 137 people per km2 (Indonesian
Statistical Board, 2018). This uneven population distribution in the country and the massive
population in the capital city create housing problems in Jakarta (Rahadi et al., 2015b, 2015a).
Informal self-help housing, called kampung, is one of the most self-initiated and self-
constructed urban settlement in Indonesia and sometimes has low quality and no security of
tenure (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). Tunas and Peresthu (2010) stated that there is a massive gap
in living conditions between informal and formal housing in Indonesia. The authors argued
that informal housing is the only option for the poor. Nevertheless, housing has an important
role in the economic development in Indonesia, especially in Jakarta which is the centre of
government and economic activities. McCallum and Benjamin (1985) posited that one of the
most important factors that influence the ability of the poor to succeed in an urban economy is
housing in its broadest interpretation, including the land, shelter, and access to services.
Young Adults and Homeownership
Factors that influence Young Adults’ Homeownership
According to studies conducted in different parts of the world (see Table 1), various factors
drive homeownership among young adults. The factors are categorised into external and
internal factors. The internal factors can be divided further into two cohorts: personal and
family. Table 1 shows that the internal factors, such as education, income, marriage,
employment, and family background, play a more significant role for young adults’
homeownership with these factors having 52 occurrences in the reviewed studies than the
external factors, such as the government’s policy and lending institution in relation to credit
access with only 35 occurrences.
Table 1: Factors that drive homeownership of young adults – International studies
Factors
Filandri
and
Bertolini
(2016)
Xu et al.
(2015)
Colic-
Peisker
and
Johnson
(2012)
Castro
Campos et
al. (2016)
McDonald
and
Baxter
(2005)
Beer and
Faulkner
(2012) Öst (2012) McKee
(2012) Coulter
(2018) Hirayama
(2013)
No of
Variable
Occurrence
Internal Factor
Personal
Education
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
6
Income
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
7
Marriage
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
6
Parenthood
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
5
Employment Type (temporary/permanent)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
9
Student Loan/Debt
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
Health Condition
✓
1
Family
Family Class Background
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
6
Family Financial Support
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
6
Parents' homeownership
✓
✓
2
External Factor
Policy and Regulation
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
Credit Accessibility
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
7
Welfare of the Country
✓
✓
2
Financial and Economic Condition
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
5
Labour Market
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
6
Housing Affordability
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
7
Affordable Housing Supply
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
Among the internal factors, employment type is the most influential factor since permanent
employment provides stable income and is necessary to save money for the down payment to
get a mortgage loan (Filandri & Bertolini, 2016). Moreover, the young adults’ life transition to
get married and become a parent is also seen as one of the influential factors (McDonald &
Baxter, 2005; Öst, 2012; Hirayama, 2013; Xu et al., 2015). McDonald and Baxter (2005) stated
that one of the most important determinants of purchasing a house is the relationship status,
where married people are almost five times more likely to access homeownership than those
who are single and still living with their parents. Another study conducted by Lauster (2008)
found that there is a relationship between homeownership and marital stability since couples
who already purchased a house are less likely to divorce. In fact, a couple’s investment in a
housing purchase leads to stronger marriage commitment due to financial stability. However,
according to Fry (2013), young adults have a greater tendency to defer marriage and stay single
than previous generations. This phenomenon has the potential to influence young adults’
housing decision.
For the external factors, housing affordability and credit accessibility remain the most
significant factors that drive young adults’ homeownership. Tightened mortgage standards
from lenders make it more difficult for young adults to obtain credit to purchase a house,
worsened by their weaker financial condition (Xu et al., 2015). All the external factors such as
affordable housing supply, housing price, and mortgage bank are interrelated in driving the
homeownership of young adults (Hirayama, 2013; Xu et al., 2015). Furthermore, the
government’s policy and the country economic condition have substantial influence on the
housing tenure status of young adults (Castro Campos et al., 2016; Filandri & Bertolini, 2016).
Young Adults’ Homeownership Challenges
According to McKee (2012), young adults are progressively being excluded from entering the
housing market. McKee (2012) also explained that young adults are often not getting the
priority to be allocated in social or public housing because the access is determined by
administrative criteria designed to assess a particular group of low-income earners that are
considered by the government to have more significant housing ‘need’ than the young adults.
From the global perspective, in Italy, Poggio (2012) showed that the younger generation
experiences economic difficulties due to the increase in housing prices and rents, which have
doubled since the 1990s. The author also stated that the insecurity of homeownership because
of possible mortgage defaults and lack of alternative affordable housing is still a marginal
phenomenon, especially for young adults to purchase a house. The issue of accessing both
social renting and homeownership also occurs in the UK. Clapham et al. (2012) forecasted that
by 2020, more than 1.5 million young people aged between 18 and 30 will be living in the
private rented sector.
In Australia, the rates of homeownership of people aged between 25 and 34 years also
experience a downward trend, from more than 60 per cent in 1981 to 45 per cent in 2016 (Daley
& Coates, 2018). The plausible reason may be because younger Australians usually have lower
income and less accumulated savings (Wood & Griffiths, 2019). Also, the fall in
homeownership rates of young adults could be attributed to the postponement of the
relationship formation in Australia, especially the delay of marriage (McDonald & Baxter,
2005). Similarly, in Sweden, Öst (2012) stated that the chances of young adults to access the
housing market has become increasingly difficult. Öst (2012) further mentioned that the
percentage of the poor has increased among young people and it is tougher for young adults
nowadays to be a permanent employee, which is needed to enter a firsthand lease.
In conclusion, homeownership rates among young adults in many countries around the world
are declining. There are numerous reasons why homeownership decreases. They include the
difficulties of finding permanent jobs, insufficient income, and unaffordable housing prices.
Today, homeownership largely depends on income, and how wealthy the young adults’ parents
are (Daley & Coates, 2018). Daley and Coates (2018) also argued that housing has a significant
contribution to widening the gaps in wealth between the rich and the poor, the old and the
young. The exclusion of young people from being homeowners is a crucial public-policy issue
that demands urgent and decisive interventions from the government (Öst, 2012).
Young Adults and Homeownership in Indonesia
For the younger generation in Indonesia, acquiring a house is one of the top indicators for
future achievement. Collecting data from young people aged between 20 and 35 in Indonesia,
Utomo (2019) found that the first priority is to ‘make their parents happy’, followed by
‘homeownership’, ‘be a good parent’, then ‘be a successful entrepreneur’ and ‘ to have a high
earning job’. Young adults in Indonesia often have a close relationship with their family. This
close relationship becomes a deciding factor for young adults when purchasing a house, that is
to live close to family members (Rahadi et al., 2015b). It is common in Indonesia for children
to live with or near their parents or their siblings (Rahadi et al., 2015b).
Understanding the factors that influence the price of houses could pose as a homeownership
challenge because knowing the value formation of houses will mean that home buyers (young
adults) know what to look out for and what to save when planning to buy a house. According
to Rahadi et al. (2015a), there is a wide gap between the perception of home buyers and
property practitioners on the pricing of housing in Indonesia which may probably aggravate
homeownership issue in Indonesia. Homeownership is still a challenge amongst the Indonesian
younger generation as Utomo (2019) reported that only 35.1 per cent of the millennials own a
house. The high inflation rate of housing prices hinders young adults’ abilities to acquire
homeownership in Indonesia (Utomo, 2019). Fortunately, some of the lending institutions in
Indonesia are now aware of the homeownership challenge amongst young adults. Some
Indonesian banks started launching housing mortgage programmes which are specifically
designed for the younger generation, with adjusted payment schemes according to young
adults’ financial conditions.
Research Methodology
This research is conducted to investigate the homeownership of young adults in Jakarta,
Indonesia, and adopted a quantitative research approach by using a questionnaire survey as the
data collection method. This method was chosen because the research focuses on identifying
the factors that influence an outcome, understanding the best predictors of the outcome, and
the utility of an intervention (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Also, quantitative research
approaches are suitable when a large population and a widespread of participants over a
geographical area are to be sampled (Easterbrook et al., 2008). The use of a questionnaire
survey is not uncommon in previous studies, for instance Rahadi et al. (2015b), Indrianingrum
(2017) among others.
The first step of this research was to review the literature and statistical data from the Indonesia
Statistical Board to understand the fundamental homeownership issues among young adults.
The drivers and barriers that influence the homeownership of young adults drawn from the
literature review were used to design the questionnaire. The next stage of this study was the
data collection from the young adults in the study area using the questionnaire survey. Finally,
the collected data were analysed and discussed to draw meaningful conclusions from the study.
Data Collection
A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from the respondents. A hard copy
questionnaire was administered to the respondents and this is allowed answering any question
the respondents may had which lead to getting quality answers (Zutshi et al., 2007). Before the
administration of the questionaries the respondents were informed about the confidentiality of
their participation. The questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section captures
the respondents’ profile by asking questions about their gender, age, marital status, type of
employment, length of working, salary level and education qualification. The second section
focuses on the factors (drivers) and barriers of homeownership. A five-point Likert scale from
‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ was used in this section. This section also includes a
question on the importance of the family role to their homeownership. A five-point Likert scale
from ‘very unimportant’ to ‘very important’ was used for this question. The third section asked
the respondents to indicate the solutions to overcome the homeownership challenges. A five-
point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ was used in this section.
The use of the Likert scale is not uncommon and have been appropriately adopted in the
previous literature (see Dawes, 2008; Rahadi et al., 2015a).
Three selection criteria were set for the target respondents for this research. First, must be an
Indonesian citizen because Indonesian citizens do not need to renew or extend their Rights to
Use a house in Indonesia as in the case of foreigners (Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of
The Republic of Indonesia, 2015). Secondly, must live in Jakarta. This is because it has 15,663
people/kilometre density which is the highest compare to other cities in Indonesia (Indonesian
Statistical Board, 2018) and only about 17 per cent of young adults in Jakarta can afford to
purchase a house and pay the mortgage (Caesario, 2016). Lastly, must be aged between 25 and
34 years (inclusive). This age range has been established in the literature (see Filandri &
Bertolini, 2016). The hard copies of the questionnaire were administered to the respondents in
Jakarta offices, coworking spaces and the surrounding public areas such as parks, cafes, malls
and libraries.
Data Analysis
The statistical tests used to analyse the collected data are the Cronbach’s alpha test, Pearson’s
correlation test and Mean Score (MS) ranking. Cronbach’s alpha test was adopted to measure
the reliability and internal consistency of the respondents’ answers. The value of the
Cronbach’s alpha test ranges from 0 to 1, in which 0 means no correlation and 1 means a perfect
positive correlation. Although there are debates about the acceptable benchmark, Morgan et al.
(2012) argued that the lowest acceptable reliability score is 0.70. Pearson’s correlation test was
conducted to examine the relationship between the respondents’ profile with their ability to
become homeowners and to evaluate the importance and criticality of each driver and barrier
of homeownership.
The MS test was conducted to rank the factors, barriers, and solutions of homeownership. The
MS of each variable was calculated using the expression in Equation 1 (Abidoye, 2017):
MS = 5 x n5 + 4 x n4 + 3 x n3 + 2 x n2 + 1 x n1 (1)
N
Where n is the number of young adults who gave a certain answer and N is the total number of
young adults that participated in the survey.
The criticality of each variable was established based on its respective MS. For this study, a
variable with MS of 4.00 and above was considered as highly critical, variables with MS
between 3.50 and 3.99 were considered as critical, while those with MS less than 3.00 were
regarded as noncritical. This classification is consistent with the existing literature (see,
Abidoye & Chan, 2016a).
Results and Discussion
Reliability Test
In total, 99 young adults responded to the questionnaire survey. However, three responses were
invalid and were taken out of the data analysis. Consequently, only 96 valid responses were
analysed. The response size is not uncommon in previous studies. For instance, Cheung et al.
(2012) got 45 responses (aggregate), Abidoye and Chan (2016b) got 55 responses, Wilkinson
et al. (2018) sampled 25 respondents, among others. Particularly in Indonesia, Indrianingrum
(2017) got 62 responses. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the questionnaire is 0.89, indicating
that the data gathered through the questionnaire survey is reliable and that meaningful
conclusions can be drawn from it.
Respondents’ Profile
Table 2 shows the gender distribution of the respondents who participated in this research. Out
of the 96 respondents, the majority are females (56.3 per cent), while 42.7 per cent of them are
males, with one respondent chose not to disclose his/her gender. This result is consistent with
the data from the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics (2018) who reported that the majority of the
young adults between the ages of 25 and 34 are females.
Table 2: Profile of the respondents
Variables Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male
41
42.7
Female 54 56.3
Prefer not to say 1 1.0
Total
96
100
Age Group
25 – 30 years
87 90.6
30 – 34 years
9
9.4
Total
96
100
Marital Status
Single
63
65.6
Married 30 31.3
Other: Prefer not to say 3 3.1
Total
96
100
Highest Education
High School 1 1.0
Diploma Certificate
9
9.4
Bachelor’s Degree
80
83.3
Master’s Degree 6 6.3
Doctoral Degree (PhD) 0 0
Total
96
100
The majority of the respondents were aged between 25 and 30 years (N=87, 90.6 per cent),
while the older group, aged between 30 and 34, represents only 9.4 per cent (see Table 2). In
terms of the marital status, 63 (65.6 per cent) of the respondents were single, 30 of them were
married (31.3 per cent) and three respondents preferred not to disclose their marital status.
In terms of the respondents’ highest education qualification, 80 (83.3 per cent) respondents
have a bachelor’s degree, nine respondents (9.4 per cent) have a diploma certificate, six
respondents (6.3 per cent) have a master’s degree, and one respondent (1 per cent) is a high
school graduate. This profile shows that 89.6 per cent of the respondents have acquired at least
an undergraduate degree. This suggests that the opinion presented in this research are from
well-educated young adults.
Table 3 shows the respondents’ employment status. Most of the respondents (69.8 per cent)
were permanent employees, while 24 per cent of the respondents were temporary employees.
The remainders were either unemployed, entrepreneurs, freelancer or students and they
constitute 3.1 per cent, 2.1 per cent, and 2.0 per cent, respectively. In terms of salary, the
majority (57.3 per cent) of the respondents’ monthly income ranged between IDR 5,000,000
and IDR 10,000,0001 (see Table 3). Meanwhile, according to the Indonesian Statistical Board
(2018), the average monthly salary of fresh graduates in Jakarta was IDR 3,600,000. Nearly 19
per cent of the respondents earned IDR 3,600,000 – IDR 5,000,000 a month, while another
13.5 per cent earned IDR 10,000,000 – IDR 20,000,000. Finally, 5.2 per cent of the respondents
earned less than IDR 3,600,000 monthly, below Jakarta’s minimum wage, and another 5.2 per
cent earned above IDR 20,000,000 monthly. It is sufficed to infer that most of the young adults
who participated in this survey could be categorised as middle-class income earners.
1 1 United States Dollar (USD) equals to Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) 15,189 (2018)
Table 3: Employment profile of the respondents
Variables Frequency Percentage
Employment Status
Temporary employee
23
24.0
Permanent employee 67 69.8
Entrepreneur / freelancer 2 2.1
Unemployed
3
3.1
Others: student
1
1.0
Total 96 100
Salary
< IDR 3,600,000
5
5.2
IDR 3,600,000 – IDR 5,000,000
18
18.8
IDR 5,000,000 – IDR 10,000,000 55 57.3
IDR 10,000,000 – IDR 20,000,000 13 13.5
> IDR 20,000,000
5
5.2
Total 96 100
Working Experience
< 1 year 26 27.1
1 – 3 years
15
15.6
3 – 5 years
46
47.9
5 – 10 years 7 7.3
> 10 years 2 2.1
Total
96
100
The respondents’ years of working experience is also presented in Table 3. The respondents
who possessed three to five years working experience are the majority (47.9 per cent), followed
by the respondents who had less than one year of work experience at 27.1 per cent. About 15
per cent of the respondents had one to three years of work experience, and the rest 7.3 per cent
and 2.1 per cent of the respondents had five to ten years and more than ten years’ experience,
respectively.
Correlation Between the Respondents’ Personal Profile and Housing Status
Pearson’s Correlation (parametric test) was conducted (see Table 4) to examine the relationship
among various factors. The tests were conducted to investigate if there is any statistical
relationship among the young adults’ salary, employment status, length of work and their
homeownership. The results show that there are no statistically significant relationships among
salary and homeownership status, employment and homeownership status, and length of work
and homeownership status because all their p values (p-value = .811, .092, .148) are higher
than .05. This suggests that those factors do not influence young adults' homeownership.
Table 4: Pearson correlation test result
Variables Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
Salary and Homeownership Status -.025 .811 96
Employment and Homeownership Status
.173 .092 96
Length of Work and Homeownership Status
-.149
.148
96
Young Adults’ Housing Preference and Homeownership Drivers
According to the response of young adults in Jakarta, Table 5 illustrates their housing
preference. Eight of the factors were ranked as highly critical, while the other four factors were
ranked as critical. Table 5 shows that access to transportation and location are the most
important factors that drive the housing preference of young adults in Jakarta with MS of 4.65
and 4.64, respectively. These findings corroborate the study of Timmermans et al. (1994) who
reported that accessibility and location are important to consumers when they choose a housing
product. Commuting and location are the main concerns in Indonesia, especially in a big city
like Jakarta with its inefficient public transportation system and high dependency on the
privately-owned mode of transportation (Rahadi et al., 2015b). The importance of location to
property value formation was also reported by Abidoye and Chan (2016a).
Table 5: Factors that influence the respondents’ housing preference
Factors SD D N A SA Mean Score SD Rank Criticality
Access to transportation 0 0 5 23 68 4.65 0.58 1st H. Critical
Location
0
0
4
26
66
4.64
0.56
2nd
H. Critical
Security
0
0
7
29
60
4.55
0.63
3rd
H. Critical
Price or value
0
1
5
31
59
4.54
0.65
4th
H. Critical
Neighbourhood
0
2
14
31
49
4.32
0.80
5th
H. Critical
Access to work
0
0
17
35
44
4.28
0.75
6th
H. Critical
Land and building size
0
1
25
39
31
4.04
0.94
7th
H. Critical
Age of the property
1
2
20
45
28
4.01
0.83
8th
H. Critical
Architecture or layout
0
3
37
37
19
3.75
0.81
9th
Critical
Close to family or relative
1
8
35
31
21
3.65
0.95
10th
Critical
Number of bedroom and bathroom
0
6
38
36
16
3.64
0.83
11th
Critical
Size of bedroom and bathroom
0
8
45
29
14
3.51
0.85
12th
Critical
Where SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree H. Critical = Highly Critical
Security was ranked as the third critical factor that influences the respondents’ housing
preference with MS of 4.55. This result corroborates the findings of Rahadi et al. (2015b) who
found that security is one of the most influential factors for residential consumers and, as a
result, it influences property values. Unpredictably, price and value are not the top three main
considerations when young adults choose a house, even though housing prices in Indonesia
have increased significantly over time (Rahadi et al., 2015b). It must be noted, however, that
the MS of ‘price or value’ is only slightly lower than the other main three factors. The number
and size of bedrooms and bathrooms were ranked as the least critical factors with MS values
of 3.65 and 3.51, respectively. This is probably because young adults are more concerned with
the land and building size than detailed features such as a property’s bedroom and bathroom
size.
In terms of the internal drivers of young adults’ homeownership in Jakarta (see Table 6), four
were ranked as highly critical, while three others were ranked as critical drivers. House as a
place to live was ranked as the first highly critical driver both in the internal factor category
and in the overall category with an MS value of 4.48. It can be argued that young adults want
to purchase a house as a functional attribute for them to live. It is also safe to conclude that a
driver for young adults’ homeownership follows the hierarchy of needs theory which places
housing as one of the most important basic needs (Van Ham, 2012).
Table 6:
Drivers of homeownership
Factors SD D N A SA Mean Score SD Category
Ranking Overall
Ranking Criticality
Internal Factors
As a place to live
1
0
6
33
56
4.48
0.71
1st
1st
H. Critical
Marriage
0
0
10
35
51
4.42
0.67
2nd
2nd
H. Critical
Parenthood
1
2
14
42
37
4.16
0.82
3rd
5th
H. Critical
Affordable percentage of mortgage down payment
1
1
21
42
31
4.05
0.82
4th
6th
H. Critical
Investment opportunity
2
4
20
40
30
3.95
0.93
5th
9th
Critical
Affordable mortgage repayment
1
5
22
46
22
3.86
0.86
6th
11th
Critical
Personal / career accomplishment
2
5
29
40
20
3.73
0.92
7th
14th
Critical
Family
Family background
4
7
26
39
20
3.66
1.02
1st
15th
Critical
Family financial support
5
8
26
37
20
3.61
1.06
2nd
16th
Critical
Family homeownership
7
9
28
38
14
3.44
1.08
3rd
17th
Critical
External Factors
Housing price affordability
0
1
9
39
47
4.37
0.69
1st
3rd
H. Critical
Affordable housing supply in the market
0
2
13
43
38
4.21
0.75
2nd
4th
H. Critical
Credit accessibility/lending from the bank
3
2
15
48
28
4.00
0.90
3rd
7th
H. Critical
Financial and economic condition
0
4
23
40
29
3.97
0.84
4th
8th
Critical
Labour market/job opportunity
0
3
25
42
26
3.94
0.81
5th
10th
Critical
Housing policy and regulation
1
6
21
46
22
3.85
0.88
6th
12th
Critical
Welfare program of the country
1
2
35
27
20
3.76
0.84
7th
13th
Critical
Where SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree H. Critical = Highly Critical
Marriage and parenthood with MS values of 4.42 and 4.16 were ranked as the second and third
most important internal drivers. This result is in line with previous studies such as Xu et al.
(2015), McDonald and Baxter (2005), Öst (2012) and Hirayama (2013) who found that young
adults’ life transition to get married and become parents is an influential driver for
homeownership. Similarly, Lauster (2008) found that there is a relationship between
homeownership and marital stability since couples who have already purchased a house are
less likely to be divorced. This is because the investments that a married couple makes in a
property (house) acquisition creates a more significant commitment to the marriage and
financial stability that goes along with marriage.
Lastly, buying a house as proof of personal or career accomplishment is the lowest-ranked
internal driver with an MS value of 3.73. These findings are in contrast with Ali and Purwandi
(2016) who stated that young adults in Jakarta symbolise their career achievement by acquiring
a house. The plausible reason for the contradiction might be because Ali and Purwandi (2016)
surveyed all the young adults in urban areas in many cities in Indonesia, unlike this research
which focuses only on Jakarta. Surprisingly, family factors, such as family background, family
financial support, and family homeownership, were ranked lowly for both the internal and
external drivers with MS values of 3.66, 3.61 and 3.44, respectively. The result is in contrast
to the study of Filandri and Bertolini (2016), Colic-Peisker and Johnson (2012) and Castro
Campos et al. (2016) who described that the support from family is a very critical factor for
young adults to attain homeownership status. Family factors are not regarded as highly critical
drivers by the respondents of this study probably because they do not depend on their parents
financially. In fact, many of the younger generation in Indonesia are regarded as a ‘Sandwich
Generation’ that is being in the middle of financial responsibility, not only to their children but
also to their parents (Aura, 2018).
There are three highly critical external drivers of young adults’ homeownership in Jakarta.
First, housing price affordability was ranked first with an MS value of 4.37. Housing
affordability remains a big challenge that needs interventions not only from the government
but also from the private sector. Second, affordable housing supply in the market was the
second highly critical driver with an MS value of 4.21. The third highly critical external factor
is credit accessibility or lending from the bank with an MS value of 4.00. Xu et al. (2015)
mentioned that credit accessibility plays an important role in attaining homeownership status.
If the mortgage requirements were tightened by the lenders, it would be more difficult for
young adults to obtain credit to purchase a house due to their weaker financial condition (Xu
et al., 2015). Lastly, the welfare program of the country was ranked as the least critical external
driver with an MS value of 3.76. This is probably because the respondents were not familiar
with the program of the government or they felt that the program is not helpful in their context.
Young Adults’ Homeownership Barriers
Table 7 shows the barriers that prevent young adults from becoming homeowners.
Unaffordable housing prices (MS = 4.34) and insufficient income (MS = 4.19) were ranked as
highly critical barriers. The World Bank (2016) explained that housing affordability remains a
key barrier to homeownership in Indonesia because only 20 per cent of the household can
acquire housing in the formal housing market. This barrier is followed by insufficient income,
which understandably plays a critical role when people enter the housing market (Clark &
Dieleman, 2017). The third critical barrier is the limited housing stock in the desired location
with an MS value of 3.97. The World Bank (2016) reported that the supply of new affordable
housing is often poorly located because of the high cost of land, pushing the urban people to
the city peripheries outside Jakarta.
Meanwhile, personal circumstances is the least critical barrier with an MS value of 3.51. The
personal circumstances may include family and mental health issue or ineligibility to access
mortgage loans due to a lack of formal employment or a consistent income stream (Mungkasa,
2012). However, it is safe to conclude that once the housing price is affordable relative to
income, the barriers of the respondents’ homeownership would more likely be lower.
Table 7: Barriers that prevent young adults in Jakarta from owning a house
Factors SD D N A SA Mean Score SD Rank Criticality
Unaffordable housing price 2 0 6 43 45 4.34 0.77 1st H. Critical
Insufficient income
2
1
12
42
39
4.19
0.85
2nd
H. Critical
Limited stock of housing in
the desired location 0 7 19 39 31 3.97 0.91 3rd Critical
Unaffordable mortgage
repayment 0 5 22 43 26 3.93 0.84 4th Critical
High percentage of down
payment 0 4 24 42 26 3.93 0.83 5th Critical
Loan or other debt burden
2
8
30
35
21
3.67
0.97
6th
Critical
Personal circumstances
3
6
41
31
15
3.51
0.94
7th
Critical
Where SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree, H. Critical = Highly Critical
Solutions to Young Adults’ Homeownership Challenges
Several potential solutions to overcome the homeownership challenges of young adults from
the findings of previous research are listed in Table 8. The respondents were asked to indicate
the extent to which they agree with those statements. The results show that the first and second
solutions are related to the housing affordability issue. The most highly critical solution is to
increase the supply of affordable housing as reflected in its MS of 4.30.
According to Rahadi et al. (2015b), Indonesia has experienced a fall in household formation
since 2000 due to the lack of housing supply. Nevertheless, because of the housing backlog,
this has aggravated the housing affordability in large cities. The government and the private
sector should devote more effort and resources to increase the supply of affordable housing for
young adults. The second highly critical solution is government intervention with an MS value
of 4.16. The respondents opined that the government needs to intervene through controlling
housing prices. Similarly, Rahadi et al. (2015b) argued that the lack of control and government
policies have exacerbated the increase in housing prices in Indonesia. The government should
be more proactive when making policies to control housing prices. The first and the second
solution are inter-related because if the supply of affordable housing is limited, housing prices
will automatically increase (Rahadi et al., 2015b), based on the laws of supply and demand.
Table 8: Solutions to overcome homeownership challenges
Factors SD D N A SA Mean Score SD Rank Criticality
Increase the affordable housing
supply 1 1 14 32 48 4.30 0.83 1st H. Critical
Government intervention to control
housing price 1 3 16 35 41 4.16 0.89 2nd H. Critical
Decrease the mortgage interest
2
2
21
34
37
4.06
0.93
3rd
H. Critical
Decrease the loan to value ratio for
down payment 4 1 21 41 29 3.93 0.97 4th Critical
Where SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree, H. Critical = Highly Critical
Conclusions
Currently, knowledge about the homeownership of young adults in Indonesia is limited.
Therefore, this research aims to fill the gap by analysing the young adults’ opinion, perceptions
and experiences regarding homeownership opportunities in Jakarta, Indonesia. The research
found that access to public transportation facilities, location, and security are highly critical
factors that young adults consider when making housing decisions. The internal factors that
drive their homeownership are house as a place to live, marriage and parenthood while buying
a house as a proof of personal or career accomplishment is the least critical driver. The
homeownership is driven more by personal factors than just pride or social status
accomplishment. The critical external factors that drive the homeownership of young adults
are housing price affordability, the supply of affordable housing, and credit accessibility from
banks. On the other hand, the two crucial barriers that prevent the respondents from owning a
house are unaffordable housing price and insufficient income. To overcome the
homeownership barriers, increasing the supply of affordable housing, controlling housing price
through government intervention, and reducing the mortgage interest rates are considered as
the most feasible solutions. Those solutions are related to each other because the inflated
housing prices can be overcome if there are sustainable and long-term initiatives to increase
the supply of new housing units, which can then reduce the down payment required of the
prospective homebuyers.
The findings of this study in terms of the drivers and barriers of young adults’ homeownership
fills the gap in literature in Jakarta and Asia at large. The results of this study can be used as a
decision-supporting tool by property developers, banks, mortgage loan providers, real estate
agents and other stakeholders in the housing provision space when providing housing products,
finance, marketing strategies and lending programs that are specifically made for young adults.
Also, the Indonesian government can find this research useful when formulating policies and
strategies regarding homeownership of young adults in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a developing
country, the drivers and barriers of homeownership in Indonesia may differ from those of
developed countries. Furthermore, 96 valid responses were analysed, thus the results should be
carefully generalised and interpreted. Since this study only focuses on Jakarta, other big cities
in Indonesia such as Bandung, Surabaya, and Medan can be investigated to assist stakeholders
in solving the homeownership challenges in Indonesia at large.
References
Abidoye, R. B. (2017). Towards property valuation accuracy: A comparison of hedonic pricing model and
artificial neural network. (Doctorate Degree), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Retrieved from http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/bitstream/10397/70359/2/991021965755503411_pira.pdf
(LG51 .H577P BRE 2017 Abidoye)
Abidoye, R. B., & Chan, A. P. C. (2016a). Critical determinants of residential property value: Professionals’
perspective. Journal of Facilities Management, 14(3), 283-300.
Abidoye, R. B., & Chan, A. P. C. (2016b). A survey of property valuation approaches in Nigeria. Property
Management, 34(5), 364-382.
Ali, H., & Purwandi, L. (2016). Indonesia 2020: The urban middle-class millenials. Retrieved from Jakarta
Selatan, Indonesia:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314448735_Indonesia_2020_The_Urban_Middle_Class_Mill
enials.
Aura. (2018). Psychologist reveals reasons behind sandwich generation stress. Retrieved 23rd April 2019, from
Tempo.co https://en.tempo.co/read/923563/psychologist-reveals-reasons-behind-sandwich-generation-
stress
Azkia, F. (Producer). (2017, 13th October 2018). Monitor house price dynamics in Jakarta. Retrieved from
https://www.rumah.com/berita-properti/2017/11/164618/memantau-dinamika-harga-rumah-di-jakarta.
Bratt, R. G. (2002). Housing and family well-being. Housing Studies, 17(1), 13-26.
Bugeja-Bloch, F. (2013). Residential trajectories of young French people. In R. Forest & N. M. Yip (Eds.), Young
people and housing: Transitions, trajectories and generational fractures (pp. 179-198). New York,
USA: Routledge.
Caesario, E. B. (2016). Only 17% of millennials can buy houses in Jakarta. from The Economy
https://ekonomi.bisnis.com/read/20161216/48/612683/hanya-17-generasi-millenial-mampu-beli-
rumah-di-jakarta
Castro Campos, B., Yiu, C., Shen, J., Liao, K., & Maing, M. (2016). The anticipated housing pathways to
homeownership of young people in Hong Kong. International Journal of Housing Policy, 16(2), 223-
242.
Cheung, E., Chan, A. P., & Kajewski, S. (2012). Factors contributing to successful public private partnership
projects: Comparing Hong Kong with Australia and the United Kingdom. Journal of Facilities
Management, 10(1), 45-58.
Clapham, D., Mackie, P., Orford, S., Buckley, K., Thomas, I., Atherton, I., et al. (2012). Housing options and
solutions for young people in 2020. Retrieved from York, UK:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/young-people-housing-options-full_0.pdf.
Clark, W. A. V., & Dieleman, F. M. (2017). Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in the housing market.
New York, USA: Routledge.
Colic-Peisker, V., & Johnson, G. (2012). Liquid life, solid homes: Young people, class and homeownership in
Australia. Sociology, 46(4), 728-743.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach. California, USA: Sage Publications.
Daley, J., & Coates, B. (2018). Housing affordability: Re-imaging the Australian Dream (2018-04). Retrieved
from Melbourne, Australia: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/901-Housing-
affordability.pdf.
Dawes, J. G. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment
using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 51(1), 61-77.
Doling, J., & Ronald, R. (2010). Home ownership and asset-based welfare. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 25(2), 165-173.
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.-A., & Damian, D. (2008). Selecting empirical methods for software
engineering research. In F. Shull, J. Singer, & D. I. K. Sjøberg (Eds.), Guide to advanced empirical
software engineering (pp. 285-311). London: Springer.
Filandri, M., & Bertolini, S. (2016). Young people and home ownership in Europe. International Journal of
Housing Policy, 16(2), 144-164.
Fry, R. (2013). Young adults after the recession: Fewer homes, fewer cars, less debt. Retrieved from
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/21/young-adults-after-the-recession-fewer-homes-fewer-
cars-less-debt/.
Hablemitoglu, S., Ozkan, Y., & Purutcuoglu, E. (2010). The assessment of the housing in the theory of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs. European journal of social sciences, 16(2), 222-228.
Hirayama, Y. (2013). Housing and generational fractures in Japan. In R. Forrest & N. M. Yip (Eds.), Young people
and housing: Transitions, trajectories and generational fractures (pp. 161-178). New York: Routledge.
Idrus, N., & Ho, C. S. (2008). Affordable and quality housing through the low cost housing provision in Malaysia.
Paper presented at the Seminar of Sustainable Development and Governance, Toyohashi, Japan.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chin_Ho/publication/279662294_Affordable_and_quality_housin
g_through_the_low_cost_housing_provision_in_Malaysia/links/564293cd08ae997866c4b2d7/Afforda
ble-and-quality-housing-through-the-low-cost-housing-provision-in-Malaysia.pdf
Indonesian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Number of population of DKI Jakarta (Male and Female) by age group
2018. Retrieved 2nd September 2018, from Statistics Indonesia
https://jakarta.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2018/01/31/17/tabel-proyeksi-penduduk-2018.html
Indonesian Statistical Board. (2018). Monthly report of socio-economic data Retrieved from Jakarta:
https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2018/09/05/77e5a222021e1c844d609136/laporan-bulanan-data-
sosial-ekonomi-september-2018.html.
Indrianingrum, L. (2017, 5th – 6th October 2016). Housing ownership and affordability among low-income
society in the poorest sub-district of Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia. Paper presented at the AIP
Conference Semarang, Indonesia.
Kusno, A. (2012). Housing the margin: Perumahan Rakyat and the future urban form of Jakarta. Indonesia, 94(1),
23-56.
Lauster, N. T. (2008). Better homes and families: Housing markets and young couple stability in Sweden. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 70(4), 891-903.
McCallum, D., & Benjamin, S. (1985). Low-income urban housing in the Third World: Broadening the economic
perspective. Urban Studies, 22(4), 277-287.
McDonald, P., & Baxter, J. (2005). Home ownership among young people in Australia: In decline or just delayed?
Australian Journal of Social Issues, The, 40(4), 471-487.
McKee, K. (2012). Young people, homeownership and future welfare. Housing Studies, 27(6), 853-862.
McLeod, S. (2018). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved 18th September 2018, from Simply Psychology
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of The Republic of Indonesia. (2015). Ownership of dwelling of residency
house by forerign persons domiciled in Indonesia.pdf. (REGULATION NO. 103/2015). Jakarta:
Minister of Justice and Human Rights of The Republic of Indonesia Retrieved from
http://www.indonesia.cz/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Government-Regulation-PP-No.-103-
2015_EN.pdf.
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2012). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics:
Use and interpretation (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Mulder, C. H. (2006). Population and housing: A two-sided relationship. Demographic Research, 15(13), 401-
412.
Mulroy, E. A., & Ewalt, P. L. (1996). Affordable housing: A basic need and a social issue. Social work, 41(3),
245-249.
Mungkasa, O. (2012). Housing in Indonesia: Expanding access improving access. Retrieved from Jakarta,
Indonesia:
https://www.academia.edu/3513665/Housing_in_Indonesia._Expanding_Access_Improving_Efficienc
y.
National Housing Task Force. (1988). A decent place to live: The report of the National Housing Task Force
(Vol. 63). Washington D.C.: National Housing Task Force.
Öst, C. E. (2012). Parental wealth and first-time homeownership: A cohort study of family background and young
adults’ housing situation in Sweden. Urban Studies, 49(10), 2137-2152.
Poggio, T. (2012). The first steps into the Italian housing system: Inequality between generational gaps and family
intergenerational transfers. In R. Forrest & N.-M. Yip (Eds.), Young People and Housing (pp. 60-81).
London Routledge.
Rahadi, R. A., Wiryono, S. K., Koesrindartoto, D. P., & Syamwil, I. B. (2015a). Comparison of the property
practitioners and consumer preferences on housing prices in the Jakarta metropolitan region.
International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 8(3), 335-358.
Rahadi, R. A., Wiryono, S. K., Koesrindartoto, D. P., & Syamwil, I. B. (2015b). Factors influencing the price of
housing in Indonesia. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 8(2), 169-188.
Ronald, R. (2008). The ideology of homeownership: Homeowner societies and the role of housing. New York,
USA: Springer.
Siew, R. (2017). Affordable housing in Southeast Asia. Retrieved from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
https://theaseanpost.com/article/affordable-housing-southeast-asia.
The World Bank. (2016). National affordable housing program in Indonesia (PIDC26050). Retrieved from
Washington, D.C: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/299581479368540859/pdf/PID-Print-
P154948-11-17-2016-1479368535904.pdf.
Timmermans, H., Molin, E., & Van Noortwijk, L. (1994). Housing choice processes: Stated versus revealed
modelling approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 9(3), 215-227.
Tunas, D., & Peresthu, A. (2010). The self-help housing in Indonesia: The only option for the poor? Habitat
International, 34(3), 315-322.
Utomo, W. P. (2019). Indonesia millennial report 2019. Retrieved from Jakarta, Indonesia:
https://cdn.idntimes.com/content-documents/indonesia-millennial-report-2019-by-idn-times.pdf.
Van Ham, M. (2012). Housing behaviour. In D. Clapham, W. A. V. Clark, & K. Gibb (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook
of Housing Studies (pp. 47-65). London: SAGE.
Widoyoko, D. (2007). Good governance and provision of affordable housing in DKI Jakarta, Indonesia: Case
study. Leicestershire, UK: WEDC, Loughborough University.
Wilkinson, S., Antoniades, H., & Halvitigala, D. (2018). The future of the Australian valuation profession.
Property Management, 36(3), 333-344.
Wood, D., & Griffiths, K. (2019). Generation gap: Ensuring a fair go for young Australians (2019-07). Retrieved
from Australia: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/920-Generation-Gap.pdf.
World Bank. (2012). Housing in Indonesia: Expanding access, improving efficiency. Retrieved from Washington
DC:
https://www.academia.edu/3513665/Housing_in_Indonesia._Expanding_Access_Improving_Efficienc
y?auto=download.
Xu, Y., Johnson, C., Bartholomae, S., O'Neill, B., & Gutter, M. S. (2015). Homeownership among millennials:
The deferred American dream? Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 44(2), 201-212.
Zutshi, A., Parris, M. A., & Creed, A. (2007, 4 - 7 December). Questioning the future of paper and online survey
questionnaires for management research. Paper presented at the 21st ANZAM Conference, Sydney,
Australia.
