Journal of Environmental Psychology (1997) 17, 4757 1997 Academic Press Limited

0272-4944/97/010047+11$25.00/0

ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
MARIA AMERIGO*
AND

Journalof

A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION

JUAN IGNACIO ARAGONES

*Centro Superior de Humanidades, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain; Facultad de Psicologa, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Abstract In this paper we present a theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction, and seek to give a general view of the relationships established between a person and his/her residential environment. The work is structured in two sections. The first offers a general overview of the state of the art in residential satisfaction. In order to do this, we start from a model which analyses the relations between an individual and his/her residential environment, and comment on some empirical results obtained from this model. In the second section, we analyse some of the problems which hinder research from the perspective 1997 Academic Press Limited proposed here.

Introduction One of the topics most often studied in the area of the built environment is that of residential satisfaction, which has generated wide research. Residential satisfaction has been discussed in numerous empirical studies which examine characteristics of the users (either cognitive or behavioural) or characteristics of the environment, both physical and social; but, as Wiesenfeld (1995) states, very few researchers have organized these variables into a model so as to study and analyse, as a guide, the relationships produced among them. Following the classification used by Weidemann and Anderson (1985), research relating to residential satisfaction may be grouped into two different categories: (1) studies of residential satisfaction as a criterion of evaluation of residential quality. Methodologically speaking, the studies which fall into this category are characterized by their treatment of satisfaction as a criterion variable and, therefore, as a dependent variable. The theoretical framework guiding this type of research is exemplified by the work of Marans and Rodgers (1975); Galster and Hesser (1981); Cutter (1982) or Gifford (1987). (2) In the second category would be research into residential mobility. In this case, residential satisfaction is considered as a predictor of behaviour and, there-

fore, as an independent variable. The theoretical model expounded by Speare (1974) would be a good example of empirical research belonging to this second section. In short, residential satisfaction has been studied as an important criterion in descriptions of the quality of life of the inhabitants of a determinate residential environment, and also a trigger factor affecting residential mobility. An integrated consideration of residential satisfaction would be determined by a series of theoretical frameworks which may be termed comprehensive models of residential satisfaction, in which this construct is considered as a criterion variable of residential quality and, at the same time, as a variable predicting certain behaviours (Weidemann & Anderson, 1985; Francescato et al., 1989; Amerigo, 1990).

Contribution from a Conceptual Framework From this integrating perspective, Amerigo (1990, 1992a) presents a conceptual framework in which to examine the way the individual interacts with his/her residential environment. This approach is more than a model of residential satisfaction. It implies studying the dynamic interaction between

ps960038

48

M. Amerigo and J. I. Aragones

Objective attributes of residential environment

Personal characteristics Subjective attributes of residential environment

Residential satisfaction

Behavioural intentions

Adaptive behaviour

Satisfaction with life in general

FIGURE 1. A systemic model of residential satisfaction. From Amerigo (1990, 1992a).

the individual and his/her residential environment, and analysing the different processes, cognitive, affective and behavioural, which take place in this interaction. According to this model, represented graphically in Figure 1, the objective attributes of the residential environment, once they have been evaluated by the individual, become subjective, giving rise to a certain degree of satisfaction. Thus, the subjective attributes are influenced by what are termed personal characteristics in the figure. This cell would include the subjects socio-demographic and personal characteristics, as well as his/her residential quality pattern, a normative element whereby the individual compares his/her real and ideal residential environments. The result of this evaluation, i.e. residential satisfaction, is a positive affective state which the individual experiences towards his/her residential environment and which will cause him/her to behave in certain ways intended to maintain or increase congruence with that environment. As previously stated, cognitive, affective and behavioural elements are present in the interaction proposed in the model. These three levels of analysis will be used in order to structure the empirical results obtained with this model. However, before doing so, it is first necessary to give some indication regarding the methodology used. Thus, it will be possible to contextualize the results, knowing the

type of population they refer to, in which residential environment they have been obtained, and with which instruments. The studies carried out up until the latest formulation of the model involved more than 1000 subjects, the majority of whom were housewives living in council housing in the city of Madrid. As the objective housing situations varied greatly, different subsamples were generated: ranging from subjects recently moved into brand-new flats, to those living in substandard accommodation and awaiting rehousing, and including those whose houses were undergoing different kinds of repair work. In order to achieve the aims of the different studies, several instruments were designed to evaluate the perceived residential quality and the residents satisfaction. These instruments were refined over the course of various studies, culminating in a final questionnaire on residential satisfaction (QRS), the general characteristics of which are described below. The QRS is divided into four sections. The aim of the first section is to obtain perceived environmental quality indices through the evaluation of a set of attributes related to the neighbourhood, the house, and the neighbours. The items to be evaluated are formulated on an ordinal scale, with the subject being required to quantify how he/she perceives the

A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to the Study of Residential Satisfaction

49

feature (a lot, quite a lot, a little, or not at all) in his/her own residential environment. The second section aims to determine the subjects satisfaction with their residential environment. The measure of residential satisfaction is obtained through questions which ask, directly or indirectly, about the degree of the subjects satisfaction with their neighbourhood, house, and neighbours. The third part collects socio-demographic and personal characteristics which previous research in this field has proved to be relevant. Finally, the fourth section refers to the behavioural aspect, and includes questions relating to the conduct of individuals in their residential environment. After giving a general overview of the methodology used, a brief description will be offered of some results obtained following the theoretical framework previously outlined. As already mentioned, the cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects, which can be seen in the dynamic interaction between the individual and the residential environment could serve to structure empirical research in this field.

IndividualResidential Environment Interaction: Cognitive Aspect Taking as a starting point the concept of Perceived Environmental Quality Index (PEQI), which Craik and Zube (1976) describe as a cognitiveperceptual operation relative to certain outstanding elements of the environment, and applying this concept to the residential environment, it is possible to speak of evaluative dimensions with which individuals assess their residential environments, namely, Perceived Residential Quality Index (PRQI). In order to obtain the PRQI empirically, we used the working model established by Canter and Rees (1982) on the essential elements of the residential environment: the neighbourhood, house and neighbours. On the basis of these three components, and in line with such studies as that of Carp and Carp (1982) the PRQI is obtained: a contents analysis of a structured interview concerning positive and negative aspects of the neighbourhood, house and neighbours produces features of the residential environment to be evaluated by the subject. A Principal Components Varimax Rotation analysis of these evaluations produces the dimensions of the perceived residential environment, namely, the aforementioned PRQI. In order to determine how individuals evaluate

their own residential environment, several studies were carried out to obtain PRQI. The first survey was performed in Orcasitas, an area of council housing in the South of Madrid. In this study of housewives, the following five PRQIs were obtained: privacy, comfort with the neighbourhood unit, comfort of the house, security and thermal insulation (Amerigo & Aragones, 1988). Thereafter, the instrument used in this preliminary survey was subjected to a test of reliability (Amerigo, 1990), as a result of which it was improved and used in a subsequent study. This second survey was also carried out on housewives from council estates, though the characteristics of the houses were very different, as some were undergoing repair or renovation, while others were going to be completely rebuilt. In this study, nine PRQIs were obtained: basic residential infrastructure, relationship with neighbours, residential safety, neighbourhood infrastructure, deterioration, connection with the outside world, urban activity and noise, miscellaneous, and natural open spaces (Amerigo & Aragones, 1990). In a third survey, Aragones et al. (1992) obtained four PRQIs: comfort/nonovercrowding of the house, relationships with the neighbours, quality of the house, and urban insecurity. Using a very similar methodology, some of these same PRQIs were obtained with housewives in substandard housing in the city of Oviedo. Aragones and Corraliza (1992) show five PRQIs: infrastructure, neighbourhood facilities, residential safety, relationships with neighbours, overcrowding, and health infrastructure. From all these surveys, the results of which are summarized in Table 1, it may be concluded that, of the basic dimensions with which housewives of low socio-economic status represent their residential environment, four are important. In relation to the house, there is a general dimension referring to the quality or to the basic infrastructure, and a more specific dimension referring to overcrowding. Regarding the neighbourhood or surrounding area, there is an important dimension: the residential safety perceived. Finally, relationships with neighbours form the fourth dimension to be considered in the internal representation of the residential environment in this type of subject. In addition to establishing the basic dimensions with which individuals represent their residential environment, research in this field has been oriented towards the way in which cognitions are affected by changes in this environment. A survey car ried out by Aragones et al. (1992) provides some results in this area. This research was a longitudi-

50

M. Amerigo and J. I. Aragones

nal study, since some of the housewives of the sample had been interviewed previously. Thus, it was possible to determine to what extent the reconstruction and repair work begun three years before this study influenced the housewives assessment of their residential environment. The results of these evaluations may be useful to the planner, as they provide information about the impact caused by renovation on the inhabitants of a specific residential environment. It was shown that rebuilding work had a positive influence on neighbourhood relationships because the housewives perception of these improved significantly in a period of three years. However, the same factor exerted a negative influence on residential safety, given that perceptions of insecurity increased during rebuilding work. This could be due to the temporary breakdown of social networks which takes place during this process, bringing about an absence of social control. The other type of work, housing repairs or renovation, had a significant influence on the change of cognitions referring to the assessment of the quality of housing: house-

wives whose houses had been renovated evaluated them as significantly better once the process was over. Continuing with a cognitive consideration of the relation between the individual and his/her residential environment, reference can be made to a study evaluating the existence of differential perceptions of the residential environment as a function of the environmental role of husband/wife. To this end, Amerigo (1992b) carried out research which sought to corroborate the results obtained by Canter and Rees (1982). These authors, using multi-dimensional scaling, found two different space regions in relation to houses: one occupied by the wives, and the other by the husbands perceptions. Very diff erent results were found by Amerigo (1992b), who concluded that two variables exist which modulate the wifes or husbands differential perception of the residential environment: their status in the life cycle (their marital/parental status, etc.), on the other hand, and their type of occupation, on the other. With regard to the former, the results of a sampling of 50 retired couples gave a spatial distri-

TABLE 1. Perceived Residential Quality Index (PRQI)* in council housing or dwellings of low socio-economic status Amerigo and Aragones Amerigo and Aragones Aragones et al. Aragones and Corraliza (1988) (1990) (1992) (1992) Comfort with the neighbourhood unit Comfort of house Safety Residential safety Relationships with neighbours Relationships with neighbours Quality of house Urban insecurity Comfort/non overcrowding of house Basic residential infrastructure Privacy Thermal insulation Neighbourhood infrastructure Deterioration Urban activity and noise Open natural spaces Miscellaneous Health infrastructure *All the PRQIs were obtained by means of Principal Component Analysis, Varimax Rotation, carried out on the residential features presented in each study. Urban safety Overcrowding Infrastructure: facilities Relationships with neighbours

A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to the Study of Residential Satisfaction

51

bution where each member of the couple was very close to the other, which indicated a very similar perception of the residential environment. Likewise, when the multi-dimensional analysis was applied to a sample of young couples where both members worked outside the home, the results showed a distribution on a bi-dimensional space which did not allow identification of different regions as a function of the environmental role.

IndividualResidential Environment Interaction: Affective Aspect The affective aspect to be considered in the interaction between the individual and his/her residential environment is represented by the construct residential satisfaction. Empirical research has centred on determining predictors of residential satisfaction and, therefore, on establishing objective and subjective attributes, as well as personal characteristics, that will explain the variations in residential satisfaction. A review of the bibliography on this subject can be found in Tognoli (1987), which, together with subsequent empirical research, indicates that there is a long list of predictors of residential satisfaction, which are obtained in residential context and at specific times. The casuistic development of these studies impedes the establishment of common codes. In an attempt to ascertain what unifies the different predictors, the research was analysed in detail, and it was noted that they were all arranged around two dimensions: one physical vs social dimension, depending on whether the attribute belongs to the physical or to the social environment, and one objective vs subjective dimension, depending on whether the predictor is objective or originates from the subjects evaluation. Figure 2 offers an illustration of this taxonomy, showing the different predictors obtained in various studies. The research aimed at obtaining predictors of residential satisfaction in public housing of the city of Madrid, following the model set out in Figure 1, (Amerigo and Aragones, 1988, 1990; Aragones et al., 1992), has shown that psycho-social aspects such as relationships with neighbours and the degree of attachment to the residential environment are stronger predictors than those relative to physical features, such as infrastructure and equipment of the house and neighbourhood. More specifically, research has also been done to determine to what extent renovation work and urban reconstruction effect changes in the degree of residential satisfac-

tion felt by residents. As already stated, Aragones et al.s work (1992) consisted of a longitudinal study with housewives whose houses were being renovated or rebuilt. The results relating to the differences in the degree of residential satisfaction showed the following: the housewives whose houses were renovated did not show a significant change in degree of residential satisfaction once the process was over. Reconstruction, however, had a different effect: the degree of residential satisfaction experienced by a sample of housewives whose neighbourhood was going to be rebuilt shortly was significantly lower than the residential satisfaction felt three years later, when the rebuilding work was taking place in the neighbourhood. This group, in fact, still lived in their old houses. However, given these results, it seems that the anticipated consequences of rebuilding work may have positive effects on subjects who expect to move house, even though they have not yet done so.

IndividualResidential Environment Interaction: Behavioural Aspect Finally, and with reference to the conative element of the relation between the individual and the environment, the research was oriented towards the relations between residential behaviour and satisfaction. In this regard, we hypothesize that, if an individual has a favourable attitude towards his/her residential environment, and is therefore satisfied with it, his/her behaviour will be consistent with this attitude in such areas as: maintenance of the house and neighbourhood, good relations with neighbours, participation in neighbourhood activities, etc. With reference to this, Aragones et al. (1992) seek to determine which of the subjects recent types of behaviour relating to his/her neighbourhood, house and neighbours are significantly related to his/her degree of residential satisfaction. The results of this work indicate, in general terms, that the subjects in the sample studied who had not made improvements to the houses, and/or had not taken action in the neighbourhood against social problems such as drugs, claimed to be more satisfied than those who had. On the other hand, participation in neighbourhood activities and frequent visits to neighbours are related to a higher degree of residential satisfaction. However, these results must be interpreted taking into account that residential satisfaction is a global attitude, and was in this case related to

52

M. Amerigo and J. I. Aragones

SUBJECTIVE

Degree of maintenance of neighbourhood (g) Appearance of place (i)

Safety (f) (g) Friendship (g) Relationship with neighbours (a)

Apartment evaluation (g) Attachment of residential area (a) Administration of neighbourhood (i) Perception of overcrowding (a) (c) (d) (f) Homogeneity (g) (f)

PHYSICAL

SOCIAL

Single-family vs multi-family (a) Electricity (a) Noise level (j)

Owner-rented (e) (f) Time living in house (e) Time living in neighbourhood (c) Age (c) (f) (h) Life cycle (k) Presence of relatives in neighbourhood (e) (h)

OBJECTIVE
FIGURE 2. Some predictors of residential satisfaction. (a) Aragones and Corraliza (1992); (b) Christensen et al. (1992); (c) Bonnes et al. (1991); (d) Aragones, Amerigo and Sukhwani (1992); (e) Rent and Rent (1978); (f) Loo (1986); (g) Weidemann et al. (1982); (h) Amerigo and Aragones (1988); (i) Anthony, Weidemann and Chin (1990); (j) Miller et al. 1980); (k) Hourihan (1984).

specific modes of behaviour. This does not agree with the idea held by Fishbein & Ajzen (1974) regarding the relationship between attitudes and specific behaviour.

Problems Raised in Residential Satisfaction Research When trying to prove empirically models of residential satisfaction and the interaction between the individual and his/her residential environment, the researcher faces several kinds of problems. The most frequent of these may be grouped around three axes or dimensions. The first relates to the content of one of the terms of the interaction studied, i.e. the residential environment: what is to be understood

by residential environment? How has it been empirically defined? The second dimension broaches the problem of the interaction between the individual and his/her residential environment. The fact that this interaction is a dynamic, two-way, constantly changing process (Wiesenfeld, 1994) greatly hinders empirical research. Finally, the above-mentioned problems, together with the social desirability inherent in the term satisfaction, result in the difficulty of formulating this variable. How are we to find trustworthy measurements for residential satisfaction? In the following pages, these problems will be described, highlighting important theoretical and methodological queries which hinder research in this field, and proposals offered as to possible solutions which might guide future research.

A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to the Study of Residential Satisfaction

53

Definition of residential environment Studies of residential satisfaction have generally been applied to the house and to its surrounding area or neighbourhood. Both house and neighbourhood have been studied from two points of view: physical, corresponding to equipment and services; and social, referring to the social networks established both in shared areas of the building and in the neighbourhood. However, there seems to be a problem in trying to define the physical limits of house and of neighbourhood. For example, when referring to the house, we should take into account not only its private space, but also the semi-public areas immediately surrounding it. As Fried and Gleicher (1961), Hartman (1963), and Rapoport (1977) have shown, these areas are very relevant at certain socio-economic levels due to the perceptions they involve. According to these authors, spatial perceptions may vary considerably as a function of variables like social and cultural status. The concept of neighbourhood, on the other hand, is even more confusing and problematic (Lee, 1968; Brown & Moore, 1970). Few authors allude to which physical area it involves, i.e. most use terms like community, district, neighbourhood, etc. without establishing the exact limits and without defining them precisely. Jacobs (1961), and Marans and Rodgers (1975) are some of the few exceptions, as they put forward clearly differentiated levels within the residential environment. In general, from what can be deduced from the literature in this field, the neighbourhood is usually considered an intermediate zone between the macro-neighbourhood and the micro-neighbourhood (Marans and Rodgers, 1975), including a moreor-less large area near the subjects house, which provides him/her with certain services, and where friendships are formed with other people living in it. This refers, in a certain sense, to the concept of socio-spatial scheme developed by Lee (1968), or to the system of housing settlement proposed by Rapoport (1978). This means that the individuals inhabiting a space, and the physical objects they use, are closely bound into one unit, thus forming an outline. According to this concept, neighbourhood cannot be precisely defined, rather the concept should be referred to as a personal category, i.e. what the residents themselves consider it to be. Another important aspect when defining the neighbourhood is given by the sense of belonging to it, or identification with it (Fried, 1986; Denche and Alguacil, 1987; Weenig et al., 1990; Valera, 1993).

According to this research, a definition of neighbourhood does not refer to the geographical area which limits it, but rather to the subjects perception and to his/her sense of belonging. In this way, the neighbourhood does not have a fixed surface, but varies from one subject to another. This is why we would have to determine the intersection to be able to establish a common dimension of neighbourhood in a particular residential environment. Thus, the concept of neighbourhood becomes something complex and multi-dimensional, where physical and psycho-social aspects must be taken into account, as shown in the above-mentioned studies. This obviously greatly hinders research, and the researcher who centres his/her study on the residential environment should previously make clear the dimensions upon which he/will work, specifying the concepts of house and of neighbourhood used. Residential satisfaction as a dynamic process The study of residential satisfaction is most interesting when it is applied to populations of low economic resources, who cannot move away if they are dissatisfied with their present residential environment. When the degree of residential satisfaction is low in this type of subject, in most cases cognitive restructuring occurs, which keeps the person in equilibrium with his/her residential environment. This dynamic view of the interaction between the individual and the residential environment implies that all the intervening elements (see Figure 1) are considered as part of a process, which greatly complicates empirical treatment of the model. This process sets in motion internal mechanisms which determine the evaluations which will make subjects experience a higher or lower degree of residential satisfaction. Some authors have described these mechanisms: for example, Marans and Rodgers (1975) refer to a standard of comparison when assessing the residential environment. This concept implies issues such as expectations, level of aspiration, degree of equity, reference group, needs, and values. However, the authors limit themselves to enumerating the elements that form it, making no reference to the definitions of such elements, nor to the actual role played by each of them in the evaluation of theresidential environment. Likewise, Amerigo (1990), in her description of the theoretical model of residential satisfaction, refers to a similar element which is necessary when transforming the objective attributes of the residential environment into subjective ones, considering that it is the latter which will mainly determine the

54

M. Amerigo and J. I. Aragones

degree of residential satisfaction experienced by the individual. This element is named standard of residential quality, which is determined, amongst other things, by the subjects group of reference. For instance, having an indoor toilet would be the maximum aspiration in housing quality for certain cultures or certain socio-economic levels; while for others, it will have a much lower place on the scale. Therefore, each individual has a specific standard of residential quality, by which he/she makes comparisons with his/her actual environment, so that, as the gap between both decreases, satisfaction with the real residential environment increases. This pattern is formed on the basis of the background of the subject or specific group whose residential satisfaction is being studied; therefore, this element implicitly includes individual, social and cultural influences on the interaction with the residential environment. The empirical demonstration of these internal processes in the assessment of the residential environment has not always been successfully clarified, given the complexity of interrelations posed by the processes themselves; though attempts have been made, such as Galster and Hessers (1981) model on residential satisfaction, or the works of Lindberg et al. (1987, 1988), on residential preferences. The latter set out of a model of housing preferences following Fishbein and Ajzens theory of reasoned action. The empirical results they obtain support the hypothesis that the evaluations people make of a series of housing attributes are modified by their structure of fundamental values and of beliefs about the effects that certain types of behaviour will have on achieving these values. However, as the authors themselves admit:
although quite successful, predictions [. . .] were not perfect. Perhaps the most plausible reason for this is that the items we included in the different domains did not capture all of the respondents salient beliefs. . . (Lindberg et al., 1987, p. 101).

to determine the causes that generate a certain degree of satisfaction and the effects they imply. In spite of this, more and more powerful statistical techniques for multi-variate analysis are being developed. These allow us to extrapolate causal relations between different elements, considering the existence of latent variables, which increases the reliability and validity of the relations established. In fact, Galster and Hesser (1981), in their model of residential satisfaction, use Path Analysis, which is already an improvement in this sense. As regards the technique of analysis of structural equations, though it was first applied to an attitudinal model by Bentler and Speckart in 1979, it is not common in studies of residential satisfaction. Therefore, this task remains to be done, and will doubtless shed more light on this field.

Methodological Aspects in Research on Residential Satisfaction It is not easy to quantify residential satisfaction empirically. There are two different problems associated with this: on the one hand, social desirability generated by direct questions of the type To what extent are you satisfied with. . .? and on the other, the difficulty of determining objective levels of residential satisfaction. As regards the first problem, there are many studies which obtain high levels of satisfaction, not only with the residential environment, but with life in general, and with other domains of life, when these are measured through items or scales which ask the subject directly about his/her degree of satisfaction (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Argyle, 1987; Campbell et al., 1976). In order to avoid this problem, we have tried to generate indirect scales, i.e. formed of items that do not ask directly about the degree of satisfaction, but about subjects we assume to be equivalent. Thus, Amerigo (1990) compared the measurements obtained with two different scales of residential satisfaction, one direct and the other indirect. Judging from the results, both scales have their virtues and their defects, which makes choice difficult. As regards the direct scale, in addition to the drawbacks of social desirability already mentioned, it may be noted that the word satisfaction has general connotations of meaning referring to a global state of the individual, more than to a specific aspect of the residential environment, such as the neighbourhood, the house, or the neighbours. This may obviously influence the judgements of satisfaction referring to these three com-

This shows the difficulty of carrying out an empirical demonstration of such a process as the one described here. We may prove specific aspects of the process, but it is not possible to make global comparisons with the techniques traditionally used in environmental psychology. It is clear that with the strategies traditionally used, such as multiple regression, it is extremely difficult to prove empirically the intervention of mechanisms such as those already mentioned. It is not possible to derive causeeffect relations from this technique, a serious drawback for setting out general models of residential satisfaction which try

A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to the Study of Residential Satisfaction

55

ponents of the residential environment. On the other hand, the indirect scale has the drawback of its validity in comparison with the direct scale, insofar as it is not certain that what is being measured is actually satisfaction and not some other concept. Despite this, future research should be oriented towards the building of indirect scales, improving their validity, since they seem to offer more possibilities when aiming at a more valid measurement of residential satisfaction. The second aspect, referring to the measurement of residential satisfaction, poses more problems and questions traditional definitions of the concept of satisfaction. If it is defined as the gap existing between achievements and aspirations (Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Morrissy & Handal, 1981; Canter & Rees, 1982; Bardo & Hughey, 1984), how can we explain the situation of individuals who, despite having a wide gap between residential achievements and aspirations, profess to be satisfied with their residential environment when asked about it? The obvious answer is either that the question is biased by social disability, as referred to above, or that these type of individuals have reduced the dissonance that their objective residential conditions generate. In either case, this supposes that the outward expression of the degree of residential satisfaction experienced by this type of individual differs perceptibly from the actual residential situation they are in, and is determined by the gap that separates residential achievements from aspirations. Therefore, how can we measure objectively the degree of residential satisfaction? This was empirically proved by Amerigo (1990), who found that a sample of housewives living in council housing obtained a higher degree of satisfaction when expressed directly, than when it was obtained through the definition of satisfaction commented above. Specifically, the degree of satisfaction was obtained by calculating the distance between the perceived residential environment and the ideal residential environment. Logically, if this distance is small, the person is more satisfied than if it is great. In addition to this, when a profile was established of the most incongruent subjects (i.e. those who claimed to be very satisfied although the distance between actual spaceideal space was the greatest), it was noted that they lived in an area which was shortly going to be rebuilt, and their residential conditions were, consequently, very poor at that moment. These peoples own lives (struggles to achieve the rebuilding work), as well as the hope of a decent residential situation in the near future,

were strong enough incentives for them to reduce the dissonance occasioned by their negative residential circumstances. In summary, and with regard to the measurement of residential satisfaction, we shall have to continue working. The high levels of residential satisfaction obtained in cases where the objective residential conditions augured the opposite lead us to suspect that the measurement strategies used up to the moment are inadequate. The use of indirect items and multi-term scales may help to overcome this problem.

Conclusion In this paper, different aspects pertaining to the relationships between the individual and his/her residential environment are discussed. Specifically, a conceptual framework is presented in which to place these relationships, with an emphasis on residential satisfaction. This conceptual framework is supported by various empirical studies which were structured on the basis of the dimensions which represent the activity of the individual with the said environment: the cognitive, affective and behavioural. The literature review, together with these empirical studies, has highlighted certain problems affecting research in this field. In some studies, the definition of residential environment is used in a vague way (what is understood by residential environment is not defined) and in others, it is too incomplete (the definitions are centred solely on certain relevant aspects: geographic area involved, sense of belonging, provision of facilities, etc.). The multi-dimensional aspect which characterizes the components of the residential environment requires greater precision when researching into that environment. On the other hand, the internal processes set in motion when an individual interacts with his/her residential environmentwhen he/she has to evaluate it and express his/her degree of satisfaction with itare sufficiently complex as to require greater attention than has hitherto been accorded them. The concept of pattern of residential qualitydetermined by various personal, social and cultural factorswith which the subject compares his/her real and ideal residential environments, may indicate a step in the right direction for future research. In addition to the difficulty implicit in the complex and dynamic consideration of the relationships between the individual and his/her residential environment, there is also the difficulty of making satisfaction operative. Traditional

56

M. Amerigo and J. I. Aragones community. Journal of Social Psychology 124, 151157. Bentler, P. M. &, Speckart, G. (1979). Models of attitudebehavior relations. Psychological Review 86, 452464. Bonnes, M., Bonaiuto, M. &, Ercolani, A. P. (1991). Crowding and residential satisfaction in the urban environment. A contextual approach. Environment and Behavior 23, 531552. Brown, L. A. &, Moore, E. G. (1970). The Intra-urban migration process: A perspective. General Systems 15, 109122. Campbell, A., Converse, P. and Rodgers, W. (1976). The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Canter, D. &, Rees, K. (1982). A multivariate model of housing satisfaction. International Review of Applied Psychology 31, 185208. Carp, F. M. &, Carp, A. (1982). Perceived environmental quality of neighborhoods: development of assessment scales and their relation to age and gender. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2, 295312. Craik, K. H. and Zube, E. H. (1976). Perceiving Environmental Quality. New York: Plenum Press. Cutter, S. (1982). Residential satisfaction and the suburban homeowner. Urban Geography 3, 315327. Christensen, D. L., Carp, F. M., Cranz, G. L. &, Wiley, J. A. (1992). Objective housing indicators as predictors of the subjective evaluations of elderly residents. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12,225236. Denche, C. &, Alguacil, J. (1987). Participacion ciudadana y metropoli. Documentacion Social 67, 243257. Fishbein, M. &, Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review 81, 5974. Francescato, G., Weidemann, S. and Anderson, J. R. (1989). Evaluating the built environment from the users point of view: an attitudinal model of residential satisfaction. In W. F. E. Preiser, Ed, Building Evaluation. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 181198. Fried, M. (1986). The neighbourhood in metropolitan life: Its psychological significance. In R. B. Taylor, Ed, Urban neighbourhoods. Research and Policy. New York: Praeger, pp. 331363. Fried, M. &, Gleicher, P. (1961). Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum. Journal of American Institute of Planners 27, 305315. Galster, G. C. &, Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction. Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior 13, 735758. Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental Psychology. Principles and Practice. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Hartman, Ch. (1963). Social Values and Housing Orientations. Journal of Social Issues 19, 113131. Hourihan, K. (1984). Context-Dependent models of residential satisfaction. An analysis of housing groups in Cork, Ireland. Environment and Behavior 16, 369393. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Lee, T. (1968). Urban neighbourhood as a socio-spatial schema. Human Relations 21, 241267. Lindberg, E., Garling, T., Montgomery, H. &, Waara, R. (1987). Peoples Evaluation of Housing Attributes. A

measures of this variable which ask the subject directly seem to produce socially desirable responses, rather than determine the individuals actual degree of satisfaction. In summary, the series of problems referred to constitute but a small sample of all that remains to be done in order to deepen understanding and make progress in this field.

Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank Tommy Garling who read and commented on the manuscript and the anonymous referees for their constructive critical comments.

Notes
This paper is a revised version of a paper presented at the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology in Madrid, July, 1994.

References
Amerigo, M. (1990). Satisfaccion Residencial. Una Aproximacion Psicosocial a los Estudios de Calidad de Vida. Madrid: Universidad Complutense. Amerigo, M. (1992a). A model of residential satisfaction. In M. Aristides and K. Karaletsou, Eds, SocioEnvironmental Metamorphoses: Builtscape, Landscape, Ethnoscape. Salonica: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Vol. V, pp. 411417. Amerigo, M. (1992b). Patrones perceptivos diferenciales en funcion del rol ambiental. Psicothema 4, 123131. Amerigo, M. &, Aragones, J. I. (1988). Satisfaccion residencial en un barrio remodelado: Predictores fis icos y sociales. Revista de Psicologa Social 3, 6170. Amerigo, M. &, Aragones, J. I. (1990). Residential satisfaction in council housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology 10, 313325. Andrews, F. M. & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social Indicators of well-being. Americans perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press. Anthony, K. H., Weidermann, S. &, Chin, Y. (1990). Housing perceptions of low-income single parents. Environment and Behavior 22, 147182. Aragones, J. I. &, Corraliza, J. A. (1992). Satisfaccion residencial en ambitos de infravivienda. Psicothema 4, 329341. Aragones, J. I., Amerigo, M. & Sukhwani, S. (1992). Las Influencias des Diseno de la Vivienda en la Conducta. Un Estudio de Viviendas Adjudicadas. Madrid: Universidad Complutense. (Report not published). Argyle, M. (1987). The Psychology of Happiness. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Bardo, J. W. &, Hughey, J. B. (1984). The structure of community satisfaction in a british and an american

A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to the Study of Residential Satisfaction study of underlying beliefs and values. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 4, 81103. Lindberg, E., Garling, T. & Montgomery, H. (1988). Subjective belief-value structures as determinants of preferences for and choices among housing alternatives. Umea Psychological Reports, 193, Umea: University of Umea, 17 pp. Loo, C. (1986). Neighborhood satisfaction and safety. A study of a low-income ethic area. Environment and Behavior 18, 109131. Marans, R. W. & Rodgers, S. W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In A. Hawley and V. Rock, Eds. Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspective. New York: Halstead Press. Miller, F. D., Tsemberis, S., Malia, G. P. &, Greca, D. (1980). Neighbourhood satisfaction among urban dwellers. Journal of Social Issues 36, 101107. Morrissy, E. &, Handal, P. J. (1981). Characteristics of the residential environment scale: reliability and differential relationship to neighborhood satisfaction in divergent neighborhoods. Journal of Community Psychology 9, 125132. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form. Oxford: Pergammon Press. Rent, G. S. &, Rent, C. S. (1978). Low-income housing: factors related to residential satisfaction. Environment and Behavior 10, 459488. Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography 11, 173188.

57

Tognoli, J. (1987). Residential Environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman, Eds, Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 655690. Valera, S. (1993). El simbolisme en la ciutat. Funcions de ` lespai simbolic urba. Doctoral Thesis (not published). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Weenig, M. W. H., Schmidt, &, Midden, C. J. H. (1990). Social dimensions of neighborhoods and effectiveness of information programs. Environment and Behavior 22, 2754. Weidemann, S. and Anderson, J. R. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In I. Altman and C. H. Werner, Eds, Home Environments. New York. Plenum Press, pp. 153182. Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. R., Butterfield, D. J. &, ODonell, P. M. (1982). Residents perception of satisfaction and safety. Basis for change in multifamily housing. Environment and Behavior 14, 695724. Wiesenfeld, E. (1994). Construction of the meaning of a barrio house: the case of a Caracas barrio. Paper submitted to 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Madrid, July 1994. (not published). Wiesenfeld, E. (1995). La Vivienda: Su Evaluacion desde la Psicologa Ambiental. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.