using Affordance-based theory
SJT Jansen
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft,
The Netherlands
Abstract
The decreasing importance of socio-economic factors in choosing a place to live gives more room to other motivational factors. These can be examined using affordance-based theory (Gibson, 1979), which explores what use the environment has to the user. In a telephone survey, 738 respondents were asked for their preferred residential environment and the underlying motivations. 36% prefer to live in a smaller municipality, 32% at the city edge, 13% outside the built-up environment and 11% in the city center (7% indifferent). The following affordances were linked to each type. City center: amenities, the ambiance outside, performing activities, an exciting life and social contact. City edge: peace and quiet and accessibility of the dwelling and of amenities. Smaller municipality: social contact, well-being, peace and quiet, the ambiance outside and the accessibility of amenities. Outside the built-up area: peace and quiet, sense of freedom, the ambiance outside and green/water/space.
Workshop: Residential Environments and People
Introduction
Why do people live in an urban, suburban or rural residential environment? Historically, a household’s choice of location is restricted by the location of the household members’ work and other activities (Dieleman and Mulder, 2002). Nowadays, there are several processes going on that make people more flexible in their locational choices. Examples of these processes are increasing welfare (at least, up to the current crisis) and mobility as well as increasing possibilities with regard to working at home and long-distance communication with friends and relatives (e.g., Facebook, Whatsapp). It has been shown that moving behavior in the last decades has increasingly been driven by non-work considerations and that this shift is related to the increase in the number of people with greater means to act on their preferences (van Dam et al, 2002).
The decreasing importance of socio-economic factors in choosing a place to live gives more room to other motivational factors, such as the need for peace and quiet. Residents might select a specific location for widely varying reasons and these reasons might also change over time due to changes in the life course and life circumstances but also by cultural, social and economic trends. A way to explore the motivational factors that drive locational preferences is by using affordance-based theory. Affordances were introduced in perceptual psychology in the seventies by Gibson (see, for example, Gibson 1977, 1979, 1986). Gibson’s affordance-based theory makes it possible to examine the functional properties of the environment together with the psychological/behavioral response to the environment (Clark and Uzzell 2002). Gibson defines affordances of the environment as “… what it offers to the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill” (1979, p. 127). Maier and Fadel (2009a) briefly explain an affordance in terms of what one system provides to another system. For example, what use has the city center to the urban dweller? Note, however, that an affordance always points both ways, the systems are not independent of each other but complement each other (Maier and Fadel, 2009a; 2009c). An affordance does not exist without either the potential user and the object under concern. Furthermore, affordances can be based on physical objects, but can also be provided by the presence of other people, e.g. social interaction (Clark and Uzzell, 2002). Gibson (1979) argues that what other people afford, comprises the whole realm of social significance for human beings. See Clark and Uzzell (2002) for a study focused on the affordances provided by other people in the environment.
Affordances have properties, the first of them being the complementarity described above. An implication of complementarity is that affordances depend on specific users (Maier and Fadel, 2009a). Affordances are always unique and different for each individual and each specific group of people (Kyttä 2002, Maier
and Fadel 2009c). For example, a car allows driving but not to those who are too short to reach the pedals. Note, however, that affordances exist regardless of whether or not a particular individual perceives it as an affordance (Michaels 2003, Rietveld and Kiverstein 2014). This means that, for example, the city center affords visiting a museum, even though some people never actually go there. Other properties of affordances are polarity (positive and negative affordances) and multiplicity. Positive affordances (e.g., peace and quiet of walking in a park) are potentially beneficial to the user whereas negative affordances (e.g., noise nuisance of living near a railway station) are potentially harmful (Maier and Fadel, 2009a, 2009c). Multiplicity refers to a system providing multiple affordances at the same time. For example, living near a railway station can provide noise nuisance but also the pleasure of short travelling times. Two final properties of affordances are quality and form dependence (Maier and Fadel, 2009b). Quality relates to the level of performance of a certain affordance. For example, the affordance peace and quiet might be better met in a rural environment than in the city center. With regard to form dependency, affordances depend on the physical structure of artifacts. This contrasts with functions, that are form independent (Maier and Fadel, 2009b). For example, chairs have a function that one can sit on them, but they can come in many forms and shapes. An affordance relates to a particular (physical) structure, for example, a lounge chair can afford sitting but also sleeping, whereas a folding chair is usually less comfortable for sleeping.
The current paper focuses on peoples’ affordances that are related to the preferred residential environment (city center, city edge, smaller municipality, outside the built-up area). According to Gibson’s theory people perceive their environment in terms of affordances (Clark and Uzzell, 2002; Maier and Fadel, 2009b). Gibson (1979) argues that the basic affordances of the environment are usually directly perceivable without an excessive amount of learning. Objects are perceived in terms of what they afford, not what properties or qualities they have (Clark and Uzzell, 2002).
What uses does the residential environment provide to its users? Cities are characterized by the presence of institutions of higher education and a large concentration of jobs and shops. Furthermore, they offer a wide variety of cultural and leisure facilities (such as museums and restaurants), they show a relatively large availability of affordable and small dwellings and they usually offer good access to public transport and possibilities to maintain a good social life (see, for example, Wirth 1938; Brun and Fagnani, 1994; Feijten et al, 2008; van Diepen and Musterd 2009).
The suburb is a place that is associated with family living, close to nature and security for children. The services and facilities, such as childcare, primary schools, sport facilities and supermarkets, are typically
Workshop: Residential Environments and People
aimed at families. This type of neighborhood consists merely of owner-occupied single-family dwellings with gardens and the average quality of housing and public space is fairly good. The environment is relatively green and spacious (as compared to the city) and with a lot of parking space (see, for example, Tallman and Morgner 1970; Brun and Fagnani, 1994; Feijten et al 2008; Meesters 2009).
Finally, living in a rural residential environment means having access to fewer services and facilities and being further away from employment and education. But it also implies having more space and experiencing peace and quiet, nature and green space, and having better health and housing circumstances (van Dam et al, 2002; Feijten et al. 2008). Furthermore, the social contacts are on average strong, the rates of crime are relatively low and the attitudes of people living in rural areas are relatively traditional when compared to those of people in urban areas (Feijten et al. 2008).
By investigating people’s affordances, the current study provides insight into what drives people to prefer certain residential environments, or in other words, which perceived use a particular residential environment has to its users. Insight into the affordances that are important for residents in choosing where they live is important for local planning authorities and might help them in setting priorities. If compromises have to be made, knowledge of what is most important to residents can guide planning decisions (McCrea et al, 2014). Furthermore, looking at environment-user relationships in terms of affordances might integrate viewpoints from different domains, like architecture and environmental psychology, but also the viewpoints of potential users of the residential environment (Maier and Faidel, 2009c). Finally, affordances can be used to examine the connection between the intentions of the design with how the artifact is actually used in practice. This leads to archived knowledge and might avoid common design failures (Maier and Faidel, 2009c).
The basic research question of this paper is to determine which affordances drive peoples’ preferences for the residential environment. Related questions are to explore which type of residential environment people prefer and whether differences in locational preferences can be linked to personal characteristics as well as to affordances. Thus, the following research questions are explored:
1) Which type of residential environment (city center / city edge / smaller municipality / outside the built-up area) do people prefer?
2) Are differences in residential preferences related to personal characteristics? 3) Which affordances drive peoples’ residential preferences?
Methods
The respondents
The data for the study presented in this paper are collected through Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) in the spring of 2012 in the context of the large study “House buyers in Profile" (in Dutch: "Huizenkopers in Profiel”; Boumeester et al., 2008) that has been performed every one or two years in the Netherlands since 1995. The goal of the "House buyers in Profile" study is to determine the needs and wishes of potential future homebuyers in order to establish what has to be built. The questionnaire could only be answered by homeowners, tenants or their partners.
Data on the actual housing situation and housing preferences are collected from respondents who - theoretically - have at least a standard income; this applies to approximately 72% of all Dutch households. This selection is made because these respondents have more opportunity to actually realize their housing preferences in practice. The standard income is determined by the National Institute for Family Finance Information (Nibud). In the Netherlands, it is defined as the income that is just below the former maximum income-related premium for the Dutch National Health Service (Nibud, 2008). The monthly net standard income was set by the Nibud at about € 1950 in 2012 (Nibud, 2012). However, the preselection of respondents by a specialized bureau based on the income criterion did not always match the actual information provided by the respondents during the interviews. In practice, seventeen percent of respondents (n = 191 of 1131 for whom the monthly net household income was available) turned out to have a lower than standard income. These respondents were nevertheless retained in the current analyses for several reasons. First of all we do not know whether these respondents accidentally provided their individual income instead of the household income, or made other mistakes in recalling the net monthly household income. Furthermore, the goal of the current study is to explore affordances that drive residential preference. These affordances probably differ depending on the available resources and it is therefore interesting to include respondents with a less than average income. The drawback of this decision, of course, is that the sample is not representative for residents with at least a standard income and that the results cannot be generalized to this group.
A sample of 9104 Dutch residents was obtained from a specialized bureau. We sent an introductory letter to all of them and 8009 were subsequently approached by telephone to participate in the study. The remaining 1095 had not been contacted because the desired number of participants had been reached. Of the 8009 potential respondents, 3107 (39%) agreed to cooperate in the telephone interview and 2717
Workshop: Residential Environments and People
(34%) refused. The remainder could not be contacted within the interview schedule (no answer, busy, answering machine, disconnected and “other” (e.g., non-Dutch speaking); n = 2185; 27%). The respondents were stratified according to region (north, east, south and west) so that the final sample contained approximately 25% from each region.
An important question during the telephone interview was whether respondents would be willing to move if they found a dwelling that could fulfill all their needs with regard to housing. Almost a quarter of the respondents (n = 738) indicated that they were willing to move in such a situation. Seventy-five percent (n = 2338) were not willing to move, 26 respondents were unsure and five did not answer the question. The subsequent analyses will be performed only in respondents who are willing to move if they would find their ideal dwelling (n = 738). Respondents who were unwilling to move have not been questioned about their residential preferences and the motives underlying these preferences. The following personal characteristics were collected for the study: age, household type, monthly net income, gender, education, number of persons in the household, having paid work and current residential environment.
The preference for the type of residential environment
This paper is focused on the preferred residential environment. Respondents were asked whether their preferred dwelling is located 1) in the city center, 2) at the city edge, 3) in a smaller municipality or 4) outside the built-up area. Respondents could also indicate to be indifferent with regard to the preferred type of residential environment. Note that this classification is somewhat more detailed than the one based on a division into urban, suburban and rural residential environment that is commonly described in the literature. Living in the city center can be assumed to reflect an urban residential environment, living at the city edge or in a smaller municipality can be classified as living in a suburban environment and living outside the built-up area can be seen as a rural residential environment. The more detailed categorization was used in this study, as it provides more information with regard to potential differences between respondents preferring the city edge and those preferring a smaller municipality (both suburban).
Potential affordances
After the residential preference had been determined, respondents with a residential preference were asked: “You have indicated that you prefer to live in [the selected type of residential environment]. What is the most important reason for why you prefer to live in [the selected type of residential environment]?” The question was formulated as an open question, but the interviewers had a precoded list of 12 possible affordances to their disposal and could select the appropriate option. An exhaustive listing of all potential affordances is of course impossible. Before the fieldwork the interviewers had been trained and made familiar with the options. The interviewers had been instructed to ask the respondent whether the selected option correctly reflected the respondent’s answer: “Do you mean that you prefer to live in [the selected type of residential environment], because you [selected precoded option]?”. If the answer was not among the precoded options, or when there was doubt, the interviewer selected “another reason” and typed in the respondent’s answer. The respondents who provided a first affordance were asked whether there was another reason for their residential preference, and if so, whether there was a third reason. Each respondent could provide up to three affordances. The precoded affordances are shown in Table 1. They were selected on the basis of previous research by Coolen (2008) and Meesters (2009).
Table 1 Precoded affordances
Peace and quiet
Accessibility of the dwelling The ambiance outside Accessibility of amenities Social contact Performing activities Feeling well Being comfortable Enjoying life Sense of freedom Feeling safe/secure An exciting life
Workshop: Residential Environments and People
Statistical methods
Descriptive statistics are used: frequency tables and means are calculated. The respondents are divided into groups according to their preferred residential environment. These groups are compared on age, the number of persons in the household and monthly net income using an analysis of variance (anova). If the anova is statistically significant (p < 0.05), the Games-Howell post-hoc test is used to explore differences between the groups. The groups are compared on education, gender, household type, having paid work and current residential environment using the Chi2 test. The Chi2 statistic is also used to test whether affordances are related to the preferred residential environment. If the assumption of the Chi2 statistic (< 20% with expected value < 5 and no cases with expected value < 1) is violated, Fisher’s Exact Test is performed. Statistically significant results are interpreted using percentages and standardized residuals (Field, 2013 p. 743). The Chi2 analyses are performed only if the particular affordance has been mentioned by at least 20 respondents (i.e., n = 646 of which at least 20 have mentioned the affordance under concern). Note that this number is somewhat arbitrarily chosen. The Chi2 test and Fisher’s Exact test can handle analyses with a small number of frequencies in some of the cells of the cross-tabulation table. Nevertheless, it might not be reliable to base conclusions on a relatively small number of cases.
Results
As explained above, 738 respondents indicated that they would be willing to move if they found their ideal dwelling. These respondents constitute the sample for the subsequent analyses.
Which residential environment do people prefer?
The most important question for the current research concerns the preference for the residential environment. Seven hundred and six respondents (96%) answered this question. Eighty-one respondents (11%) indicated a preference for the city center, 225 (32%) for the city edge, 257 (36%) for a smaller municipality and 92 (13%) for a dwelling located outside the built-up area. Fifty-one respondents (7%) had no preference with regard to residential environment; they were indifferent. These respondents were not asked about their affordances.
Are differences in locational preferences related to personal characteristics?
The personal characteristics of the five groups of respondents (classified according to their residential preferences) are provided in Table 2 (numerical characteristics), Table 3 (categorical characteristics) and Table 4 (current and preferred residential environment).
The groups differ with regard to age (F = 5.18, p < 0.01) and with regard to the number of persons in the household (F = 3.18, p = 0.01). The respondents with a preference to live in the city center are statistically significantly older than the respondents in all the other groups. Furthermore, they have on average fewer persons in their household than respondents who prefer to live at the city edge and respondents without a clear preference with regard to the residential environment. The respondents do not differ on monthly net income (F = 1.43, p = 0.22). Note that the “indifferent group” was included in order to examine whether these respondents differ from the other groups in some aspects. Leaving out this group from the analyses does not change the results.
Table 2 Respondents’ personal characteristics (numerical) according to the preferred residential environment
City center City edge Smaller
municipality
Outside built-up area
No preference
Mean Std N Mean Std N Mean Std N Mean Std N Mean Std N
Age** (n=705) 54.0 12.3 81 48.1 12.3 224 48.3 13.8 257 47.8 10.2 92 44.7 10.8 51
Nr of persons in the household* (n=706)
2.7 1.3 81 3.2 1.3 225 3.0 1.2 257 3.2 1.5 92 3.5 1.3 51
Monthly net incomea (n=522) 2848 1069 63 3080 995 160 2940 1331 196 3115 1164 68 3361 1642 35
Note: a = one respondent with a standardized value of 7.1 (i.e. a net monthly income of € 14,000) was omitted from the analyses for being an extreme outlier; * = groups differ with p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01
work (χ = 8.13, df = 4, p = 0.09, n = 706) but they do differ with regard to educational level (χ = 23.68, df = 12, p = 0.02, n = 706) and household type (χ2
= 28.36, df = 16, p = 0.03, n = 706). With regard to education, respondents who prefer to live in a smaller municipality more frequently have a secondary educational level. Furthermore, respondents who prefer to live in the city center relatively often have an “other” education. When it concerns household type, respondents who prefer the city center are more frequently single and less frequently are part of the couple with children under the age of 18 living at home. Furthermore, respondents without a clear preference with regard to residential environment are less frequently single. The exclusion of the “indifferent group” from the analyses does not change the results.
With regard to the current residential environment: 76 respondents (11%) indicate that they live in the city center, 263 (37%) at the city edge, 319 (45%) in a smaller municipality and 47 (7%) outside the built-up area. Table 4 shows the relationship between the preferred and the current residential environment. Not surprisingly, the five preference groups differ with regard to their current residential environment (χ2
= 403.31, df = 12, p < 0.01, n = 705). All groups more frequently live in the residential environment that they prefer than the other groups do. This is perhaps difficult to see for respondents who prefer to live outside the built-up area. But 28% of these respondents actually live in this residential environment whereas this is 2 to 4 percent for the other groups.
Overall, 422 (60%) respondents perceive a match between their actual and preferred residential environment, 51 respondents (7%) are indifferent and 232 respondents (33%) show a mismatch. Residents with a preference for the city edge or a smaller municipality generally live in the residential environment that they prefer (city edge: 71%; smaller municipality: 78%). In contrast, residents who prefer to live outside the built-up area generally show a mismatch: only 28% percent of these respondents actually live in their preferred residential situation. The mismatch group merely consists of respondents currently living in a smaller municipality who want to live outside the built-up area (46%). Finally, the respondents with a preference for living in the city center also more frequently show a mismatch (56%) than a match (44%). Almost one third of the respondents with a mismatch (31%) currently lives at the city edge but prefers to live in the city center.
Table 3 Respondents’ personal characteristics (categorical) according to the preferred residential environment
City center City edge Smaller
municipality Outside built-up area No preference n % n % n % n % n % Education* (n=706) Primary/lower vocational 13 16% 43 19% 33 13% 14 15% 7 14% Secondary 27 33% 76 34% 116 45% 28 30% 17 33% Higher vocational/university 34 42% 101 45% 99 38% 49 53% 26 51% Other 7 9% 5 2% 9 3% 1 1% 1 2% Gender (n=692) Male 34 44% 78 35% 114 45% 44 48% 19 39% Female 43 56% 143 65% 140 55% 47 52% 30 61% Household type* (n=706) Single 12 15% 16 7% 20 8% 9 10% 0 0%
Couple without children <18 at home 30 37% 67 30% 79 31% 25 27% 15 29%
Couple with children < 18 at home 26 32% 117 52% 129 50% 46 50% 28 55%
Single with children < 18 at home 5 6% 5 2% 15 6% 1 1% 2 4%
Other composition 8 10% 20 9% 14 5% 11 12% 6 12%
Having paid work (n=706)
Yes 55 68% 172 76% 185 72% 75 82% 43 84%
No 26 32% 53 24% 72 28% 17 18% 8 16%
13
Table 4 Respondents’ preferred and current residential environmentsPreferred residential environment
City center City edge Smaller
municipality
Outside built-up area
No preference
Current residential environment n % n % n % n % n %
City center (n = 76) 36 44% 19 8% 8 3% 3 3% 10 20%
City edge (n = 263) 25 31% 160 71% 39 15% 21 23% 18 35%
Smaller municipality (n = 319) 17 21% 38 17% 200 78% 42 46% 22 43%
Outside built-up area (n = 47) 3 4% 7 3% 10 4% 26 28% 1 2%
Which affordances drive peoples’ preferences for the residential environment?
Six hundred forty-six respondents provided one or more affordances and the total number of affordances is 1014 (mean = 1.6). Initially, 125 affordances (12%) were coded in the category “other reason” by the interviewers. After the fieldwork, these affordances were carefully examined and 16 additional categories were formulated. Next, the author and three colleagues each individually coded the 125 other reasons according to 29 precoded categories (the 12 precoded categories plus the 16 additionally coded categories and one “other reason” category). If at least three of the four researchers agreed on a particular answering category, then the item was placed into this category. This occurred for 92 of the 125 affordances (74%), leaving 33 affordances in the category “other reason”.
The affordances for the whole group are presented in the second column of Table 5 (labeled “All respondents”) . Overall, the affordance provided most frequently is “Peace and quiet” (n = 290; mentioned by 45% of respondents). This affordance was provided almost two times more often than the second most frequently mentioned affordance, which is “Accessibility of amenities” (23%). Other relatively important affordances are “Social contact”, the “Ambiance outside”, and the “Accessibility of the dwelling”. There are also many affordances that are mentioned by only a small number of respondents. This indicates that residents have various reasons for why they prefer a certain residential environment.
Are differences in locational preferences related to affordances?
The third to sixth column of Table 5 provide the frequencies and percentages of the mentioned affordances in each of the four preference groups. Note that only the indicated affordances are shown. For example, the first row shows that only one of the respondents (1%) that prefer to live in the city center has provided the affordance “Peace and quiet”. What is not shown in the table is that the remaining 78 respondents (99%) that prefer to live in the city center have not mentioned this affordance. The last column shows the value of the Chi2 test for testing the relationship between preferences and affordances. The Chi2 test analyses for each affordance whether the distribution of “yes, indicated” and “no, not indicated” responses differ between the four groups. In other words, whether there is a relationship between the affordance and the type of residential environment. Eight of the ten tested affordances indeed show a statistically significant relationship. The affordances “Feeling safe/secure” and “Enjoying life” are not statistically significantly related to the preferred type of residential environment.
All respondents (n = 646) Prefers city center (n = 79) Prefers city edge (n = 222) Prefers smaller municipality (n = 254) Prefers outside built-up area (n = 91) Chi2 value, df = 3 n % n % n % n % n % Precoded categories
Peace and quiet 2901 45% 1 1% 118 53% 96 38% 72 79% 115.34**
Accessibility of amenities 1482 23% 40 51% 57 26% 48 19% 1 1% 62.73**
Social contact 113 17% 14 18% 9 4% 88 35% 2 2% 94.31**
Ambiance outside 106 16% 26 33% 20 9% 52 20% 8 9% 31.46**
Accessibility of the dwelling 68 11% 7 9% 36 16% 24 9% 1 1% 16.76**
Sense of freedom 47 7% 1 1% 19 9% 9 4% 18 20% 31.11**
Feeling safe/secure 32 5% 2 3% 9 4% 18 7% 3 3% 3.64F
Enjoying life 26 4% 5 6% 8 4% 8 3% 5 5% 2.52F
Performing activities 25 4% 10 13% 9 4% 5 2% 1 1% 15.55F**
Feeling well 21 3% 1 1% 4 2% 16 6% --- --- 11.43F**
Being comfortable 19 3% 3 4% 7 3% 7 3% 2 2% Not tested
An exciting life 8 1% 5 6% 2 1% 1 0% --- --- Not tested
Postcoded categories
Other reason 33 5% 3 4% 10 5% 16 6% 4 4% Not tested
Green/water/space 16 2% --- --- 8 4% --- --- 8 9% Not tested
Being raised in this type of nbh 12 2% 2 3% 2 1% 8 3% --- --- Not tested
Currrently living in this type of nbh 11 2% 1 1% 1 0% 9 4% --- --- Not tested
The environment being good for raising (grand)children
Workshop: Residential Environments and People
16
All respondents (n = 646) Prefers city center (n = 79) Prefers city edge (n = 222) Prefers smaller municipality (n = 254) Prefers outside built-up area (n = 91) Chi2 value, df = 3 n % n % n % n % n %Not too quiet, not the city bustle 4 1% --- --- 3 1% 1 0% --- --- Not tested
Few traffic/good opportunities for parking
4 1% --- --- 3 1% 1 0% --- --- Not tested
Work-related reasons 3 0% 1 1% --- --- 1 0% 1 1% Not tested
Keeping pets and other animals 3 0% --- --- 1 0% --- --- 2 2% Not tested
Being familiar with the nbh 3 0% --- --- 3 1% --- --- --- --- Not tested
Having privacy 2 0% --- --- --- --- 1 0% 1 1% Not tested
The nbh feels pleasant/cosy 2 0% --- --- --- --- 2 1% --- --- Not tested
Exit roads nearby 2 0% --- --- 2 1% --- --- --- --- Not tested
Financial reasons 2 0% --- --- 1 0% 1 0% --- --- Not tested
Close to the center 2 0% --- --- 2 1% --- --- --- --- Not tested
Possibilities for doing sports 2 0% --- --- 2 1% --- --- --- --- Not tested
Having public transport nearby 1 0% 1 1% --- --- --- --- --- --- Not tested
Having cultural activities nearby 1 0% 1 1% --- --- --- --- --- --- Not tested
Total 1014 124 340 418 132
Note: 1 = Three respondents each mentioned two affordances that were both coded in the category “experiencing peace and quiet”. However, only one affordance per person could be included in the analysis for “experiencing peace and quiet”. Therefore, the total number of affordances for “Experiencing peace and quiet” is 290, but the amount according to the preferred type of residential environment adds up to only 287; 2 = this occurred for two respondents for the affordance “Accessibility of amenities”; F = Fisher’s exact test was performed because the assumption of the Chi2 test (< 20% of cases with EV < 5) was violated; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01.
especially the group of respondents preferring the city center and those preferring to live outside the built-up area differ from each other, as can be seen in Table 5. In the first grobuilt-up only one percent of respondents mentions “Peace and quiet” as an underlying motivation whereas this applies to 79% of respondents who prefer to live outside the built-up area. The exact opposite can be seen for “Accessibility of amenities”. This is much more important for respondents who prefer to live in the city center than for those who prefer to live outside the built-up area. “Social contact” is a relatively important motivation for respondents with a preference for a smaller municipality and not important for those who prefer to live at the city edge or outside the built-up area. ”The ambiance outside” and “Performing activities” are relatively important for respondents who prefer to live in the city center. The”Accessibility of the dwelling” is relatively important for respondents who prefer to live at the city edge and is not a motivation for those who live outside the built-up area. Instead, for these respondents ”Freedom” is important. Finally, “Well-being” has been mentioned more frequently by respondents who prefer to live in a smaller municipality.
The attractiveness of the city center specifically lies in: the “Accessibility of amenities”, the “Ambiance outside” and “Performing activities”. “An exciting life” is also relatively important for this group (not tested statistically) as well as “Social contact”. In contrast, “Peace and quiet” is not among the reasons for preferring the city center. Living at the city edge is mostly preferred because of “Peace and quiet” but also because of the “Accessibility of the dwelling” and the “Accessibility of amenities”. These respondents less frequently provide “social contact” as an underlying motivation. The preference for a smaller municipality is specifically based on the motivations of “Social contact” and “Well-being”. Furthermore, “Peace and quiet”, the “Ambiance outside” and the “Accessibility of amenities” are also relatively important. Finally, the preference to live outside the built-up area is most frequently driven by the motivations of “Peace and quiet” and of “Freedom”. The “Ambiance outside” and “Green/water/space” are also relatively important. Relatively unimportant are the “Accessibility of amenities”, “Social contact” and the “Accessibility of the dwelling”.
4. Discussion
This paper examined preferences for the residential environment using Affordance-based theory. The first research question examined which residential environment people prefer. In this study, the suburban residential environment is the most preferred i.e., the smaller municipality (n = 257; 36%) and the city edge (n = 225; 32%). A dwelling located outside the built-up area is preferred by 92 respondents (13%) and living in the city center is the least preferred (n = 81; 11%). Fifty-one respondents (7%) indicated to be indifferent. As explained in the Methods section, the current sample is not representative for residents with an average or above average income because we did not leave out respondents with lower incomes. However, in the official research report (NVB 2012) these residents have been omitted and the sample is weighted (on the basis of household size and age) in such a way that the sample is representative for the Dutch population with at least an average income. The results presented in this report resemble those presented above (smaller municipality: 33%; city edge: 35%; outside the built-up area: 16%; city center: 9%; no preference: 7%).
Next, it was examined whether differences in locational preferences are related to personal characteristics. Most statistically significant results were observed for respondents with a preference to live in the city center. This group of respondents is on average older, they have fewer persons in the household, they more often have an “other” education, they are more frequently single and they are less frequently part of a couple with children under the age of 18 living at home. This agrees with the literature in that one- and two-person households mostly prefer to live in the city (Dieleman and Mulder 2002; Karsten 2007; Meesters 2009). The finding that the city center is preferred by older people corresponds with a study by Deurloo et al (1990) who observed that older age is related to a higher likelihood of staying in the rental sector [which is more prevalent in the city center].
The third research question explores which affordances drive locational preferences. This study shows that respondents provide a wide variety of affordances. Nevertheless, “Peace and quiet” (45%) and the “Accessibility of amenities” (24%) are mentioned by quite a lot of respondents, indicating that there are also some similarities present. In the Introduction section it was argued that work-related reasons might be less important nowadays in choosing a place to live. In our study, only three respondents provided work-related reasons. Better opportunities for commuting and for working from home as well as more flexible rules and regulations with regard to starting and stopping times allow the distance between work and home to become larger. This increases the freedom of selecting a preferred residential environment.
19
Experience with a particular residential environment is also a reason for preferring this environment. Three of the affordances are related to experience: “Being raised in this type of neighborhood” (n =12), “Living in this type of neighborhood” (n = 11 and “Being familiar with the neighborhood” (n = 3). Feijten and coauthors (2008) examined the influence of experience with a specific residential environment on residential choice. Experience might contribute to a preference for returning to the exact same place (return migration) but it might also contribute to a preference for the same type of residential environment later in life, even if one does not return to the exact place of origin. The authors concluded that both city experience and suburb experience increase the probability of return migration, whereas rural experience also increases the probability of moving to another rural area. Factors that drive return migration might be specific to the location, such as having friends or family there, or owning a house. But the experience with a particular residential environment might also change the awareness of and the attitude towards what this type of residential environment offers (Feijten et al. 2008).
The fourth research question explores whether differences in environmental preferences are related to affordances. The results show that the attractiveness of the city center lies in: the “Accessibility of amenities”, the “Ambiance outside”, “Performing activities”, “An exciting life” and “Social contact”. In the Introduction section it was argued that an urban residential environment supports living in cheap housing, having easy access to amenities and shops, cultural facilities, doing activities, public transport, higher education, work and having social contact. The importance of the accessibility of amenities is clear. This result also agrees with the study by Howley (2009) in which 65% of respondents living in an urban environment stated that accessibility, access to services and facilities, access to amenities or access to work was the main benefit of urban living. The importance of performing activities and having social contact is also confirmed in our study, and “An exciting life” fits into this picture. The importance of cheap housing, work, education-related reasons and public transport could not be established in the current study. In contrast, employment opportunities were important for 13% of respondents living in an urban environment in the study by Howley (2009). The different might be caused by the relatively young age of the respondents in the latter study (80% between 20 and 39 years of age). Cheap housing and education related reasons were also not mentioned in the study by Howley (2009) as a benefit of urban living.
The results show that living at the city edge is attractive because of: “Peace and quiet”, the “Accessibility of the dwelling” and the “Accessibility of amenities”. Meesters (2009) describes the suburb as more than just having a residential function because the city is close enough to reach the various facilities. This is exactly what is found in our study: a combination of experiencing peace and quiet on the one side and the
Workshop: Residential Environments and People
20
accessibility of various amenities and one’s own dwelling on the other side. Related motivations are: “Not too quiet and not too lively” (n = 3), “Few traffic/good opportunities for parking” (n = 3), “Close to the city center” (n = 2) and “Exit roads nearby” (n = 2); all most frequently mentioned by respondents with a preference for living at the city edge. Meesters (2009) argues that all facilities for the daily routines like going to work, doing daily errands and bringing children to school are within easy reach for the suburban resident. In contrast, “Social contact”, the “Ambiance outside” and “Well-being” are important motivations for respondents who prefer to live in a smaller municipality. A related motivation for these respondents is “Pleasantness/coziness” (n = 2). It seems as though “accessibility” is more important for respondents who prefer the city edge whereas “atmosphere/ambiance” plays a role for those who prefer a smaller municipality.
The Introduction section argued that associated motivations for a suburban residential environment are proximity to nature, easy access to family-based services (schools, childcare, sports, etc.), security for children, good quality housing, public space and parking facilities. Our study does not show a high importance of nature with regard to the suburban residential environment. “Green/water/space” was mentioned by eight respondents (4%) who prefer the city edge and none of the respondents who prefer to live in smaller municipality. It is possible, however, that proximity to nature is classified by either the respondents or the interviewers in the category of “Peace and quiet”. The same applies to family-based services; these are not specifically mentioned by respondents but it is possible that they are classified as “Accessibility of amenities”. Furthermore, the results show that respondents who prefer a suburban residential environment more frequently have children living at home than respondents who prefer to live in the city center and that six respondents who prefer to live in a suburban residential environment specifically indicate that this is a good environment for raising (grand) children, compared to none in the urban residential environment. So there are some indications that the suburb indeed is preferred above the city center for family living. Finally, good quality housing and public space are not mentioned by any of the respondents. It can perhaps be assumed that the quality (in the sense of technical performance and the availability of utilities) of housing and public space in the Netherlands is good irrespective of the type of residential environment.
Living outside the built-up area is attractive because of: “Peace and quiet”, “Freedom”, the “Ambiance outside” and “Green/water/space”. In the Introduction section the following motivations were brought up: security (little crime), nature, peace and quiet, space, social contact, good health and good housing quality. In our study, “safety/security” was not mentioned more frequently by residents who prefer to live outside the built-up area. As of yet, we have no explanation for this finding. The high importance of
21
“Peace of quiet” in this group is evident (mentioned by 79% of respondents) and “Green/water/space” is indeed mentioned more frequently in this group (not tested statistically). This study provides no evidence that the preference for the rural residential environment is based on a need for social contact. In fact, the opposite was found. Good health and good housing quality were also not frequently mentioned by our respondents, probably because this is hardly related to type of residential environment in the Netherlands.
A limitation of the current study is that by asking respondents why they prefer a certain residential environment only positive affordances are obtained. Therefore, the residential environments are defined only according to the positive aspects that they provide and not to the negative ones. Furthermore, it is questionable whether all of the provided motivations are in fact affordances. For example, “Being raised in this type of neighborhood” is probably not an affordance, but gives rise to affordances, such as “Being familiar with the neighborhood” and “Feeling secure”. According to Gibson (1979, p. 137) “…positive and negative affordances are properties of things taken with reference to an observer but not properties of the experiences of the observer. They are not subjective values; they are not feelings of pleasure or pain added to neutral perceptions.” Some researchers, such as Michaels (2003) and Stoffregen (2004), argue that affordances should be restricted to opportunities for action. For example, Stoffregen (2004) uses the following definition: “Affordances are all of the things that a given animal (or multiple animals, in the case of social affordances) can do in a given environment or situation…”. Nevertheless, Stoffregen (2004) also argues that the concept of affordance accounts for all meaning in the animal-environment interaction while accounting for the fact that all meaning are not equally valuable to a given animal at a given point in space and time. He further argues that mental properties can lead to affordances, for example the opportunity to keep or break a promise. Noticing this contradiction, Stoffregen questions the definition of action: how many things are actions and what types of actions may there be? There is in fact a discussion going on with regard to the definition of affordance, see, for example, the special issue on the definition of affordance (Jones 2003, Michaels 2003) but also papers by other authors, such as Stoffregen (2004) and Rietveld and Kiverstein (2014).
Nevertheless, despite these limitations the use of affordance-based theory seems promising for discovering relationships between a potential user and his or her residential environment.
Workshop: Residential Environments and People
22
References
Boumeester H.J.F.M., Mariën A.A.A., Rietdijk N. and Nuss F.A.H. (2008) Huizenkopers in Profiel. Onderzoek naar wensen van potentiële huizenkopers. Voorburg: NVB.
Brun J. and Fagnani J. (1994) “Life-styles and locational choices - trade-offs and compromises - A case-study of middle-class couples living in the Ile-De-France region”, Urban Studies, 31: 921-934.
Clark C. and Uzzell, D.L. (2002) “Affordances of the home, neighborhood, school and town centre for adolescents” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22: 95-108.
Coolen H.C.C.H. (2008) The meaning of dwelling features. Conceptual and methodological issues. Sustainable Urban Areas (24). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
van Dam, F., Heins, S. and Elbersen, B.S. (2002) “Lay discourses of the rural and stated and revealed preferences for rural living. Some evidence of the existence of a rural idyll in the Netherlands”, Journal of Rural Studies, 18: 461-476.
Dieleman F.M. and Mulder C.H. (2002) “The geography of residential choice” In Aragonés, J.I., Francescato G., and Gärling T. (eds.), Residential environments. Choice, satisfaction and behavior (pp. 35-54). Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
van Diepen A.M.L. and Musterd S. (2009) “Lifestyles and the city: connecting daily life to urbanity”, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(3): 331-345.
Deurloo M.C., Clark W.A.V. and Dieleman F.M. (1990) “Choice of Residential Environment in the Randstad” Urban Studies, 27:335-351.
Feijten P., Hooimeijer P. and Mulder C.H. (2008) “Residential experience and residential environment choice over the life-course”,.Urban Studies, 45:141-162.
Field A. (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Gibson J.J. (1977) “The theory of affordances”, In: Shaw R.E., Bransford J. (eds). Perceiving, acting and knowing (pp 67-82). New Yersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibson J.J. (1979) “The theory of affordances”. In: The ecological approach to visual perception (128-143). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson J.J. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. New Yersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Howley P. (2009) “Attitudes towards compact city living: towards a greater understanding of residential behaviour”
Land Use Policy, 26: 792-798.
Jones K.S. (2003) “What is an affordance?” Ecological Psychology, 15(2): 107-114.
Karsten L. (2007) “Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middle-class families' preference for an urban residential location”, Housing Studies, 22: 83-98.
Kyttä M. (2002) “Affordances of children’s environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22: 109-123.
Maier J.R.A. and Fadel G.M. (2009a) “Affordance based design: a relational theory for design”, Res Eng Design 20: 13-27.
23
Maier J.R.A. and Fadel G.M. (2009b) “Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign andreverse engineering”, Res Eng Design 20: 225-239.
Maier J.R.A. and Fadel G.M. (2009c) “An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice”Design Studies, 30: 393-414.
Meesters J. (2009) The meaning of activities in the dwelling and the residential environment. A structural approach in people-environment relations. Sustainable Urban Areas (27). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Michaels C.F. (2003) “Affordances: four points of debate”, Ecological Psychology, 15(2): 135-148.
NVB (2012) NVB Huizenkopers in profiel 2012. NVB Vereniging voor ontwikkelaars en bouwondernemers. McCrea R., Shyy T.K. and Stimson R.J. (2014) “Satisfied residents in different types of local areas: measuring
what’s most important”, Social Indicators Research, 118: 87-101.
Nibud (2008). Budget Handboek 2008-1: Kerncijfers huishoudfinanciën. Utrecht: Nibud.
Nibud (2012). Vakantiegeld enquête 2012. (www.nibud.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/ onderzoeken/2012/NibudRapportVakantiegeldenquete2012.pdf)
Rietveld E. and Kiverstein J. (2014) “A rich landscape of affordances”, Ecological Psychology, 26: 325-352. Schwanen, T. and Mokhtarian, P.L. (2004) “The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred
residential neighborhood type” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31: 759-784. Stoffregen T.A. (2004) “Breadth and limits of the affordance concept”, Ecological Psychology, 16(1): 79-85. Tallman I., Morgner R. (1970) “Life-Style differences among urban and suburan blue-collar families” Social
