عنوان مقاله [English]
People have always been faced with the choice of house and place of residence during their lifetime. Several factors and indicators are effective on this selection. Some of them are deterrent factors and some are other triggers. Individuals in their selection process are required to balance these indices. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to measure the issue of residential preferences in relation to three apartment, buildings and neighborhoods, and analyze the different priorities that individuals have in mind with regard to each of these indicators. Therefore, the three dimensions, including apartment, buildings and neighborhoods in which the individuals live, is defined as the spatial domain of the research. It should be noted that the meaning of the apartment is the interior of the house; the buildings consists of a multi floor building with several residential units; and, in the final, the neighborhood consists of several rooms with a partition. The city service is surrounded by a network of passages with a population of up to 3,000. In this study, in order to generalize the results as well as accuracy of the findings, three cities of Mashhad as a metropolis with a very large spatial scale, Neyshabour as a medium-sized city, and finally Torbat-e Jam as a small-scale town Selected as case samples. The statistical population of the study included 350 inhabitants of each of these cities. In total, the final sample size is 1050. These samples were selected from tenants who were in a moderate and downward position in terms of income level. Also, the reason for choosing tenants as the target community in this study is the annual exposure of these individuals to the issue of housing displacement and selection. The selection of these individuals was based on their monthly income record in the relevant questionnaire. Sampling was done by cluster and random method and information was collected from different parts of these three cities.
The data were collected through a closed questionnaire and interviews. Then, data were analyzed by ANOVA and also by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The results of the research showed that, in general, regardless of who the people are on and on what scale, their first priority in choosing their place of residence is the choice of the neighborhood. After that, the choice of housing unit and its related indicators are the second priority of individuals. And finally, the choice of apartments is in the third priority of the people. It seems that the reason for this is largely influenced by the nature of the sub-indexes associated with each of the aforementioned scales. In comparing the preferences of people in three cities with different scales, research findings showed that in small towns, peopledesire to choose residential units with larger spatial dimensions with more rooms. Meanwhile, in larger cities, indicators such as rental prices and equipment used are considered to be among the top priorities for selecting residential units. It seems that the reason for this discrepancy is the difference in land value and housing prices in these cities. This means that in big cities, due to the high cost of housing as well as other living expenses, people with a certain income level (tenants including middle-class people) are forced to choose smaller houses. In contrast, in smaller cities, because of a decline in land value and rentals, people have the power to choose larger apartments. In connection with the building, the results of the research showed that residents in all three cities had almost identical views, and almost the first priority of the people in choosing the desired building was the availability of facilities and equipment. In relation to the scale of the neighborhood, research data showed that for people living in large cities, indicators such as access to urban transportation networks, access to centers and service facilities are prioritized; Meanwhile, in smaller cities, people’s tendency to social dimensions of the neighborhood, including recognition of the neighborhood and its inhabitants, as well as security in that neighborhood increases. The reason for this can be sought in the cultural and social dimensions of the lives of people in different cities. This means that people living in smaller cities are more likely to communicate with their neighbors. Therefore, they prefer to choose neighborhoods as living places that they are familiar with or have cognition relative to those living in it. Meanwhile, due to the urbanization of cities in large cities, increase of population, and long distance between the workplaces and houses, the level of social interaction in the area around the house, especially socializing with neighbors, is at the lowest possible level. Therefore, this component has the lowest priority in choosing their place of residence.
Abdul-Muhmin, A. G. (1998). Demographic Differences in Usage and Attitudes Toward the Saudi Arabian EFTPoS System. International Journal of Banking Marketing, 16(3), 117-128.
Coolen, H.C.C.H., & Jansen, S.J.T. (2012). Housing Preferences. International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home, 606–612.
Elder, H.W., & Zumpano, V. (1991). Tenure Choice, Housing Demand and Residential Location. Journal of Real Estate Research, 6(3), 341–356.
Galster, G.C., & Hesser, G.W. (1987). Residential Satisfaction Composition and Contextual Correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735-758.
Ge, J., & Hokao, K. (2006). Research on Residential Lifestyles in Japanese Cities from the Viewpoints of Residential Preference, Residential Choice and Residential Satisfaction. Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 165-178.
Gifford, R. (1999). Perception and Recognition Environmental. (N. Dehbashy, Trans.). Architectural and Cultural Journal, 2-3(1), 21-29.
Hui. Eddie, C.M., Zhong, J., & Kahung, Yu. (2016). Land Use, Housing Preferences and Income Poverty: In the Context of a Fast Rising Market. Land Use Policy, 58, 289–301.
Ibraimović, T. (2013). Investigating the Role of Ethnic Preferences in Residential Location Decisions: Choice Analysis on Stated Preferences Data. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Economics, University of Lugano.
Jahanbin, R., & Poormohammadi, M.R. (2010). Principles of Provision of Housing for Low-income Groups, Case Study: Tabriz City. Journal of Geographic Perspective of Zagros, 2(3), 119-137.
Jarjomi, k., & Kalteh, E. (2007). Measurement the Status of Life Quality Indicators in City for Citizens, Case Study: Gonbad Kaboos. Journal of Geography and Development, 4(8), 5-18.
Morris, E., Crull, S., & Winter, M. (1976). Housing Norms, Housing Satisfaction and the Propensity to Move. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 309-320.
Motamedi, M. (1996). An Approach to Poorer People’s Housing. Proceedings of the Third Seminar on Housing Development Policies in Iran, 2.
Opoku, R.A., & Abdul-Muhmin, A.G. (2010). Housing Preferences and Attribute Importance among Low-income Consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat International, 34(2), 219–227.
Rahnamai, M.T. (2003). Collection of Topics and Methods of Urbanization and Geography. Third edition, Urban and Architectural Research Center: Tehran.
Wang, D., & Li, S.M. (2004). Housing Preferences in a Transitional Housing System: The Case of Beijing, China. Environment and Planning A, 36(1), 69–87.
Yuhaniz, M., & Mohd Jusan., M. (2016). The Role and Activities of Malay Housewives and their Influence on Housing Design Preferences. Procedia - social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 720–728.