Next Article in Journal
From Global to Glocal: Digital Transformation for Reshoring More Agile, Resilient, and Sustainable Supply Chains
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Spatial Effect of Carbon Emissions on Chinese Economic Resilience in the Context of Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 3
10.3390/su16031195
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Does Size Really Matter for the Place Attachment of High-Rise and Low-Rise Housing Estates? A Budapest Case Study

by
Ntombifuthi Precious Nzimande
1,2,* and
Feroza Morris-Kolawole
2
1
Department of Economic and Social Geography, University of Szeged, 6720 Szeged, Hungary
2
Department of Geography, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(3), 1195; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031195
Submission received: 8 December 2023 / Revised: 19 January 2024 / Accepted: 29 January 2024 / Published: 31 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The current research seeks to understand the relationship between residential satisfaction and place attachment by assessing where significant differences exist in the social environment among people living in low-rise and high-rise housing estates in Budapest, Hungary. The study employed multistage sampling techniques to collect information on the social environment and the residential satisfaction of individuals living in Budapest’s low-rise and high-rise housing estates. The data consisted of 213 participants over the age of 18. Results reveal that a decrease in the number of dependents within both high-rise (p = 0.013) and low-rise (p < 0.001) estates, as well as smaller household sizes in both high-rise (p = 0.013) and low-rise (p = 0.005) estates, aligns with lower satisfaction with the social environment. Habitability indices suggest that low-rise estates generally foster a more positive perception of the social environment, stronger community connections, and higher trust among neighbours, supporting the hypothesis that residents in high-rise estates may be dissatisfied with their social surroundings. Notably, the logistic regression analysis highlights a negative association (β = −0.12) between the satisfaction index (SI) and overall satisfaction in high-rise housing, emphasizing that higher SI values are linked to lower odds of satisfaction in this context. Conversely, the low-rise model shows a statistically significant positive association (p < 0.005) between SI and overall satisfaction. Thus, the size of the residential building does matter when it comes to individuals feeling attached to their residential environment.

1. Introduction

In Hungary, the quality of large-to-medium housing estates has improved dramatically in the past few years, and this has been primarily attributed to the widespread urban regeneration programs (URPs) that have been implemented through different avenues of funding together with the housing policies of the Fidesz government (e.g., the Family Housing Support Program, CSOK, or the decrease in the value-added tax on new housing) and European Union funding [1]. These projects have been implemented due to the deterioration of public housing, the lack of inviting public spaces, and the rising stigmatization and social ills experienced by those living in housing estates. Thus, URPs have the ability to improve the quality of life and overall well-being of residents through encouraging social ties and improving social cohesion.

1.1. Residential Satisfaction

One of the methods used to gauge the socio-economic impacts, both positive and negative, of housing development projects is residential satisfaction. Residential satisfaction is a relatively new concept and has significant geographical implications. It reflects the extent to which an individual or household is content with their place of stay and how this place of stay meets their expectations and needs. Notwithstanding, resident satisfaction has been an essential topic in fields such as psychology and geography [2]. This has meant that residential satisfaction will differ discipline to discipline in both conceptualisation and definition. Even in housing studies, researchers often use different terminology to express satisfaction, such as residential satisfaction [3,4,5], occupants’ satisfaction [6], residents’ satisfaction [7], and neighbourhood satisfaction [8].
This concept arose due to the weaknesses found in other housing evaluation criteria that failed to incorporate the actual residents’ perceptions, aspirations, and needs of housing developments [9]. Residential satisfaction has been theoretically linked to an individual’s well-being and quality of life [10]. Apart from residential satisfaction being used to measure the relationship between the objective conditions of the physical environment, the subjective behaviour and the extent of the household’s satisfaction with the entire housing features post-occupancy, it is also used to examine residential mobility, or rather, the ability to move [4,11]. Interestingly, residential satisfaction studies have been focused on various housing settings. These include public housing [12] affordable multifamily housing [13], gated communities [14], university residences [15], low-cost housing [16], and housing estates [17]. What these and similar studies have shown is that residential satisfaction cannot be generalised to any specific area as even though the causes of residential dissatisfaction are identical, it cannot be said the same for the causes of residential satisfaction due to the diversity of the socio-economic, political, and environmental background of the residents. This is further supported by [18] housing pathways framework, which suggests that individuals follow a unique pathway that is influenced by several socio-cultural and personal factors throughout their lifespan.
Multiple determinants of residential satisfaction have been identified throughout the literature, and these are usually classified into two categories: subjective and objective. Objective measure refers to actual physical measurements such as the dwelling type or residents’ characteristics, such as age and education level. As such, scholars have used several objective measures to investigate residents’ satisfaction with their place of stay. For instance, ref. [19] investigated whether residential satisfaction differed between different age groups in the regenerated housing estates in Budapest by using the dwelling unit, housing condition, and housing support measures as predictors of residential satisfaction.
Subjective measure refers to emotions, perceptions, and feelings toward the housing features, such as the appearance of the unit, degree of privacy, and closeness with neighbours [20]. While previously, there has not been much emphasis on the social features in housing studies as compared to the economic and physical environment, a few studies exist, including social features such as the interaction with neighbours, attachment to community, and perceptions of privacy [21,22]. Although these studies have contributed to the growing knowledge of social features in residential satisfaction, the contribution has been slower than the abovementioned objective features. Furthermore, there is a general disagreement about social features that should be included in residential satisfaction studies. The conceptual framework of social sustainability [23] will be drawn upon in this research to fit within the understanding of social environment features of residential satisfaction. The concept of social sustainability with regard to urban planning rests within the achievement of social capital, social inclusion, and social equity. According to [24], a socially sustainable community often refers to social capital, social interaction, social behaviour, sense of place, pride and attachment, safety and security, sense of comfort, and level of interest.

1.2. Place Attachment in Residential Satisfaction

There are several social sustainability dimensions, such as quality of life, interconnectedness, democracy and governance, place attachment, and equity. For the purpose of this study, the focus was on place attachment, as it is also one of the social aspects used to assess residential satisfaction. It reinforces spatial identity through the quality of relationships with neighbours, with a sense of belonging and sense of place increasing residential satisfaction. It reinforces spatial identity through the quality of relationships with neighbours, with a sense of belonging and community increasing residential satisfaction. Place attachment refers to the behavioural, positive affective, and cognitive bonds people develop in the long term in their socio-physical environment [25]. It is important to note that though several studies have included place attachment as a factor when studying residential satisfaction, e.g., [26], it was more of a tangent with only a few questions.
The leading theory that is drawn upon to address this gap in research is the theory of place attachment. Various subsections of perceptual extents exist in the study of place attachment. One of these subsets is [27], who posit that symbolic relationships can be systematically identified and measured. They propose measuring place attachment through a two-dimensional scale based on place identity and dependence. Place identity involves the cognitive (emotional) connection that residents have with their residential physical environment that gives meaning to the life of the residents and to the residents’ identity, which enhances self-esteem and feelings of belongingness to the community [28]. According to [29], this is due to the complex forms of conscious and unconscious goals, beliefs, and values that occur. Several theories, such as the phenomenological perspective, cognitive perspective, and self-concept theories, have influenced the psychological research on place identity. Place dependence, in contrast, refers to the physical (functional) attachment that residents may have to a physical environment based on the place’s ability to provide and satisfy the needs and wants of the residents. The quality of the physical environment and the relative quality of the alternative, comparable places form the two components of place dependence. In other words, it is a person’s strength of association with their residence [30].
A further expansion of the place attachment was provided by [31], where place belongingness, place familiarity and place rootedness were added. Place rootedness refers to the length of stay in a particular residence where one feels at home and does not see the need to move [32]. Different authors also offer their understanding of rootedness, such as [33], who provides an extreme level that “a place is not a place until people have been born in it, have grown up in it, lived in it, known it, died in it—have both experienced and shaped it, as individuals, families, neighbourhoods, and communities over more than one generation”; while others (such as [32]) have argued that rootedness is the place where you feel possessive about. Place belongingness refers to the individual’s feelings as part of a community, while belongingness and familiarity with community members are related to the notions of bondedness [34]. Residents often feel like they have a membership to the physical environment and have a spiritual connection between the social shared spaces of the community [31]. The last dimension is the place familiarity, which is concerned with the positive “feel good” memories that one experiences over time through interaction with community members and experiences. This process is known as the beginning of the human-to-place coupling process [35]. It is noteworthy that these dimensions are not inclusive of themselves.
Social cohesion, social capital, and social integrations often affect neighbourhood attachment through shared norms, mutual trust, participation, and social networking. This is so because when residents feel that they receive emotional support from their neighbours, they are likelier to feel more attached to a neighbourhood. In a study by [36] in deprived areas in England, it was found that attachment tends to be higher in places with stronger social cohesion. These emotional, social networks often lead to a sense of community, a vital determinant of quality of life [37]. As such, the promotion of stability, involvement and investment in the physical environment is often the result of higher levels of neighbourhood attachment, hence social sustainability.
The review of the literature revealed that place attachment within a residential environment has been studied across the globe. In developing countries, ref. [38] studied place attachment in the inner city of Ibadan in Nigeria and found that approximately 63% of the residents experienced place attachment with place dependence contributing more than place identity. In investigating factors that can predict place attachment in a socio-economically and demographically diverse area such as South Africa, ref. [39] found that factors such as population group were a strong predictor of place attachment. Seeing the lack of similar studies within an insular, tropical island, ref. [40] examined factors that may create neighbourhood attachment on Reunion Island. The results of the study found that environmental quality was strongly related to neighbourhood attachment. In Harare, Zimbabwe, ref. [41] investigated the satisfaction of 500 informal settlement residents with their living environment. That study revealed that residents with high place attachment were likelier to be overly satisfied with their living environment.
In the developed nations, similar results have been recorded. For instance, in trying to understand the relationship between neighbourhood location with place attachment and residential satisfaction in Turkiye, ref. [42] found that though neighbourhood location was only associated with residential satisfaction, place attachment and residential satisfaction were positively associated with neighbourhood location. In an interesting study in Korea, ref. [43] found that results differed by gender, as those who identified as female placed a high emphasis on the social environments compared to their counterparts who considered green spaces to have a greater influence on place identity. In Spain, ref. [44] administered a questionnaire to 666 Barcelona-based undergraduate students to determine how residential mobility affects place identity and attachment. These scholars found that residential mobility does indeed influence place identity and attachment. Although this study was focused on students, it offers valuable insights into how the length of residence influences place attachment and identity.
The type of housing structure that one might call home may substantially influence place attachment and residential satisfaction. For instance, a person living in the slum may have varying levels of place attachment compared to a person living in the township. This has been studied by several scholars, as evidenced by the literature review. For instance, refs. [38,45,46] studied place attachment in slum areas; [47,48,49] on rural areas; [44,50] on university student dormitories; and [51,52] on migrants living in foreign countries. Despite this growing literature over the past years, little attention has been paid to exploring the level of place attachment that different housing typologies (high-rise vs low-rise) evoked and how this influences overall residential satisfaction, with some exceptions, e.g., [53].
The construction of large-scale housing estates, due to finances and shortages of space within urban spaces [54], was largely predominant in Europe during the post-war period to address the housing shortage after World War II. Although these were similar in both construction methods and urban design, with more emphasis on quantity than the quality of the flats, moving into these estates was an upgrade for those living in the deteriorated inner city [55]. However, though these high-rise buildings provided adequate housing to those seeking affordable housing, these buildings have also contributed to the problem of placelessness and social isolation, which is less researched than on objective measures such as neighbourhood satisfaction [56]. In comparison, low-rise housing estates have been celebrated for their ability to foster and encourage social networks due to the frequency of interaction with neighbours [57]. However, few studies have investigated place attachment between residents living in high-rises compared to those living in low-rise estates. Studying this phenomenon would add valuable insights into making high-rise buildings more sustainable, thus contributing to the sustainable development goals 3 (improving quality of health and life) and 11 (ensuring communities are sustainable). This study examines the different aspects of place attachment, compares them with the different housing typology and thereafter contributes to the slowly growing literature on place attachment in post-socialist housing estates by attempting to understand the relationship between residential satisfaction and place attachment in housing estates located in Budapest, Hungary. Furthermore, in addition to this study offering valuable information to urban policymakers and other urban stakeholders on making estates more sustainable for the residents, this study’s results were disseminated to residents using local avenues accessible to the communities to allow the residents to understand that feelings of placefulness may be influenced by physical features but residents can also make their neighbourhood theirs. In summary, this study aims to understand the relationship between residential satisfaction and place attachment through assessing where significant differences exist in the social environment among people living in low-rise and high-rise housing estates in Budapest, Hungary.
In this, the following were hypothesised:
H1: 
Socio-demographic characteristics do not influence social environment;
H2: 
Residents in high-rise estates are dissatisfied with their social environment.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

This cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate the relationship between residential satisfaction and place attachment in housing estates in Budapest (Figure 1). A multistage sampling technique, consisting of clustering and random sampling, was used. First, each floor within the residential buildings was treated as a separate subgroup (cluster). Second, the simple random probability technique was used to select one participant within each cluster. This allowed flexibility, whereby if one resident was not at home, another resident on the same floor could be sampled. In other words, only one resident was sampled per floor, and this resident was randomly selected. For instance, if nobody was at home in Door A, Door B was then selected. Only participants who were older than 18 years and who consented to participate in the study were allowed to take part in the study. Data collection was carried out in the summer of 2021 when the national government had eased lockdown restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because the main researcher’s doctoral institution lacks a human research ethics committee, the study received approval from the General Data Protection Regulation office of the main researcher’s institution to ensure that the researcher was able to address ethical issues that may arise from the research. Moreover, participants were ensured anonymity in the study, asked for verbal consent before the commencement of the study, and informed that they may withdraw their consent anytime during the data collection process.

2.2. Questionnaire Tool

The closed-ended questionnaire was administered in Hungarian, was anonymous, and took approximately 15 min to complete. The questionnaire included two parts: social environment and socio-demographic characteristics.
Explanatory variables (place attachment). The questionnaire place attachment as experienced by the residents. A large majority of the questions were part of the Neighbourhood Cohesion Instrument [58]. A total of 13 questions were included (Table 1). A five-point Likert scale, which ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, was used by respondents to indicate their answers.
Control variables. This section collected several demographic aspects regarding the respondent: age, gender, highest education level, ethnicity, marital status, number of dependents, number of household occupants, occupation, floor level, and whether the household was female-headed.
Outcome variable (residential satisfaction). One question was asked to assess participants’ satisfaction with their residential environment: “are you satisfied living in your residential environment”? with possible answers being “yes” or “no”.

2.3. Data Analysis

As the questionnaire was already coded, the raw data was transferred into Microsoft Excel and then cleaned before being imported into SPSS for analysis. Data analysis consisted of three steps. First, descriptive statistics were utilised to provide information on the distribution of respondents across different socio-demographic categories for each variable. This task involved the calculation of percentages to represent the distribution of respondents within each category of the socio-demographic variables for residents living in high-rise and low-rise housing estates. Chi-squared tests were also used to analyse the association between the type of housing (high-rise or low-rise) and each socio-demographic variable and to determine whether there are any statistically significant associations between the type of housing and each socio-demographic variable. Second, to calculate the place attachment experienced by residents and to investigate the exact variables that influence residential satisfaction, the HI, as conceptualised by [59], was computed (Equation (1)).
H I x = ∑ i = 1 N a ý x ∑ i = 1 N A ý x × 100
where HI x represents the index of habitability of variable x ; N is the number of respondents; and a ý x is the actual score on the five-point scale by the ý th respondent on the x th variable. ‘A’ represents the maximum possible score that respondent ‘ ý ’ could give to variable x on the five-point scale [59].
The SI for the social environment was calculated by adding all the scores for each variable per participant, as introduced by [60].
S I X = ∑ i = 1 N y i ∑ i = 1 N Y i × 100
where SI is the index of relative satisfaction of a tenant with a specific component ( x ); N is the number of variables selected for scaling under x ; y i is the actual score by a respondent on the i th variable; and Y i is the maximum score that variable i could have on the scale used [60].
To examine whether specific socio-demographic variables correlate with different levels of residential satisfaction in high-rise and low-rise housing, the final step involved an investigation of the associations between these socio-demographic variables and the overall residential satisfaction within the respective housing estates. Logistic regression was then used to assess the impacts of each predictor (socio-demographic variable) on the likelihood of the binary outcome (residential satisfaction). Logistic regression was used since it is a suitable statistical technique for categorical data and binary outcome variables [61]. The logistic regression model can be represented by the following formula:
L o g = p 1 − p = β 0 + β 1 x 1   +   β 2 x 2   +   . . . . .   +   β k x k
where p is the probability of the binary outcome.   β 0 is the intercept term. β 1   +   β 2   +   . . . . .   +   β k   are the coefficients associated with the predictor variables x 1 + x 2   +   . . . . .   +   x k and log is the natural logarithm. The selection criteria were based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), a measure that balances model fit and complexity.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic

The socio-demographic characteristics of the residents living in high-rise and low-rise housing estates were analysed and compared. There was a total of 213 completed questionnaires. Table 1 shows that residents aged 36–45 were the majority in both types of housing estates. More than half of the respondents identified as women (58.7%). Thirty-four percent had the highest secondary school education level, 88.7% identified as Hungarians, and 39.9% were married. A high proportion of residents had zero dependents (62.4%) and lived in a two-member household (35.2%). Moreover, those living in a high-rise housing estate had a lower number of employed respondents (56.7%) than those in a low-rise housing estate (69.1%). Only 32.9% of households reported a female-headed household.
Regarding higher education, the education distribution differs between high-rise and low-rise estates, with a higher percentage of high-rise residents having completed intermediate education (36% vs. 17.1%). The percentage of residents with secondary education is slightly higher in the high-rise estate (37.1% vs. 31.7%), while the percentage of residents with higher education is lower in the high-rise estate (21.3% vs. 41.5%). No postgraduate degrees are reported in high-rise estates, while 3.3% of residents in low-rise estates have postgraduate education.
Overall, the education distribution differs between high-rise and low-rise estates, with notable differences in intermediate and higher education levels. High-rise estates seem to have a higher proportion of residents with intermediate education, while low-rise have a higher proportion of residents with higher education, including postgraduate degrees. These differences suggest disparities in educational attainment between the two types of estates. No significant relationship was found between education levels and social environment satisfaction, as p-values were above 0.05.
As shown in Table 2, more Hungarian respondents were content with their social environment in high-rise (p = 0.018) and low-rise (p = 0.008) housing estates than their counterparts. Additionally, fewer dependents in both high-rise (p = 0.013) and low-rise (p 0.001) estates were satisfied with their social environment, as were households with fewer members in both high-rise (p = 0.013) and low-rise (0.005) estates. p-values were lower for the low-rise estates overall.

3.2. Indices

The percentages of “strongly agree” responses for each of the 13 habitability indices in both high-rise and low-rise estates are shown in Table 3 below. Overall, the low-rise estates show higher percentages in 11 of the 13 habitability indices, indicating a more positive perception of the social environment, stronger community connections, and higher trust among neighbours. Comparatively, the generally lower total habitability index scores in high-rise estates indicate potential dissatisfaction with the social environment compared to low-rise estates. This supports the hypothesis that residents in high-rise estates might be dissatisfied with their social environment. High-rise estates, while scoring lower in various dimensions, still demonstrate positive aspects, such as financial responsibility (S5) and show a comparable perception of the availability of community activities (S4) to the low-rise estate.
The chi-squared test was used to assess potential statistically significant differences between the percentages of “strongly agree” responses for each of the 13 habitability indices in both high-rise and low-rise estates. The results are summarized in Table 3, which includes the chi-squared statistic, degrees of freedom (df), and p-values for each habitability index. A common significance level of 0.05 was used, and a p-value below this threshold indicates a rejection of the null hypothesis, suggesting a significant difference in the habitability index responses between the two types of estates. Overall, for the majority of the habitability indices, there is no statistically significant difference in the “strongly agree” responses between high-rise and low-rise estates. However, for index S6 (I talk to my neighbours often), the p-value is 0.01, below the common significance level of 0.05, indicating a statistically significant difference. This suggests that more residents in low-rise estates talk to their neighbours often compared to high-rise residents.
As suggested by [59], the calculated SI scores were grouped into four quartiles: very low (20–39%), low (40–59%), moderate (60–79%), and high (80–100%). The mean satisfaction score of 60.62 for high-rise estates and 67.48 for low-rise estates was calculated. This suggests that, on average, low-rise estates have higher satisfaction scores than high-rise estates. In terms of the satisfaction distribution by percentages, low-rise estates have a notably lower percentage of very low satisfaction (4%) compared to high-rise estates (15%) (Figure 2). Low-rise estates also have a lower percentage in the low satisfaction category (21%) compared to high-rise estates (30%) and have a higher percentage of estates with moderate satisfaction (53%) compared to high-rise estates (39%).

3.3. Logistic Regression

Logistic regression analysis was conducted separately for high-rise and low-rise estates to assess the predictor variables that influence overall residential satisfaction. Results from the logistic regression models (high-rise overall residential satisfaction and low-rise overall residential satisfaction) are presented in the forest plot in Figure 3. The forest plot is used to visualise the logistic regression results, statistically significant predictors have coloured dots, and the corresponding horizontal lines which represent confidence intervals, do not cross zero. The figure includes each explanatory variable’s estimated coefficients, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values. For the high-rise model, the age, education, marital status, ethnicity, female-headed household, dependents, household members, and occupation variables all showed positive associations with overall residential satisfaction, although none of these relationships were statistically significant. In high-rise housing, a negative coefficient of −0.12 for SI indicated higher values of SI were associated with lower odds of overall satisfaction in high-rise housing.
In contrast, the low-rise model shares a similar pattern in terms of positive associations for the same variables but with differences in the magnitudes of coefficients and statistical significance levels. Notably, the SI variable in the low-rise model has a statistically significant positive association, contrary to the negative association found in the high-rise model. The AIC values of the derived logistic regression models in Equations (4) and (5) for high-rise was 68.300 and 83.589 for the low-rise estate models.
Based on the logistic regression results, the logistic regression models can be expressed in equation form as follows for the High Rise-Overall residential satisfaction:
L o g = p 1 − p = − 1.00 − 0.12 × S I
And for the Low Rise-Overall residential satisfaction:
L o g = p 1 − p = 0.45 − 0.07 × S I

4. Discussion

The study aimed to investigate and understand the relationship between residential satisfaction and place attachment by assessing whether there are significant differences between residents living in high-rise and low-rise housing estates in Budapest, Hungary. The study results indicated that socio-demographic variables influenced the social environment, with ethnicity, dependents, and occupation as significant predictors. Also, in assessing which housing typology was more satisfied with their living environment, findings suggested. However, both typologies had a moderate satisfaction index; residents living in low-rise housing estates were more satisfied with their social environment. Thus, the study hypothesis that socio-demographic characteristics do not influence social environment is not supported by the findings, and the hypothesis that residents in high-rise estates are relatively dissatisfied with their environment is supported. The refined logistic regression models provide empirical support for the influence of socio-demographic characteristics on the social environment and align with the hypothesis that residents in high-rise estates are indeed dissatisfied with their environment.
The associations found between socio-demographic characteristics and social environment are supported by previous studies in socialised housing [62], second-tier cities [63], and large housing estates [19], though other researchers have argued that these characteristics do not add value to the overall satisfaction with social environment (such as [64]). The current study found that gender and female-headed households did not influence the social environment, which contradicts [65], who suggested that male-headed households had higher residential satisfaction. Similar results were discovered in Ningbo, where gender positively correlated with residential satisfaction [66]. Interestingly, the findings that fewer to no household dependents had a higher influence on the social environment is supported by several studies [66,67].
The refined models reinforce the statement that residents in high-rise housing estates are primarily dissatisfied with their social environment. The results from the stepwise regression techniques consistently highlight key predictors, including variables related to dependents and social interaction (SI), which contribute significantly to explaining overall residential satisfaction in high-rise housing. These findings align with the earlier identified dissatisfaction trends observed in the Housing Index (HI), where more than 50% of the variables fell into either the low or very low quartile for residents in high-rise estates. The HI results differ in the two housing estates’ typologies. Residents in high-rise housing estates are primarily dissatisfied with their social environment, as shown in more than 50% of the variables being in either the low or the very low quartile. However, the low rank of residents participating in community meetings in both typologies is in line with previous studies that have reasoned that participation fatigue [68], institutional barriers [69], and other priorities [70], among others, may influence residents’ involvement.
When people connect with and attach psychological significance to their residential environment, it is often a sign of oneness between the individual and their place of stay. In urban research, sense of place is studied through understanding the relationship between the neighbourhood and social participation. Results from the HI indicated that, with the exception of the variable “I attend events when invited by my neighbour”, which was low and moderate for high-rise and low-rise estates, respectively, actively participating in community meetings and taking part in community events and activities were low for both estates. This is interesting as it might be expected that low-rise apartments would have higher social participation when compared with high-rise because the former has more prominent and more vibrant lobbies to stimulate place attachment. However, it is essential to note that results from both typologies suggest that residents do moderately believe that some opportunities exist for community activities. Specifically, housing estates in Hungary often boost various social amenities and green spaces that residents may use to attend events and partake in community meetings. Moreover, although the study does support the idea that providing vibrant communal spaces may stimulate participation [71], the current findings suggest that despite these attractive spaces, such as community centres, residents often choose not to participate.
Conversely, the results of the variables of place attachment indicated that, compared with residents of high-rise estates, those living in low-rise estates were relatively more satisfied with their social environment. The refined logistic regression models for each typology supported this. This supports [72], who found that high-rise buildings in Tehran lacked social cohesion and social contact among the residents. This may be due to the size of the building, in that neighbours hardly see each other, and the crowdedness, which hinders social networks [57]. Furthermore, taller structures have been criticised as negatively affecting residents’ mental health and overall well-being due to isolation and lack of social support [73,74]. In contrast, because low-rise residences comprise few apartments, neighbours are more likely to be familiar with each other. Moreover, low-rise apartments often do not have elevators, which means residents use the stairs, increasing the chances of seeing and conversing with a neighbour [75]. This is evident in the current results where residents in these apartments had higher meaningful relationships with their neighbours that went beyond a wave or a simple hello, and further supports research that finds that the layout and size of the building influence the frequency of social interaction [76].

5. Limitations and Concluding Remarks

Although the study provides relevant findings, caution should be taken in interpreting the results. First, the data collection was conducted between the second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have influenced how residents answered the questionnaire. As a result, due to the cross-sectional study design, findings could not capture the dynamics prior to the pandemic. Second, causality cannot be established because of the nature of the study design. Third, the residents in these housing estates are predominately classified as low-to-middle-income class, and thus, the study ran the risk of social desirability bias whereby participants provided answers they deemed more acceptable. To reduce this limitation, participants were ensured anonymity. Despite these limitations, however, the study has some strengths. This study in Hungary has investigated the relationship between the social environment and residential satisfaction and offers insightful contributions that may inform key stakeholders and residents in implementing strategic actions for increasing a sense of belonging, sense of place, and sense of community within the housing estates.
The study assessed the relationship between residential satisfaction and place attachment by investigating significant differences in the social environment between people living in low-rise and high-rise housing estates in Budapest, Hungary. Based on the findings, it can be argued that socio-demographic variables influenced the social environment, with ethnicity, dependents, and occupation as significant predictors. Also, in assessing which housing typology was more satisfied with their living environment, low-rise housing estate residents are relatively more satisfied with their social environment compared with high-rise residents. These results have some implications. Although both housing typologies included in the research were part of URPs where social elements were a significant component of the program, it is clear that more social initiatives are required to encourage social networks, particularly in high-rise housing estates. Evidence from the literature has alluded that these tall, structured buildings encouraged a homogenous and not-in-my-backyard mentality. However, results of the study showed that across both typologies, residents agreed that several social programs do exist — just that residents opt not to participate. This does not simply imply that these residents may have a lower quality of life, but it is essential to take note of the differences in culture. For instance, it has been argued that Eastern Europe’s culture is much more reserved compared to the African or American expressive communication, which may be one of the reasons that social programs are less prevalent in places similar to the study area. This implies that though large-scale housing estates, mainly constructed after WWII, are being regenerated across Europe, attention needs to be paid to the targeted population to ensure that social programs are not introduced to fulfil a mandate but are tailor-made to suit the culture and behaviour of the residents.
In the context of regenerated housing, residential satisfaction research is currently expanding with great emphasis on place attachment. Thus, the current research attempted to discuss these issues; however, undeniably, the research is far from comprehensive. Directions for future studies include the following: (1) the study highlighted the interplay between socio-demographic and several aspects of place attachment; however, there is a need for studies to examine how residents living in housing estates make spaces theirs and lived-in spaces to better inform local authorities and those involved in the regeneration of these estates; (2) future studies can research the determinants that predict place attachment in housing projects found outside Budapest (i.e., Szeged, Pécs, Debrecen) and Hungary as only then can an accurate comparison of the different results be conducted; (3) place attachment has been linked intricately with housing affordability, especially since these housing estates are predominately affordable; thus, it is worth researching residents’ trade-offs between place attachment and housing affordability as developers often choose to build low-cost housing in the peripheral of the city due to the cheap land prices despite the high negative impact on the residents.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.P.N.; methodology, N.P.N. and F.M.-K.; software, F.M.-K.; validation, N.P.N. and F.M.-K.; formal analysis, N.P.N. and F.M.-K.; investigation, N.P.N.; resources, N.P.N.; data curation, N.P.N. and F.M.-K.; writing—original draft preparation, N.P.N.; writing—review and editing, N.P.N. and F.M.-K.; visualization, N.P.N. and F.M.-K.; supervision, N.P.N.; project administration, N.P.N.; funding acquisition, N.P.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study received approval from the General Data Protection Regulation office of the main researcher’s institution to ensure that the researcher was able to address ethical issues that may arise from the research. This was because the main researcher’s doctoral institute does not have an ethics committee. Moreover, participants were ensured anonymity in the study; asked for verbal consent before commencement of the study and in-formed that they may withdraw their consent anytime during the data collection process.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. They are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their heartfelt appreciation to the Újpalota, Kis-Pongrác, and Havanna residents for taking the time to respond to the questionnaires.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pósfai, Z.; Jelinek, C. Reproducing socio-spatial unevenness through the institutional logic of dual housing policies in Hungary. In Regional and Local Development in Times of Polarisation: Re-Thinking Spatial Policies in Europe; Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore, 2019; pp. 197–223. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fleury-Bahi, G.; Félonneau, M.-L.; Marchand, D. Processes of place identification and residential satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 669–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Roazzi, A.; Monteiro, C.M.G.; Rullo, G. Residencial satisfaction and place attachment: A croos-cultural investigation. In Facet Theory and Scaling: In Search of Structure in Behavioral and Social Sciences; Rubin RI D: Jerusalem, Israel, 2009; Volume 200. [Google Scholar]
  4. Krūmiņš, J.; Sechi, G.; Berzins, M. Residential satisfaction and mobility behaviour among the young: Insights from the post-Soviet city of Riga. Belgeo. Rev. Belg. Géographie 2018, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Momtaz, Y.A.; Fallahi, B.; Delbari, A. Residential satisfaction among Iranian senior Citizens. Open Psychol. J. 2018, 11, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zalejska-Jonsson, A. Parameters contributing to occupants’ satisfaction: Green and conventional residential buildings. Facilities 2014, 32, 411–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ukoha, O.M.; Beamish, J.O. Assessment of residents’ satisfaction with public housing in Abuja, Nigeria. Habitat Int. 1997, 21, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Permentier, M.; Bolt, G.; Van Ham, M. Determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of neighbourhood reputation. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 977–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Savasdisara, T. Resident’s satisfaction and neighbourhood characteristics in Japanese urban communities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1988, 15, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Smith, K.M. The Relationship between Residential Satisfaction, Sense of Community, Sense of Belonging and Sense of Place in a Western Australian Urban Planned Community. Ph.D. Thesis, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  11. Speare, A. Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography 1974, 11, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ibem, E.O.; Amole, D. Residential satisfaction in public core housing in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 113, 563–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Paris, D.E.; Kangari, R. Multifamily affordable housing: Residential satisfaction. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2005, 19, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aulia, D.N.; Ismail, A.M. The Criteria of Residential Satisfaction in Gated Community: Medan City. Asian J. Behav. Stud. 2016, 1, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bella-Omunagbe, O.C. Drivers and Consequences of Residents’ Satisfaction with Off-campus Student Housing in South-South, Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mohit, M.A.; Ibrahim, M.; Rashid, Y.R. Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dekker, K.; De Vos, S.; Musterd, S.; Van Kempen, R. Residential satisfaction in housing estates in European cities: A multi-level research approach. Hous. Stud. 2011, 26, 479–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Clapham, D. The Meaning of Housing: A Pathways Approach; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nzimande, N.P. Residential satisfaction in large housing estates of Budapest: Is age really just a number? Spatium 2022, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nzimande, N.P. Conceptual model for measuring and predicting residential satisfaction in housing-led urban regeneration in post-socialist cities. Glas. Srp. Geogr. Drus. 2022, 102, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bruin, M.J.; Cook, C.C. Understanding constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income single-parent families. Environ. Behav. 1997, 29, 532–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Weidemann, S.; Anderson, J.R. A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In Home Environments; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 153–182. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ewing, R.; Handy, S.; Brownson, R.C.; Clemente, O.; Winston, E. Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3, S223–S240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bramley, G.; Power, S. Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2009, 36, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brown, B.B.; Perkins, D.D. Disruptions in Place Attachment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1992; pp. 279–304. [Google Scholar]
  26. Aigbavboa, C.O. An Integrated Beneficiary Centred Satisfaction Model for Publicly Funded Housing Schemes in South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  27. Williams, D.R.; Vaske, J.J. The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 830–840. [Google Scholar]
  28. Korpela, K.M. Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. J. Environ. Psychol. 1989, 9, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pretty, G.H.; Chipuer, H.M.; Bramston, P. Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stokols, D. People in Places: A Transactional View of Settings. 1981. Available online: https://escholarship.org/content/qt48v387g7/qt48v387g7.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2023).
  31. Hammitt, W.E.; Backlund, E.A.; Bixler, R.D. Place bonding for recreation places: Conceptual and empirical development. Leis. Stud. 2006, 25, 17–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Harun, N.Z.; Mansor, M.; Said, I. Place rootedness suggesting the loss and survival of historical public spaces. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 28, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Stegner. “The Sense of Place.” Where the Bluebird Sings to the Lemonade Springs: Living and Writing in the West; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  34. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Roberts, E. Place and spirit in public land management. In Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic; Venture Publishers: State College, PA, USA, 1996; pp. 61–78. [Google Scholar]
  36. Livingston, M.; Bailey, N.; Kearns, A. People’s Attachment to Place: The Influence of Neighbourhood Deprivation. 2008. Available online: https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/44836/ (accessed on 3 March 2023).
  37. Weijs-Perrée, M.; Van den Berg, P.; Arentze, T.; Kemperman, A. Social networks, social satisfaction and place attachment in the neighborhood. Region 2017, 4, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Adewale, B.A.; Ibem, E.O.; Amole, S.A.; Adeboye, A.B. Place attachment in Nigerian urban slums: Evidence from inner-city Ibadan. Cities 2020, 107, 102902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dlamini, S.; Tesfamichael, S.G.; Shiferaw, Y.A.; Mokhele, T. Socio-demographic determinants of place attachment in Gauteng, South Africa, using partial proportional odds models. GeoJournal 2022, 87, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Junot, A. Identification of factors that assure quality of residential environments, and their influence on place attachment in tropical and insular context, the case of Reunion Island. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2022, 37, 1511–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kutor, S.K.; Bandauko, E.; Kyeremeh, E.; Annan-Aggrey, E.; Arku, G. Residential satisfaction in deprived urban neighbourhoods: A case study of Harare’s selected informal settlements. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2023, 38, 1177–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aksel, E.; İmamoğlu, Ç. Neighborhood location and its association with place attachment and residential satisfaction. Open House Int. 2020, 45, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Son, J.Y.; Sinha, P.; Choi, S.; Yang, J.-J.; Lee, Y.-K. Impacts of Residential Environment on Residents’ Place Attachment, Satisfaction, WOM, and Pro-environmental Behavior: Evidence from the Korean Housing Industry. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1217877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vidal, T.; Valera, S.; Peró, M. Place attachment, place identity and residential mobility in undergraduate students. Psyecology 2010, 1, 353–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Setiawan, T.; Riasnugrahani, M.; de Jong, E. Psychometric properties of Indonesian slums dwellers’ place attachment. Heliyon 2023, 9, e19704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bandauko, E.; Asare, A.B.; Arku, G. Exploring place attachment dynamics in deprived urban neighborhoods: An empirical study of Nima and Old Fadama slums in Accra, Ghana. J. Urban Aff. 2023, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gieling, J.; Haartsen, T.; Vermeij, L. Village facilities and social place attachment in the rural Netherlands. Rural Sociol. 2019, 84, 66–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rodríguez-Díaz, P.; Almuna, R.; Marchant, C.; Heinz, S.; Lebuy, R.; Celis-Diez, J.L.; Díaz-Siefer, P. The Future of Rurality: Place Attachment among Young Inhabitants of Two Rural Communities of Mediterranean Central Chile. Sustainability 2022, 14, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Trell, E.; van Hoven, B. Place Attachment in Rural Areas: A Participatory Research Project with Young People in Cedar, British Columbia; den Toonder, J., van Hoven, B., Eds.; Re-Exploring Canadian Space; Barkhuis Publishing: Eelde, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 27–44. [Google Scholar]
  50. Heidari, A.A.; Nekooeimehr, F. An investigation of the relationship between sense of place and place attachment among dormitory students. Iran Univ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 23, 121–131. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yankholmes, A.; McKercher, B. The impact of self-concept and place attachment on migrants’ travel. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 21, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lynnebakke, B. ‘I felt like the mountains were coming for me.’—The role of place attachment and local lifestyle opportunities for labour migrants’ staying aspirations in two Norwegian rural municipalities. Migr. Stud. 2021, 9, 759–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Manahasa, E.; Özsoy, A. Place attachment to a larger through a smaller scale: Attachment to city through housing typologies in Tirana. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2020, 35, 265–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kolobova, S. Determining the market value of high-rise residential buildings based on evaluation of consumer properties. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, Samara, Russia, 4–8 September 2017; p. 02034. [Google Scholar]
  55. Bolt, G. Who is to blame for the decline of large housing estates? An exploration of socio-demographic and ethnic change. In Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 57–74. [Google Scholar]
  56. Graham, L.T.; Parkinson, T.; Schiavon, S. Lessons learned from 20 years of CBE’s occupant surveys. Build. Cities 2021, 2, 166–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kearns, A.; Whitley, E.; Mason, P.; Bond, L. ‘Living the high life’? Residential, social and psychosocial outcomes for high-rise occupants in a deprived context. Hous. Stud. 2012, 27, 97–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Buckner, J.C. The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1988, 16, 771–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ogu, V.I. Urban residential satisfaction and the planning implications in a developing world context: The example of Benin City, Nigeria. Int. Plan. Stud. 2002, 7, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Onibokun, A.G. Evaluating consumers’ satisfaction with housing: An application of a systems approach. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1974, 40, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lever, J.; Krzywinski, M.; Altman, N. Logistic regression: Regression can be used on categorical responses to estimate probabilities and to classify. Nat. Methods 2016, 13, 541–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yares, M.A.P. Beyond Counting Houses: Are We Providing Adequate Housing? An Assessment of Residential Satisfaction of Socialized Housing in Davao City, Philippines. BANWA Ser. A 2023, 15, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  63. Feldmane, L. Socio-Spatial Differentiation of Residential Satisfaction in Jelgava. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hourihan, K. Context-dependent models of residential satisfaction: An analysis of housing groups in Cork, Ireland. Environ. Behav. 1984, 16, 369–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kim, S.; Hwang, J.; Lee, M.-H. Effect of housing support programs on residential satisfaction and the housing cost burden: Analysis of the effect of housing support programs in korea based on household attributes. Land 2022, 11, 1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yin, Y.; He, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, D. Impact of building environment on residential satisfaction: A case study of Ningbo. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rossi, P.H. Why Families Move: A Study in the Social Psychology of Urban Residential Mobility; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1955. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lemanski, C. Houses without community: Problems of community (in) capacity in Cape Town, South Africa. Environ. Urban. 2008, 20, 393–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chi, C.S.; Xu, J.; Xue, L. Public participation in environmental impact assessment for public projects: A case of non-participation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 57, 1422–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. McComas, K.A.; Besley, J.C.; Trumbo, C.W. Why citizens do and do not attend public meetings about local cancer cluster investigations. Policy Stud. J. 2006, 34, 671–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kalantari, S.; Shepley, M. Psychological and social impacts of high-rise buildings: A review of the post-occupancy evaluation literature. Hous. Stud. 2021, 36, 1147–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dwijendra, N.K.A.; Akhmadeev, R.; Tumanov, D.; Kosov, M.; Shoar, S.; Banaitis, A. Modeling social impacts of high-rise residential buildings during the post-occupancy phase using DEMATEL method: A case study. Buildings 2021, 11, 504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wilcox, B.L.; Holahan, C.J. Social ecology of the megadorm in university student housing. J. Educ. Psychol. 1976, 68, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Evans, G.W.; Wells, N.M.; Moch, A. Housing and mental health: A review of the evidence and a methodological and conceptual critique. J. Soc. Issues 2003, 59, 475–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yao, Y. High-Rise Housing and Social Interaction Study under Current Chinese High-Rise Residential Situation; Rochester Institute of Technology: Rochester, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  76. Bandara, W.D.; Rathnayake, R.; Mahanama, P.; Wickramaarachchi, N. An investigation on community spaces in condominiums and their impact on social interactions among apartment dwellers concerning the city of Colombo. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2020, 2, 100043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 01195 g001
Figure 1. Study site locations.
Figure 1. Study site locations.
Sustainability 16 01195 g001
Sustainability 16 01195 g002
Figure 2. Grouped satisfaction indices for the social environment.
Figure 2. Grouped satisfaction indices for the social environment.
Sustainability 16 01195 g002
Sustainability 16 01195 g003
Figure 3. Forest plot of logistic regression coefficients.
Figure 3. Forest plot of logistic regression coefficients.
Sustainability 16 01195 g003
Table 1. Social environment variables.
Table 1. Social environment variables.
Variable
Number		Questions
S1I feel like Havanna is my own, I strongly identify with this area.
S2I actively participate in community meetings.
S3Living in this neighbourhood says a lot about who I am.
S4There are many opportunities for community activities.
S5I pay my monthly bills on time.
S6I talk to my neighbours often.
S7If I need help, my neighbours will support me.
S8I feel like I have a meaningful relationship with my neighbours.
S9I am away from someone on the housing estate who takes care of my apartment, plants, pets, etc.
S10I take part in community events and activities in the area
S11I have a neighbour who understands important events or emergencies in the area
S12I attend events when invited by my neighbour.
S13 I trust my neighbours.
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of residents living in high-rise and low-rise housing estates (N = 213).
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of residents living in high-rise and low-rise housing estates (N = 213).
Explanatory VariableHigh Rise (%)p-ValueLow Rise (%)p-Value
Age
18–244.4 2.4
25–3518.9 19.5
36–4525.6 27.6
46–5514.40.72518.70.353
56–656.7 14.6
66+30 17.1
Gender
Male62.2 56.1
Female37.8143.91
Education
Primary5.6 4.9
Intermediate36 17.1
Secondary37.1 31.7
Higher education21.30.80641.50.257
Postgraduate0 3.3
Other0 1.6
Ethnicity
Hungarian84.4 91.9
Roma11.1 8
Mixed1.10.018 **4.90.008 ***
Other3.3 2.4
Marital Status
Single25.6 26.8
Married46.7 35
Cohabiting8.90.648130.521
Widow12.2 14.6
Divorced/living separately6.7 10.6
Female Headed Households
Yes25.60.82938.20.497
No74.461.8
Dependents
Zero61.1 63.4
One18.9 19.5
Two15.60.013 **14.60.000 ***
Three2.2 1.6
More than three2.2 8
Household members
One22.2 34.1
Two40 31.7
Three22.20.014 **20.30.005 ***
Four12.2 11.4
More than four3.3 2.4
Occupation
Employee56.7 69.1
Contractor4.4 4.1
Pensioner28.90.098 *220.853
Student3.3 0.8
Unemployed1.1 1.6
This and That5.6 2.4
Note: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Chi-Squared test results for differences in ‘Strongly Agree’ responses between high-rise and low-rise estates across habitability indices.
Table 3. Chi-Squared test results for differences in ‘Strongly Agree’ responses between high-rise and low-rise estates across habitability indices.
Habitability IndexHigh-RiseLow-RiseChi-Squared Statisticdfp-Value
SI48560.6210.43
S216241.6010.21
S314242.6310.10 *
S430250.4510.20
S542360.4610.50
S622426.2510.01 **
S734461.8010.18
S824280.3110.58
S930380.9410.33
S1014201.0610.30
S1133462.1410.14
S1223373.2710.07 *
S1330370.7310.39
Note: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nzimande, N.P.; Morris-Kolawole, F. Does Size Really Matter for the Place Attachment of High-Rise and Low-Rise Housing Estates? A Budapest Case Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031195

AMA Style

Nzimande NP, Morris-Kolawole F. Does Size Really Matter for the Place Attachment of High-Rise and Low-Rise Housing Estates? A Budapest Case Study. Sustainability. 2024; 16(3):1195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031195

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nzimande, Ntombifuthi Precious, and Feroza Morris-Kolawole. 2024. "Does Size Really Matter for the Place Attachment of High-Rise and Low-Rise Housing Estates? A Budapest Case Study" Sustainability 16, no. 3: 1195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031195

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop