· web viewresidential satisfaction is an important proxy for people´s wellbeing and for...

1Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts

LIVING CLOSE TO HIGHWAYS: RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION AND THE INFLUENCE OF (PERCEIVED CHANGES IN)

ACCESSIBILITY AND NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES

Marije Hamersma*Faculty of Spatial SciencesUniversity of GroningenPO Box 8009700 AV GroningenThe NetherlandsPhone: +31-50-363-3875Fax: +31-50-363-3901E-mail: [email protected]

Taede TillemaFaculty of Spatial SciencesUniversity of GroningenPO Box 8009700 AV GroningenThe NetherlandsPhone: +31-50-363-8663Fax: +31-50-363-3901E-mail: [email protected]

Joseph SussmanDepartment of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of Technology77 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02139Phone: +1-617-253-4430Fax: +1-617-258-5942E-mail: [email protected]

Jos ArtsFaculty of Spatial SciencesUniversity of GroningenPO Box 8009700 AV GroningenThe NetherlandsPhone: +31-50-363-3872Fax: +31-50-363-3901E-mail: [email protected]

* Corresponding author

SUBMISSION DATENovember 15, 2012

WORD COUNT (MAIN TEXT) 5934Paper submitted for presentation at the 92nd TRB meeting, January 13-17, 2013, Washington, DC.

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354

mailto:[email protected]





ABSTRACTResidential satisfaction is an important proxy for people´s wellbeing and for relocation behavior. In this paper we focus on gaining insight into the residential satisfaction of households near highways, based on survey data collected among 1,230 respondents in the Netherlands. Using ordinal regression analysis, we studied the effect of accessibility and negative externalities, alongside other contextual factors, on residential satisfaction. Moreover, the objective was to gain first insights into the extent to which plans for road infrastructure adjustments influence residential satisfaction. On average, 90 percent of respondents reported to be satisfied with living near the highway. Regarding explanatory characteristics, negative externalities slightly outweigh accessibility aspects. Moreover, subjective evaluations of hindrance appear to have stronger explanatory power than calculated air and noise exposure. Regarding road adjustments, we found that respondents living near locations where a road adjustment has been announced are marginally more satisfied compared to other locations. A reason could be that respondents expect the current situation to improve once the adjustments are finished, for instance by increased accessibility. The overall positive residential satisfaction evaluations near highways may imply that, generally speaking, problems regarding living near highways may be somewhat overstated. Moreover, the notion that the explanatory power of subjective hindrance outperforms calculated exposure levels may give reason to be cautious when making transportation planning decisions based solely on calculations.

Keywords: highway infrastructure planning, accessibility and environmental trade-offs, residential satisfaction, planned road adjustments.

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223


1. INTRODUCTIONA highway has different faces. In positive terms, it is associated with development and progress of areas, as it brings accessibility and economic growth. However, with increasing car mobility, negative associations increase as well. Growing mobility demands have resulted in traffic congestion problems and decreased service levels on highways (see, for instance, 1). Moreover, road infrastructure is associated with other negative externalities like noise, air pollution and the accompanying health problems (see for instance 2-4). Undesirable effects such as noise, air pollution and local traffic are particularly important at the local level as they contribute to a reduction in the quality of the local environment (5) and as such may influence location decisions in a neighbourhood.

Although both positive and negative aspects related to road infrastructure may influence location decisions, insights into how (regional) accessibility factors and hindrance aspects are traded off is limited (see, for instance, 6-7). Moreover, many studies do not make a distinction between the decision to locate somewhere and the influence of external distortions. Once a location decision has been made, a stage of equilibrium occurs, which may be distorted by external changes, one example being planned road adjustments in the vicinity of a residential location. This may result in changes in (perceived) accessibility and hindrance.

Residential satisfaction appears to be an interesting and valuable mediating concept between positive and negative externalities on the one hand and household coping strategies on the other hand. It is proven to be a good proxy for people’s overall wellbeing (8-9), a key concept in today’s world, and relevant in relation to sustainable planning. It can be used both for evaluating wellbeing in an equilibrium state and in a situation where external changes occur, such as planned road adjustments. Current research, however, often disregards how people deal with such distortions. Compared to concepts such as house prices and residential migration, residential satisfaction is valuable for road and spatial planners because it may be directly influenced by planned infrastructural changes and may thus indicate conformity with a plan (10). However, whereas neighborhood and/or dwelling satisfaction have been studied in general, we are not aware of any studies that looked specifically at residential satisfaction of households living near major highways.

Within the context of this problem the objective of this paper is to gain greater insight into residential satisfaction of households near highways. We particularly aim to study the effects of both accessibility and negative externalities, alongside other contextual factors, on the residential satisfaction of households living near highways. Moreover, since residential satisfaction is an interesting concept for measuring the impact of distortions, we also aim to gain first insight into the extent to which plans for road infrastructure adjustments influence residential satisfaction. Such findings can be useful for future road infrastructure planning and may be used to relieve locational stress, prevent protest and possible relocations, and may give input for more inclusive planning, which helps ensure a proper fit of the infrastructure in its physical and social environment.

To gain the needed insights, we collected survey data among 1,230 residents living in five different neighborhoods located near highways in the Netherlands. Because we are also interested in the effect of a change in infrastructure on people´s residential satisfaction, two neighborhoods were selected where planned road adjustments are about to take place. For the analysis we used ordinal regression because our dependent variable of residential satisfaction was measured on an ordinal scale.

The outline of this article is as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on residential satisfaction and its explanatory characteristics, focusing on the influence of negative externalities and accessibility. Section 3 describes the empirical data and the applied method of analysis. The results are presented in section 4, and the conclusions in section 5.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Residential satisfaction and general explanatory characteristicsResidential satisfaction is widely researched within different disciplines such as sociology, psychology, planning and geography, and also in relation to different residential groups (9; 11-12). It is a key driver of moving intentions (13-14). Residential satisfaction can be regarded as a consisting of satisfaction with the neighborhood and with the dwelling. Whereas some studies focus on

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354


neighborhood satisfaction (e.g., 15-16), others distinguish between housing and the neighborhood (e.g., 9), or use a combined measure for residential satisfaction (e.g. 8). The two items, however, appear to be highly correlated (9, 11, 17).

Generally speaking, three groups can be distinguished with regard to factors influencing satisfaction: personal characteristics, characteristics of the dwelling and environmental factors (see, for example, 9, 11, 17-18). Authors emphasize the importance of both objective and more subjective factors, i.e. the perceptions and attitudes that people attach to attributes, in explaining differences between people (8, 14, 19). Onibokun (20), for instance, states that people’s social system (e.g., socio-economic factors, stage in the life cycle, familiarity with the neighborhood and lifestyles) are important in understanding their perspectives. However, objective characteristics also seem to influence people’s satisfaction levels. Generally speaking, residential satisfaction seems to increase with income and age and to decrease with household size (e.g., 9, 21). With respect to the dwelling, aspects like having a detached house, the house size and the attractiveness of the house’s design are positively linked to satisfaction (9, 11, 18). Moreover, residential satisfaction seems to be higher in more prosperous areas with fewer ethnic minorities (see for instance, 9, 11, 16, 18).

Slight variations can be observed as well. Galster & Hesser (11), for instance, find that women are less satisfied about the dwelling, while Lu (9) finds the opposite. Moreover, differences can be observed for tenure duration. Kroesen et al. (8) and Lu (9) report a negative relationship between duration and residential satisfaction whereas others find a positive relationship (e.g. 12, 14, 22). Regarding subjective judgments, people especially appreciate social contacts, safety, an attractive neighborhood with facilities and a good environmental quality (9, 11, 16, 18).

2.2 Perceived hindrance, accessibility and residential satisfactionAs described in section 2.1, various studies have intended to gain insight into factors explaining residential satisfaction. Some of them included hindrance and accessibility characteristics in their explanatory models. Hur & Morrow-Jones (15) studied homeowner’s satisfaction with their neighborhood on the basis of a survey among respondents in Ohio, USA. They found that satisfaction with accessibility to work and to family & friends, and satisfaction with the traffic situation, as a proxy for noise (and air) hindrance, both have a comparable positive impact on neighborhood satisfaction. However, other aspects like general appearance, satisfaction with the density of housing, cleanliness and safety were found to be more important. For residents living in urban areas, Howley at al. (23) find a stronger impact of accessibility on neighborhood satisfaction compared to Hur & Morrow-Jones (15), with access to employment being of comparable strength as environmental quality, house satisfaction and satisfaction with safety and neighbors. Cook (24), by focusing on a specific sample of single mothers, finds quietness to be important in both suburban and urban areas, while travel time to work, i.e. an objective proxy for regional accessibility, is negatively associated with satisfaction in urban areas.

Several other studies into residential satisfaction include noise hindrance in a more specific way, but include mainly local accessibility features (e.g., 16, 18-19, 25) or a combined regional and local accessibility indicator (26). Buys & Miller (18) for instance, by using data from inner urban higher-density environments in Brisbane, Australia, combined the proximity to work and other local services into one overall factor and found this to be an important factor in explaining residential satisfaction. Besides this, they found that two noise variables reduced neighborhood satisfaction, whereas one other unexpectedly increased satisfaction. Additionally, they included satisfaction with odor quality, which seems less important than noise. Lovejoy et al. (16) found unexpected coefficient signs for quietness and for their infrastructure construct, which consists of local accessibility characteristics such as the availability of sidewalks and parking space in the neighborhood. Better scores on both factors relate to a lower neighborhood satisfaction, which they attribute to other characteristics, such as neighborhood attractiveness, suppressing their influence. Their ‘mixed-use factor’, which includes access to local facilities like stores and green areas is not significant. However, although endogeneity might play a role, overall satisfaction with both location within the neighborhood and with location within the region, turn out to be important in explaining overall neighborhood satisfaction.

Mohan & Twigg (25) and Parkes et al. (19) both aimed at gaining insight into determinants for neighborhood and dwelling satisfaction based on different versions of the Survey of English

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455


Housing. Both studies find that noise has a negative relationship with neighborhood satisfaction. Furthermore, Mohan & Twigg (25) find a significant effect for access to post offices, which basically seems to relate to the availability of facilities rather than to accessibility per se. Parkes et al. (19) do not find any significant effect in terms of accessibility.

The studies described above focus on residential satisfaction, analyzing a wide array of explanatory characteristics, among which are noise and accessibility. However, Kroesen et al. (8) specifically looked into the influence of noise characteristics on residential satisfaction based on a large community survey held in a Dutch neighborhood near Schiphol Amsterdam Airport in 1996/1997. They tested the influence of aircraft noise, road traffic and railway noise annoyance in addition to personal variables and dwelling characteristics. Regarding aircraft noise, they distinguished between calculated aircraft noise exposure and the perceived annoyance. Important findings are that road traffic noise annoyance and noise hindrance by neighbors appear to be more important in explaining residential satisfaction than aircraft noise annoyance. Potentially more counter-intuitive is their finding that the calculated aircraft noise exposure has a higher explanatory power than perceived aircraft noise annoyance.

2.3 Residential satisfaction near highways: what is missing?The studies above tend to point towards noise having a higher explanatory power compared to accessibility characteristics. Noise in its turn seems to be of lower importance in the valuation of neighborhood satisfaction especially than some other characteristics, such as safety. Given our specific focus on residential satisfaction near highways, some knowledge gaps within residential satisfaction literature can be distinguished. First of all, insight into the influence of air pollution and visual and barrier effects of roads on satisfaction is lacking. Moreover, most studies include local accessibility, which often relates to the availability of facilities such as shops. The benefit of a highway relates more to regional accessibility, such as access to jobs. Thirdly, insights into the relative importance of calculated exposure levels and perceived negative externalities are lacking; in infrastructure planning practice calculation models are often used, whereas residential satisfaction literature focuses on perceptions of noise hindrance. And, finally, literature appears to study residential satisfaction in a state of equilibrium, whereas it would also be interesting to gain insight into how satisfaction is influenced by changes in the environment such as new facilities or road adjustments.

Although specific forms of hindrance and accessibility gains with respect to transport are not often taken into account in residential satisfaction literature, several hedonic house price studies do simultaneously include positive and negative effects relating to transport activities (see for instance, 6-7). House prices seem to be negatively correlated to both transport externalities and distance to the nearest highway access lane (see, for instance, 6, 27). Eliasson et al. (7) used both stated preference techniques and hedonic pricing to look at the intrusion and accessibility impacts on house prices. They show that short distances to roads, train stations and/or subway stations have a negative impact on house prices. However, the negative effects seem to reduce rapidly with distance, which may lead to the hypothesis that property prices close to the road, i.e. within a couple of hundred meters, are relatively lower due to the fairly large nuisances associated with the road.

In addition, there are studies that focus specifically on explaining hindrance without referring to either residential satisfaction or house prices. Different factors influence the annoyance people perceive, such as noise sensitivity (28-30), the family situation, health status, gender (31) and the use of and direct sight of the source (32-33). Studies often do not find a clear relationship between objective noise exposure and annoyance (28; 34-35), which is why most emphasize subjective annoyance to being a better estimator. Moreover, literature is unclear regarding the relative annoyance of noise hindrance compared to air pollution. People see traffic as the main source for both noise and air pollution (6, 36). As people often do not observe air-related pollution, whereas they immediately hear noise, one may hypothesize that they are less annoyed by the latter. However, as air pollution can result in health problems and diseases, people who are aware of potential effects might take air pollution more seriously (29).

In contrast to the described limited insights into the link between regional accessibility and residential satisfaction, accessibility plays a more prominent role in location and relocation studies. Based on stated preference research, accessibility is one of the factors that influences location

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455


decisions, albeit not the most important one. Most of the studies focus on regional accessibility by looking at the importance people attach to accessibility to, for instance, jobs (e.g. 37-39). The decision to live near a highway may be a consequence of such regional focus on accessibility (40). To summarize, several studies look into hindrance and accessibility characteristics in relation to transport. However, generally speaking, the link with residential satisfaction is missing.

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

3.1 Analytical modelIn this article we specifically focus on residential satisfaction near highways and aim to fill some of the gaps in available literature as described in section 2.3. We hypothesize that both (perceived) negative externalities related to a highway and (perceived) accessibility influence residential satisfaction, where higher negative externalities are expected to decrease satisfaction whereas higher accessibility levels are hypothesized to have a positive relationship with satisfaction. In addition, other contextual factors may influence the residential satisfaction, such as socio-economic factors, neighborhood- and dwelling characteristics/ perceptions. The influence of negative externalities may be stronger close to the highway, as noise and air hindrance fade with distance. Moreover, external triggers may influence residential satisfaction. An example of such a trigger is a planned road adjustment. While still in the planning stage such adjustments can lead to anticipation effects that may influence residential satisfaction. Changes in road infrastructure or anticipation of future changes are expected to influence residential satisfaction via (perceived) accessibility changes and via (perceived) hindrance. However, it may also have a direct effect on satisfaction.

3.2 Data collection and preparationWe conducted a survey among residents living near highways in 2011. Five highway locations were selected that are geographically distributed throughout the Netherlands, three of which are locations without planned road adjustments (see Figure 1). Because we are also interested in the effects of changes in road infrastructure, we additionally selected two locations with planned road adjustments (i.e. Groningen and Utrecht). The questionnaire was distributed in different neighborhoods within a radius of one kilometer from the highway. For each zone (0-300m, 300-600m and 600-1000m from the highway) targets for the number of distributed surveys were set, where zones closest to the highway were relatively over-sampled because we assume that here accessibility and hindrance are more of an issue. Depending on the size of the neighborhood and the number of postal codes in each area, 2 to 10 addresses were selected per postal code. A total of 5,500 questionnaires were distributed manually. 1,396 people participated, which corresponds with a response rate of about 25 percent. In total 1,230 valid questionnaires were used for the analysis in this paper.

FIGURE 1 Geographical spread of selected locations.

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536

373839


The survey consisted of questions about the current situation, which included characteristics of the dwelling, information on residential location decisions, and propositions on residential preferences and satisfaction. For residential satisfaction, respondents were asked to respond to propositions regarding satisfaction with the neighborhood and the dwelling. To define satisfaction in our study we combined people´s satisfaction with the house and satisfaction with the neighborhood (both graded on a 7-point Likert scale) into one overall construct called ‘residential satisfaction’ because both are highly correlated. We rounded average values to the nearest integer to get back to the original ordinal scale. Moreover, questions were asked about perceived local and regional accessibility, where local accessibility factors relate to neighborhood characteristics (e.g. the number of parking places and access to shops), whereas regional accessibility included travel time to work, perceived accessibility of the work location by different transport modes, and the preference to live near the highway. With respect to negative externalities, the survey included questions and items on three types of hindrance: noise annoyance, air pollution and visual hindrance. The noise and air constructs were measured by means of five items, that included actual observance of hindrance (either inside or outside the house), and items focusing on perceived concerns and health problems. Physical hindrance was measured on four dimensions, including visual and physical obstruction, integration in the landscape and perceived unattractiveness. Correlations and factor tests showed that combining variables was justified. We checked whether the specific questions “I am annoyed by..” and “I am worried about..” were measuring different things. As a very strong relation was found between both we decided to combine them into one variable. Finally, the survey contained socio-economic background characteristics because of potential relevance in explaining residential satisfaction. All descriptive characteristics are shown in Table 1.

We also used three additional data sources. First of all, we used GIS and road network data to compute the distance between the zip codes within our sampled neighborhoods and the nearest highway access lane. Moreover, we obtained data from the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment on mathematical exposure calculations for noise (DB) and air (NO2 and PM10) by road traffic for each 6-digit zip code around Dutch highways. Thirdly, we included neighborhood density (measured in square metres), based on information of Statistics Netherlands.

3.3 Model specificationWe applied ordinal regression analysis to determine explanatory characteristics for residential satisfaction and used complementary log-log link as most of our respondents report a high satisfaction level. A total of three models were estimated. Model A contains objective explanatory characteristics, whereas model B covers both objective and subjective independent characteristics. One important determinant for regional accessibility is accessibility to work. Because not all respondents were employed (i.e. 762 out of 1,230 have a job) we estimated a separate model for workers, i.e. model C, where we included perceived accessibility to work as an explanatory factor.

Moreover, we added a separate dummy variable for two out of five case study locations where road adjustments were planned and had been discussed (i.e. Groningen and Utrecht) in order to gain first insights into the extent to which plans for road infrastructure adjustments influence residential satisfaction. In models B and C we additionally included interaction effects between planned road adjustments and accessibility and hindrance perceptions to broaden the perspective.

TABLE 1 Descriptive characteristics of variables in analysisAll residents Working residentsMean/ St.dv Min Max%a

Mean/ St.dv Min Max%a

Factors not directly related to the highwayDwellingHouse built < 1980 45.3 40.3House built >1979 50.2 54.7House built unkown 4.5 5.0Detached house 35.3 33.7

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344


Not detached house 64.0 65.6Type of house unknown 0.7 0.7Rented house 24.1 20.6Owned house 75.2 78.9Owned/rented unknown 0.7 0.5Well insulated house 90.6 91.3Insulation unknown 0.8 0.8NeighborhoodPopulation density (M2) 4.7 2.6 0.5 11.8 4.8 2.6 0.5 11.8Socio demographicsFemale 46.9 51.7Having children 36.3 50.1No children 63.5 49.8Children unknown 0.2 0.1Age 51.1 15.1 20 94 44.5 10.6 20 65Education (15=high) 4.3 1.1 1 5 4.5 0.9 1 5

Income 0-2,000 25.8 18.6Income 2,000-4,000 43.3 45.1Income >4,000 23.9 29.0Income unknown 7.0 7.2

Tenure duration<10 47.3 56.0Tenure duration 10/30 40.2Tenure duration >30 9.2 1.7Tenure duration unknown 3.4 2.1PerceptionsAttractive design (17=very positive) 5.4 1.4 1 7 5.3 1.4 1 7Good contacts (17=very positive) 5.4 1.2 1 7 5.4 1.2 1 7Greenery (17=very positive) 5.6 1.4 1 7 5.5 1.4 1 7Traffic safety (17=very positive) 5.2 1.4 1 7 5.2 1.4 1 7Parking space (17=very positive) 5.4 1.7 1 7 5.2 1.7 1 7Access to stores (17=very positive) 6.0 1.1 1 7 6.0 1.1 1 7Factors related to the highwayHindrance measures0-300m from highway 36.3 39.6300-600m from highway 37.6 37.4600-1,000m from highway 26.1 23.0DB exposure = >50 DB) 13.8 15.9NO2 exposure = >12 ug/m3) 19.9 22.2Seeing highway 5.0 4.6Seeing screen 7.8 8.5No sight on highway 86.0 86.1Sight unknown 2.0 1.7

High noise hindrance (> 3) 15.4 13.6High air hindrance (>3) 22.0 20.1High visual hindrance (>3) 36.8 38.1

Highway interest/useUse, often in traffic jam 6.1 8.9Use, not often in traffic jam 78.0 81.4


(Almost) no use 10.2 5.5Use of highway unknown 5.8 4.2Preference to live near highway(> 3) 30.5 32.5Opinion driving (17=love) 4.9 1.3 1 7 5.0 1.2 1 7(Regional) accessibility0-300m from access lane 18.5 21.3300-1,000m from access lane 51.5 49.9>1,000m from access lane 30.0 28.9

Critical on local accessibility (<5) 14.8 13.5Critical on car accessibility region(<5)b NA 23.0Regional access by public transport (17=very good)b

NA NA NA NA 3.7 2.1 1 7

>40min travel time to workb NA 18.1Announced road adjustmentRoad adjustment planned 43.9 44.4Dependent variable: residential satisfaction Residential Satisfaction =1 (very low) Residential Satisfaction =2 Residential Satisfaction =3 Residential Satisfaction =4 Residential Satisfaction =5 Residential Satisfaction =6 Residential Satisfaction =7 (very high)

0.10.6

00.81.66.3

1.86.415.344.131.8

16.746.428.2

Total N 1230 762

a For each numeric and ordinal variable we checked whether the single effect with residential satisfaction approached a linear relation. If yes, the variable is included as a scale variable (i.e. mean, st.dev., min-max are given). If not, or if data is missing, we included classes for the variable (i.e. % in class is given), sometimes including a category ‘unknown’ to avoid loss of cases. b Involves home-work travel (>..) Some of the subjective measures were measured on a scale from 1 to 7. For the inclusion of interaction effects, these measures were recorded into two groups; (>..) or (<..) indicates where the split is made. b Involves home-work travel

4. RESULTSIn this section we describe the results of the multivariate analysis. First, in section 4.1 we provide an overall picture of residential satisfaction, the perceived accessibility and the hindrance in the neighborhoods near highways. Subsequently, sections 4.2 and 4.3 describe contextual factors for residential satisfaction, where section 4.2 aims at general explanatory characteristics and section 4.3 specifically focuses on accessibility, hindrance and on their relative importance. In both sections we distinguish between more traditional objective explanatory factors and the more subjective ones.

4.1 Residential satisfaction, accessibility and hindrance in generalGenerally speaking, respondents appear satisfied with their residence, i.e. house and neighborhood; about 90 percent of respondents report to be satisfied (i.e. summation of categories 5-7 in table 1). This finding is in accordance with satisfaction levels in other neighborhoods in the Netherlands (see e.g. 8). Moreover, it is in line with various other studies, which also found high satisfaction ratings (e.g., 7, 9, 19, 25).

With respect to the perception of hindrance, the picture is comparable. On a Likert-scale from 1 (very low perceived hindrance) to 7 (high level of perceived hindrance), the average hindrance amounts to 2.1 for noise. Also for air (i.e. 2.5) and visual effects (i.e. 3.3) the level of intrusion seems to be modest. Finally, we analyzed the perception about current accessibility, making a distinction between regional and local accessibility. Generally speaking, respondents seem quite happy with their

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728


accessibility. Employed respondents gave an average score of 5.6 with respect to perceived accessibility between residence and work location ( i.e. on a scale from 1, very unsatisfied, to 7, very satisfied). Although not directly related to the highway, satisfaction with local accessibility is also high, with a mean value of 6.3.

4.2 Factors not directly related to highway and residential satisfactionTable 2 shows several socio-economic characteristics that have statistically significant impact on residential satisfaction. Most significant effects are found for model A, which only took objective explanatory characteristics into account. However, adding subjective factors results in diminishing explanatory power of objective characteristics. Education level is the only significant variable present in all three models. On average, respondents with a higher education level reported a lower residential satisfaction, which may have to do with them being more critical about the hindrance or about current accessibility. With respect to age, we obtained mixed results. Based on a sample containing all respondents (model A) we find a slightly positive impact of age on residential satisfaction, which means that relatively older people are more satisfied. However, for employed residents (model C) the opposite is found. Moreover, there seems to be an indication that tenure has mixed influence on residential satisfaction, with households that have been living in their house for 10-30 years indicating a lower satisfaction than households who have either been living there shorter (<10 years) or longer (>30 years). Cognitive dissonance might play a role here, especially for short duration residents, whereas self-selection might be important in the case of long-term residents; if the latter group would have disliked the housing and neighborhood situation they probably would have changed locations already. Nevertheless, the tenure effect is not robust given its statistical insignificance when adding subjective characteristics (in models B and C). The same is true for the variable “having children”, which has a significant negative relationship with residential satisfaction only in model A. Other studies (15,19) often find a positive effect of family size on satisfaction. However, households living near highways might be sensitive to negative externalities influencing their children’s health.

In addition to socio-economics we tested the influence of dwelling and neighborhood characteristics. Two significant explanatory characteristics were found in model A. Both house owners and respondents living in a detached house indicated having a higher residential satisfaction, which is in line with literature (e.g. 9, 18). However, when adding subjective characteristics, i.e. models B and C, these factors turn out to be statistically non-significant. Neighborhood perceptions have stronger explanatory power than socio-economic and dwelling characteristics. Respondents’ residential satisfaction is particularly positively influenced by higher perceived attractiveness of the neighborhood design, and by opinions on current traffic safety and social cohesion. These findings correspond with other studies that did not particularly focus on highway locations (see, for instance, 16, 19).

Moreover, we tested the influence of local accessibility characteristics, i.e. perceptions about the availability of parking spaces within the neighborhood and the perceived accessibility to shops from a residential perspective. As expected, both factors have a positive relationship with residential satisfaction, although their explanatory strength is lower compared to the earlier described neighborhood characteristics. Finally, the relationship between perceptions about the amount of greenery in the neighborhood and residential satisfaction was studied, first of all because several other studies find a positive relationship with residential satisfaction (15, 41, 42,43), and secondly because one could hypothesize that in the case of highway vicinity, ‘greenery’ acts as compensation for negative externalities. Nevertheless, we find no consistent statistically significant relationship for the different models; only model C, which is based on employed respondents finds a marginally significant effect with an expected positive coefficient sign.

TABLE 2 Explanatory characteristics for residential satisfaction (ordinal regression estimation)

A: AllObja

B: Allobj+suba

C: Working obj+suba

Factors not directly related to highway (discussed in section 4.2)

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950


DwellingHouse built< 1980 (ref=> 1979) -0.026 -0.062 -0.305**House built unknown -0.107 -0.069 0.005

Detached house (ref=not detached) 0.353*** 0.169 0.178Type house unknown 0.560 0.433 11.664Rented house (ref=owned house) -0.187* 0.060 -0.200Rented/owned unknown 0.169 -0.330 -11.938Well insulated house (ref=bad isolated) 0.002 -0.045 0.116Insulation unknown -0.759 0.074 0.182NeighborhoodPopulation density (M2) 0.003 0.022 0.039Socio demographicsFemale (ref=male) 0.050 0.018 0.108Having children (ref=no children) -0.146* -0.122 -0.035Children unknown 1.184 0.850 -1.074Education (15=high) -0.100** -0.091** -0.175**Age 0.009*** 0.001 -0.012*Income €0-2000 (ref=income>4000) -0.036 -0.011 -0.069Income €2000-4000euro's 0.039 0.100 0.155Income unknown -0.021 0.190 -0.030Tenure duration<10 (ref=10-30) 0.295*** 0.048 -0.080Tenure duration<30 0.285* 0.103 0.177Tenure duration unknown 0.315 0.513** -0.472PerceptionsAttractive design (17=very positive) NA 0.438*** 0.531***Good contacts(17=very positive) NA 0.313*** 0.219***Greenery (17=very positive) NA 0.010 0.083*Traffic safety (17=very positive) NA 0.178*** 0.215***Parking space (17=very positive) NA 0.048* 0.067*Access to stores (17=very positive) NA 0.073* 0.090Factors related to the highway (discussed in 4.3.1)Hindrance measures0-300m from highway (ref=300-600m) 0.096 0.179 0.160600-1000m from highway 0.068 0.005 0.238*DB exposure =>50 DB (ref=<50) -0.038 -0.138 -0.066NO2 exposure = >12 ug/m3 (ref=<12) -0.289*** 0.026 0.072Seeing highway (ref=not see highway) 0.244 0.377 0.075Seeing screen (ref=not see screen) -0.302** -0.092 -0.001Sight unknown -0.084 -0.274 -0.149Perceived high noise hindrance (> 3) NA -0.542*** -.0623**Perceived high air hindrance (>3) NA -0.419** -0.249Perceived high visual hindrance (>3) NA -0.098 -0.352**Highway interest/useUse, often in traffic jam (ref=not often) 0.018 -0.120 -0.356(Almost) no use of highway -0.163 -0.373*** -0.335Use of highway unknown 0.110 0.339* -0.176Preference to live near highway (> 3) NA 0.331*** 0.385**Opinion on car driving (1- 7=love) NA -0.017 0.024Regional accessibility300-1000m from access lane (ref=< 300m) 0.169 0.308* 0.476**


>1000m from access lane 0.004 0.240 0.433*Critical on local accessibility (<5) NA -0.146 0.772*Critical on regional car accessibility (<5)b NA NA -0.523Regional access by public transport ( 17=very good)b

NA NA -0.028

>40min travel time work(ref=<40min)b NA NA 0.282Hindrance and accessibility during road adjustment: (discussed in section 4.3.2)Road adjustment planned -0.089 0.301* 0.499**High air exposure area *adjustment NA -0.451* -0.789**High noise exposure area * adjustment NA 0.283* 0.443*Seeing highway * adjustment NA 0.491 1.142*0-300m till highway * adjustment NA -0.258 -0.287Perceived high noise hindrance * adjustment NA -0.144 -0.190Perceived high air hindrance * adjustment NA 0.188 0.311Perceived high visual hindrance* adjustment NA -0.171 -0.042Use, often in traffic jam * adjustment NA 0.318 0.957**High preference to live near highway* adjustment NA -0.269 -0.415*Critical on local accessibility * adjustment NA -0.544** -1.684***>40min travel time workb * adjustment NA NA -0.264Critical on regional car accessibilityb *adjustment NA NA 0.677Constant: Residential satisfaction=1 NA -2.385** NAConstant: Residential satisfaction=2 NA -0.206 -0.176Constant: Residential satisfaction=3 -3.462*** 1.239** 1.139Constant: Residential satisfaction=4 -2.141*** 2.715*** 2.740***Constant: Residential satisfaction=5 -1.028** 4.028*** 4.202***Constant: Residential satisfaction=6 0.463 6.000*** 6.471***Total N 1,230 1,230 762Link CLOGLOGChi square 116.49*** 921.02*** 738.59*** -2 LL 3,054.06 2,253.83 1,017.94

a Model A Only objective variables, Model B/C objective and subjective variablesb Involves home-work travel (>..) Some of the subjective measures were measured on a scale from 1 to 7. For the inclusion of interaction effects, these measures were recorded into two groups; (>..) or (<..) indicates where the split is made.4.3 Factors related to the highway and residential satisfactionResidents living near highways experience both hindrance and accessibility benefits at the same time. Therefore, we analyzed the influence of several hindrance characteristics, and of local and regional accessibility (see Table 2). In section 4.3.1 we focus on general findings whereas section 4.3.2 concentrates on the situation where a highway adjustment has been planned.

4.3.1 Hindrance, accessibility and residential satisfactionWith respect to hindrance we tested the influence of noise annoyance, air pollution hindrance and the impact of perceived visual and barrier effects of the highway. Perceived noise annoyance turns out to have a strong statistically significant negative relationship with residential satisfaction; if noise hindrance is higher, residents are less satisfied. For perceived air pollution a slightly less strong, but still significant negative relationship with satisfaction is found (model B). However, if the model is estimated for employed respondents only (model C), unexpectedly significance fades away. Employed respondents, in their turn, seem to be bothered more by visual annoyance and by barrier effects caused by the highway compared to the total sample; they have a relatively lower residential satisfaction. We checked whether this also means that unemployed people are less annoyed by visual design (i.e. with visual annoyance as dependent variable) but did not find support for that.

In addition to perceived hindrance, model calculations for noise and air pollution, which are used in Dutch planning practice, were included in our statistical models. Table 2, model A, indicates

12346789

101112131415161718192021222324


that only calculated noise exposure has significant relationship with satisfaction with an expected negative coefficient sign. Moreover, actually being able to see the noise mitigation screen from home appears to result in a slightly lower satisfaction. Nevertheless, both effects appear to diminish when perceived hindrance characteristics are added (i.e. models B and C). This is not directly counter-intuitive because it may imply that the hindrance calculations do not directly reflect reality or at least the perception of reality. However, in contrast, Kroesen et al. (8), who tested objective hindrance and perceptions of aircraft noise, did find a relationship between measured exposure and residential satisfaction.

Can accessibility benefits of living near a highway (partly) compensate for the negative externalities? We tested three categories of explanatory characteristics: 1) characteristics related to actual use of, and, preference for the highway, 2) regional accessibility, and, 3) accessibility of the origin/residential location. Regarding the first category, we find that residents who hardly use the highway are less satisfied. This variable is only statistically significant in model B. Also, we find strong positive relationships between having a preference for living near a highway and the residential satisfaction in models B and C. Selectivity because of highway interest may play a role here. Furthermore, Table 2 shows that respondents who live slightly further from an access lane (i.e. further than 300 meters) are more satisfied than respondents who live within a radius of 300 meters. This indicator may partly act as proxy indicator for air and noise hindrance, which are higher in the close vicinity of roads. Finally, we checked whether people’s satisfaction with their jobs and home accessibility affects their total residential satisfaction but found no clear effects. Some other studies on neighborhood satisfaction, however, do find a relationship between satisfaction and access to jobs (for instance 15, 23, 26). This slight discrepancy may relate to us having corrected for people’s highway use.

4.3.2 Planned road adjustments and residential satisfaction In section 1 we hypothesized that residential satisfaction would be an interesting concept for measuring the impact of distortions such as planned road adjustments. This is why we added a dummy characteristic to our explanatory model, which relates to whether or not highway adjustments are planned in the near future. In our study, two out of five case locations can be linked to imminent change. These highway sections are located near Utrecht and Groningen (see Figure 1), two regional cities within the Netherlands. Table 2 indicates that respondents living near these highways seem to have a slightly higher residential satisfaction compared to those living near the other case locations. A potential reason could be that respondents near Groningen and Utrecht believe the current situation to improve once the adjustments have taken place, for instance by increased accessibility. However, there may also be other reasons related to unobserved underlying explanatory characteristics.

To gain greater insight into what drives observed differences between Utrecht/Groningen and the other case locations, we included interaction effects between planned road adjustments on the one hand, and hindrance and accessibility on the other. Table 2 shows several statistically significant interaction effects. First of all, for Utrecht and Groningen the negative effect of high air exposure on residential satisfaction appears to be stronger, which may be caused by people living in the neighborhood of these projects expecting adjustments to cause deterioration of air quality. Moreover, this interaction effect may act as proxy for opposing the road adjustment plan, or may be a reaction towards unexpected impacts of change in general. However, if this were true, it is surprising to find a slightly stronger positive effect on satisfaction for residents perceiving high noise exposure in the current situation or for employed respondents who actually see the highway. The difference between air pollution and noise and visual hindrance is that the sensory perception of the latter two is higher; air pollution is often imperceptible. However, this still makes the observed changing coefficient signs hard to explain. Maybe it has to do with transport planners in the Netherlands having invested considerably in well-designed noise mitigation barriers, which may result in respondents expecting that the adjustment will improve the current situation.

Intuitively more logical is the finding that employed respondents who are frequently stuck in traffic jams and who live near a future highway adjustment are more satisfied, potentially because they expect the highway adjustment to improve accessibility. Moreover, respondents who are critical about the current accessibility of their residential location and who live in Utrecht or Groningen are more negatively influenced in their residential satisfaction. They possibly expect accessibility of the

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455


area to decrease because of a potential chaotic situation during the road adjustment. Finally, we found some indication of working respondents living in Utrecht or Groningen, and, at the same time, having a high preference for living near the highway being more negatively influenced in their residential satisfaction than those living at other locations. A potential explanation is that people who have a preference for living near a highway may fear a decrease in accessibility during the road adjustment.

5. CONCLUSIONSResidential satisfaction is an important proxy for people´s overall wellbeing and for people’s moving intentions and relocation behavior. In this paper we focused on gaining insight into household’s residential satisfaction near highways based on survey data collected in the Netherlands in 2011. We aimed to study the effect of both accessibility and negative externalities, alongside other contextual factors, on the residential satisfaction of households living near highways. Moreover, the objective was to gain first insight into the extent to which plans for road infrastructure adjustments influence residential satisfaction.

Results indicated that, on average, respondents are satisfied with living near a highway. Approximately ninety percent reported to be satisfied. Regarding explanatory characteristics for residential satisfaction, we conclude three things. First of all, with respect to hindrance, subjective evaluations and perceptions appear to have stronger explanatory power for residential satisfaction than more objective characteristics like calculated exposure levels. However for accessibility, objective characteristics such as the frequency of highway use were found to be more important than people’s perceived accessibility. Secondly, negative externalities slightly outweigh accessibility related aspects. Thirdly, although both externalities have their influence, residents living along highways do not seem to deviate much from residents at other locations when it comes to explanatory characteristics for residential satisfaction (see e.g. 15-16, 19).

This article also explored if potential future road adjustments influence residential satisfaction and whether external effects are traded off differently in such circumstances. We found that respondents living at locations where a road adjustment is announced are marginally more satisfied than residents at other locations. A reason could be that respondents expect the current situation to improve once the adjustments take place, for instance by increased accessibility. Regarding the trade-off of external effects around those adjustment locations, we found mixed results for air and noise exposure. Respondents living in a high air exposure zone were found to be more negatively influenced in their residential location. Surprisingly, for noise the opposite was found. Intuitively more logical is the finding that people who are frequently stuck in traffic jams are often more satisfied, potentially because they expect the highway adjustment to improve accessibility.

This study may have several practical implications. First of all, the overall positive residential satisfaction evaluations near highways may imply that, generally speaking, problems regarding living near highways may be somewhat overstated. Of course self-selection effects may enact here, because people who are hindered may have moved or will never choose to locate near a highway. Moreover, the notion that the explanatory power of subjective hindrance outperforms calculated exposure levels, which are often used in transportation planning practice, may give reason for being cautious when making decisions based on calculated measures.

With respect to implications for road infrastructure adjustments, we have to be careful as well. Our finding that respondents who live near planned road adjustment indicate a higher residential satisfaction is not directly what one would expect. Why are these respondents more positive? Do they expect the road adjustment to improve the current situation? Or does it relate to underlying unobserved characteristics of the cases in our survey where road adjustments are planned? And, how should we explain the contrasting findings for air pollution and noise hindrance? More in-depth research is needed to answer such questions. One way to do this is to perform separate analysis on the data collected near road adjustment projects on the one hand, and on data from neighborhoods in a state of equilibrium on the other. Moreover, in-depth interviews among survey respondents may help to gain additional information on the specificity of the local context. From a transportation planner’s perspective, it may also be interesting to gain greater insight into people’s reaction to adjustments, for example by analyzing residential satisfaction both before and after a change, and to study how information supply or mitigation measures could alleviate perceived hindrance. Finally, whereas in

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354


this study we focused on people living near highways only, it may be worthwhile to also include a control group of people that do not live near highways to define whether people living near highways behave differently.

REFERENCES1. Bovy, P.H.L. Traffic flooding the low countries: how the Dutch cope with motorway congestion,

Transport Reviews, Vol.21, 2001, pp. 89-116.2. Dora, C. and M. Phillips. Transport, environment and health. Publication WHO Regional

Publications, European Series, No. 89, 2000.3. Stansfeld, S.A., M.M. Haines, M. Burr, B. Berry and P. Lercher. A review of environmental

noise and mental health. Noise and Health, Vol.2, No.8, 2000, pp. 1-8.4. Lecher, P., R. Schmitzberger and W. Kofler. Perceived traffic air pollution, associated behavior

and health in an alpine area. The science of the total environment, Vol. 169, 1994, pp. 71-74.5. Bateman, I., B. Day, I. Lake and A. Lovett. The effect of road traffic on residential property

values: a literature review and hedonic pricing study. Scottish Executive & Stationery Office, Edinburgh, 2001.

6. Wardman, M. and A.L. Bristow.Traffic Related Noise and Air Quality Valuations: Evidence from Stated Preference Residential Choice Models. Transportation Research D, Vol. 9, 2004, pp. 1-27.

7. Eliasson, J., J. Lindqvist Dillén and J. Widell. Measuring intrusion valuations through stated preference and hedonic prices: a comparative study. In: European Transport Conference, PTRC, London, 2002.

8. Kroesen, M., E. Molin, H. Vos, S. Janssen & B.van Wee, B. Estimation of Effects of Transportation Noise Annoyance on Residential Satisfaction. Transport Research D, Vol. 15, 2010, pp. 144–153.

9. Lu, M. Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs regression models. Growth and Change, Vol. 30, 1999, pp. 264–287.

10. Tillema, T., M. Hamersma, J.M. Sussman and E.J.M.M. Arts. Extending the scope of highway planning: accessibility, negative externalities and the residential context. Accepted for: Transport reviews.

11. Galster, G. and G.W. Hesser. Residential satisfaction. Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 13, 1981, pp. 735–758.

12. Marans, R.W. and W. Rodgers. Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In: Hawley, A.H. and V.P. Rock (Eds.). Metropolitan America in Community Perspective. Wiley, New York, 1975.

13. Sabagh, G., M. van Arsdol, Jr. and E. Butler. Some Determinants of Intrametropolitan Residential Mobility: Conceptual Consideration. Social Forces, Vol. 48, 1969, pp. 88-98

14. Speare, A. Jr. Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography, Vol. 11, 1974, pp. 173–188.

15. Hur, M. and H. Morrow-Jones. Factors that influence residents' satisfaction with neighborhoods. Environment and Behavior, Vol.40, 2008, pp. 619-635.

16. Lovejoy, K., S. Handy and P.L. Mokhtarian. Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.97, 2010, pp. 37–48.

17. Morris, E.W., S.R. Crull and M. Winter. Housing Norms, Housing Satisfaction and the Propensity to Move. Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 38, No.2, 1978, pp. 309-320.

18. Buys.L. and E. Miller. Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia: role of dwelling design, neighbourhood and neighbours. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 55, No.3, 2012, pp. 319-338.

19. Parkes, A., A. Kearns and R. Atkinson. What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods? Urban Studies, Vol.39, 2002, pp. 2413–2438.

20. Onibokun, A.G. Social System Correlates of Residential Satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 8, No.3, 1976, pp.323-344.

21. Campbell, A., P.E Converse and W.L. Rodgers. The quality of American life: perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, 1976.

123

456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/searchresult.asp?search=&author=P+Lercher&journal=Y&but_search=Search&entries=10&pg=1&s=0

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/searchresult.asp?search=&author=B+Berry&journal=Y&but_search=Search&entries=10&pg=1&s=0

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/searchresult.asp?search=&author=M+Burr&journal=Y&but_search=Search&entries=10&pg=1&s=0

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/searchresult.asp?search=&author=MM+Haines&journal=Y&but_search=Search&entries=10&pg=1&s=0

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/searchresult.asp?search=&author=SA+Stansfeld&journal=Y&but_search=Search&entries=10&pg=1&s=0


22. Kasarda, J.D. and M. Janowitz, . Community Attachment in Mass Society. American sociological review, Vol. 39, No.1, 1974, pp. 328-339.

23. Howley, P., M.Scott and D. Redmond. Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of environmental planning and management, Vol.52, No.6, 2009, pp. 847–864.

24. Cook, C.C. Components of neighborhood satisfaction: responses from urban and suburban single-parent women. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1988, pp.115–149.

25. Mohan, J. and L. Twigg. Sense of place, quality of life and local socioeconomic context: evidence from the Survey of English Housing, 2002/03. Urban Studies, Vol.44, No.10, 2007, pp. 2029–2045.

26. Savasdisara, T. Residents’ Satisfaction and Neighbourhood Characteristics in Japanese Urban Communities. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 15, No. 20, 1988, pp. 20 l-2 10.

27. Theebe, A. J. Planes, Trains and Automobiles: The Impact of Traffic Noise on House Prices. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 28, 2004, pp. 209-234.

28. Schreckenberg, D., B. Griefahn and M. Meis. The associations between noise sensitivity, reported physical and mental health, perceived environmental quality, and noise annoyance. Noise Health, Vol. 12, No.46, 2010, pp. 7-16.

29. Miedema, H.M.E. & H. Vos. Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 6, 1999, pp. 3336-3344.

30. Nijland, H., S. Hartemink, I. van Kamp and B. van Wee. The influence of sensitivity for road traffic noise on residential location: does it trigger a process of spatial selection? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 122, 2007, pp. 1595–1601.

31. Dratva, J., E. Zemp, D.F. Dietrich, P.O. Bridevaux, T. Rochat, C. Schindler and M.W. Gerbase. Impact of road traffic noise annoyance on health-related quality of life: results from a population-based study. Quality of Life Research, Vol. 19, 2010, pp. 37-46.

32. Bangjun, Z., S. Lili and D. Guoqing. The influence of the visibility of the source on the subjective annoyance due to its noise. Applied Acoustics, Vol. 64, 2003, pp. 1205–1215.

33. Aylor, D.E. and L.E. Marks. Perception of noise transmitted through barriers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 59, 1976, pp. 397-400.

34. Zimmer, K. and W. Ellermeier. Psychometric properties of four measures of noise sensitivity: A comparison. Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19, 1999, pp. 295–302.

35. Job, R.F.S. Community response to noise: A review of factors influencing the relationship between noise exposure and reaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol.83, No. 3, 1988, pp. 991-1001.

36. Coensel, B. de, D. Botteldooren, T. de Muer, B. Berglund, M.E. Nilsson, and P. Lercher. A model for the perception of environmental sound based on notice-events. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 126, No. 2, 1999, pp. 656-665.

37. Handy, S., X. Cao and P.L. Mokhtarian, Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research D, Vol. 10, 2005, pp. 427–444.

38. Manaugh, K., L.F.Miranda-Moreno and A.M. El-Geneidy. The effect of neighbourhood characteristics, accessibility, home-work location and demographics on commuting distances. Transportation, Vol.37, 2010, pp. 627–646.

39. Van Ommeren, J., P. Rietveld, P. Nijkamp. Job Moving, Residential moving, and commuting: A Search Perspective. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 46, 1999, pp. 230-253.

40. Blije, B. The impact of accessibility on residential choice: Empirical results of a discrete choice model. In: Proceedings International Housing Conference of the ENHR, Reykjavik: ENHR/Sigillum Universitatis Islandiae, 2005, pp. 1-25.

41. Hur, M., J.L. Nasar and B. Chun. Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol.30, 2010, pp. 52–59.

42. Kearney, A.R. Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction:impacts of density and nearby nature. Environment and Behavior, Vol.38, No.1, 2006, pp.112–139.

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253


43. Lee, S.W., C.D. Ellis, B.S. Kweon, S.K. Hong. Relationship between landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 85, No.1, 2008, pp. 60–70.

123

· web viewresidential satisfaction is an important proxy for people´s wellbeing and for...

Documents