- Email: [email protected]
Public housing evaluation in venezuela: A case study
Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology(1992) 12, 213-223
0272-4944/92/030213+11508.00/0
©1992 Academic Press Ltd
F mONMENTAL , +SYCHOLOY PUBLIC HOUSING EVALUATION IN VENEZUELA: A CASE STUDY
ESTHER WIESENFELD 1
Psychology Institute, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela
Abstract
In this work the need to evaluate the residential environment is justified, particularly in the housing solutions planned for low-income families, within a psycho-social framework. This study was done in a neighbourhood in tile city of Maracay, Venezuela. Four hundred and ninety-one housewives residing in three types of single family housing units in a public housing project were interviewed about their personal characteristics, their previous neighbourhoods and homes, and their present neighbourhoods and homes. The results showed a greater percentage of residential satisfaction with the present neighbourhood and home, compared with the previous ones. It was also found that the complete home unit model of housing gave greater satisfaction than the other available models in the project, (a 'nuc!~ar' home and a smaller 'basic' home). Nevertheless, it is considered that the results might have been different if the users of these last two types of housing had been able to count on economic resources and technical help in the self-building arrangements that were associated with the acquisition of these last two models.
Introduction
Environmental evaluation and residential satisfaction The way we feel and behave in different settings depends on the meaning that those settings have for us. The meanings also vary, being influenced both by environmental design characteristics and by the users' personal, socio-cultural and behavioral characteristics. Evaluation in environmental psychology allows us to obtain scientific information whose purpose is to contribute to the quality of the designed environment, or as Lozar (1978) stated 'to increase the execution, efficiency and general quality of life of the occupants of any building' (p. 456). The present study is framed within the literature of post-occupancy evaluation, (POE), a term used by Ostrander and Connell (1976) to guarantee t h a t one is dealing with the evaluation of the built environment once it has been occupied by the user. To evaluate a built environment is to determine whether and to what extent it fits users' needs, expectations and possibilities (Hershberger, 1975; Conyne & Clack, 1981). The methods employed in this evalua-
tion should allow the users to express their feelings and thoughts and to elicit behaviours related to the environment. Research done in POE is numerous, both in terms of volume and of the variety of environments, methods and techniques employed in the studies. Housing, is the most frequently evaluated environment. The interest which exists for this kind of milieu is due to the importance t h a t it has in people's lives, because it is the place where we spend most of our time and where we establish the most relevant social-affective relations. The methods and techniques employed in this type of research go from the classical laboratory experiment to case studies, the most used techniques being observation, interviews and questionnaires. In general one finds t h a t user's evaluation of, and satisfaction with their environment depends on a set of variables which are personal (demographic characteristics of the population, needs, expectations, history, developmental stage of the person); social (neighbourhood relations, the presence of friends and family members); urban (physical qualities of the surroundings such as density, design characteristics, maintenance, nearness to work and
213
214
E. Wiesenfeld
to previous area of residence, and the existence of general services); psychological (the perceptual, cognitive and affective components, recognition and meaning of objective characteristics of the surroundings, their orientation, beliefs, judgements, attitudes, sense of belonging) and behavioural intentions and actual behaviours (participation, mobility, conservation deterioration, move away). Usually the selection of variables examined depends on the aims of the project being evaluated. For example, levels of satisfaction and preferences are generally used as predictors of behavioural intentions to move (Michelson, 1977). Nathanson et al. (1976) have considered as predictors of satisfaction such aspects as demographic characteristics, beliefs about neighbours, and participation in and satisfaction with community activities. Weideman et al. (1982) have found that there is positive correlation between perceived similarity with neighbours and residential satisfaction (RS). The construct ~residential satisfaction' (RS) underlies the majority of the studies on POE. In some research it is indicated as the fundamental purpose of the work, and is measured using a scale put together with this in mind. In other work, although it is not specifically measured, it is used to interpret data which come from the relations studied between design and other environmental variables and the users' cognitive or behavioural characteristics. There is not a precise definition of RS. Nevertheless, there is agreement, that RS is a state of equilibrium between the user and the built design, between the needs and aspirations of the people and the actual housing situation. When this congruence is absent, individuals redefine their needs and aspirations, modify their evaluation of the housing or change the conditions in which they find themselves (Galster & Hensen, 1981). Several authors have proposed models for integrating the variety of variables studied in relation to POE and RS, for guiding research and for constructing theory. A good example of these is Weidemann and Anderson's (1986) integrated conceptual model which incorporates the different dimensions and variables which these and other authors have found to be useful for environmental evaluation and RS. It is based on: (a) a previous model developed by Francescato et al. (1974, 1979), which included a trilogy of affective, cognitive and behavioural responses; (b) Marans and Spreckelmeyer's (1981) model based on the relation between objective environmental conditions, subjective experience of perceiving and feeling the environment, and behaviours in it, and (c) the importance assigned by
Campbell et al. (1976) to satisfaction as a determinant of perceived quality of life. Satisfaction is an affective dimension understood as a function of the residents' and residential environments; design characteristics, users' perceptions or beliefs regarding the environmental design, and the administrative variables of the residence. Additionally, Weidemann and Anderson (1986) included behavioural intention as a more direct predictor of behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). They also included the personal and demographic characteristics of the users and of the environment. Thus, the model provides a framework for identifying variables when evaluating a built environment and the users' satisfaction with it.
The Study
Latin America's housing problem stimulates concern for the quality of life of the homeless and for those who inhabit sub-standard dwellings. Thus, justifiable efforts are directed at generating information which might contribute to the improvement of conditions for these groups. Indeed, the housing crisis in this region requires solutions which go beyond political and economic gestures. It is also necessary to integrate the causal factors of the problem, including the psycho-social aspects. Several South American governments have invested large resources in the construction, administration and maintenance of housing for poor families. Nevertheless, the residents of these homes are frequently unhappy with the conditions of their living arrangements and their neighbourhoods tend to deteriorate quickly both physically and socially (Oxman & Carmon, 1986). This type of housing and neighbourhood is a vital necessity for users who do not have either access to, or the possibility of choosing other types of housing. Thus, planning and design should be directed toward generating the conditions that promote well-being in the inhabitants. And one way of doing this is to get to know the inhabitants needs, their demographic characteristics, their sources of satisfaction, and the reasons for environmental deterioration. In Venezuela, the housing problem has required the elaboration of policies aimed at reducing costs. One way which is becoming widespread is that of 'self-building', subsidizing partially built houses which require different degrees of users' participation in their design and construction. There is no information, however, as to the impact on the user of the different kinds of self-building, in terms of
P u b l i c H o u s i n g in V e n e z u e l a
users' evaluations and the degree of satisfaction with the process and the product achieved. Although for several authors users' participation allows users to acquire a certain degree of control over their environment, because it increases their satisfaction and reinforces a sense of rootedness and belonging (Wandersman, 1978), for others the process of building or finishing a dwelling represents exploitation of poor families who are vulnerable because of their marginal position in the social structure (Betancur, 1987). But even to achieve access to self-construction is difficult for a high proportion of the population, because they live in harsh circumstances and are forced to abandon their shacks due to landslides or evictions. These people are usually allocated in 'temporary solutions' such as barracks or trailers where they stay indefinitely with only the illusion of relocation to a better place. In general there are few evaluations done from a psychological point of view, especially in Latin America, and with regard to the above issues. In the literature reviewed, the reference to POE and RS mainly addresses residential environments designed and built by others rather than by users who aim to fulfil their own needs. This bias is interesting since self-construction is an alternative which is increasing not only in Venezuela among users who do not have access to other types of dwelling, but is also a common choice by those responsible for designing and implementing housing policies. This might be influenced by an economic crisis which prevents the implementation of programmes aimed at completely finished homes. Such policies are designed on the assumption that users will change habits and life styles in order to adapt to a new milieu, but this assumption has to be reconsidered [despite findings by authors like Marans (1979) and Michelson (1977) who have found that people are usually completely or partially satisfied with their dwellings]. The evidence of vandalism, lack of conservation and deterioration which has been detected in some evaluations, (Montero, 1977; Mufioz & Villegas, 1977), reveals that for certain economically deprived sectors of society this might not be true. Therefore, we considered it necessary to carry out research which would allow us to obtain information about how users from low socio-economic levels evaluated their homes, and the effects of different levels of participation. This information would permit us to evaluate the effectiveness of the criteria used for designed neighbourhoods and poor families. With this in mind we have carried out a case
215
study on housing that is representative of the kinds which the state constructs for these families (the 'Jose Felix Ribas' neighbourhood located in the city of Maracay, State of Aragua) which includes different types of detached, single-family housing.
Method
Variables of the study The variables are grouped in the categories of previous neighbourhood, previous housing, present neighbourhood, present home, and personal characteristics of the subjects. In each of these categories a series of aspects was explored, each of which is defined by the corresponding item on the interview protocol designed to obtain the data. They are the following: (a) Previous neighbourhood. Location, years of residence there, social relations (presence and average number of friends or family, frequency of visits by and to family and friends), judgements about the neighbours (co-operative, friendly, respectful, prone to fighting, quiet, gossipy), judgements about different aspects of the neighbourhood (transportation, educational institutions, medical facilities, recreational facilities, maintenance and infrastructure services, shopping areas, etc.), degree of satisfaction with the area, participation in neighbourhood activities (sewer and street repair, cleaning of streets and sewers, chapel construction, attendance at social meetings, attendance of meetings with different institutions). (b) Previous housing. Type of housing, (number of years living there, ownership, number of people living in the house, number of bedrooms), residential density (number of persons sleeping per room), judgements about different aspects of the home (size Of the home and of the bedrooms, ownership, temperature, comfort, etc.), degree of satisfaction with the home, reasons for having moved. (c) Present neighbourhood. Social relations (presence and number of friends and family members in the neighbourhood and the area, frequency of visits by and to friends and family), judgements about the neighbours (cooperative, friendly, respectful, prone to fighting, quiet, gossipy), judgements about different aspects of the area (transportation, educational institutions, medical facilities, recreational facilities, maintenance and infrastructure services, shopping areas, etc.), suggestions for improvements, degree of satisfaction with the area, participation in activities, plans to move away from the neighbour-
216
E. W i e s e n f e l d
hood, and the reasons for these plans, feelings towards the neighbourhood, (comfort, happiness, liking, warmth, desire to stay in it, plans to fix it, Considering it pretty). (d) Present housing. Type of housing, number of years of residence there, ownership, type of ideal home and reasons for it reasons for having selected present homes (when they were able to choose) or type of house they would have requested if they had the possibility for doing so (when the type of house was assigned to them), changes done in the house: types of changes (enlargement, construction, etc.) place (living room, dining room, porch, kitchen, bathroom, bedrooms, etc.) and reason for the changes (for comfort, more space, better appearance, more protection, etc.), first change done: type, place, amount of time after the move in which the change/s was (were) done, help obtained, sources of help, number of persons living in the house, number of bedrooms, residential density (number of people sleeping per room), daily permanence (both real and ideal) in the home, judgements about different aspects of the home, (size of the home and of the bedrooms, ownership, temperature, comfort, etc.), degree of satisfaction with the home, plans to move, reasons for these plans, requests to the National Housing Institute (INAVI), feelings toward the home (comfort, happiness, liking, warmth, desire to stay in it, plans to fix it, considering it pretty). (e) Personal characteristics. Age, marital status, place of birth, occupation of the person interviewed, occupation of the head of the family, degree of education, sources of income, socio-economic level.
the Type C home. This model consists of 36 m 2 of one level floor space, divided among the basic service unit (as in the Type C home), two bedrooms, kitchen area, and living room. It can be enlarged to 60 m 2 on the same floor level. (iii) The complete housing unit (CU) or Type A, has a construction area of 60 m 2, distributed between the bathroom, the laundry, three bedrooms, kitchen, living room and dining room. These homes may be improved in terms of their external appearance with the construction of a porch, window bars, garden etc. In the neighbourhood 682 BUs, 252 HNs and 307 CUs were built, and for the selection of the sample of the present study 521 BUs, 198 HNs and 253 CUs were considered. This neighbourhood was selected because it was a pilot project designed to include the three different types of detached single family housing, and this gave it particular characteristics. Also, the fact that it was located in one of the more heavily populated areas which is economically developed to some extent, motivated the National Housing Institute's (INAVI) interest in the neighbourhood's impact on the resident. It was considered desirable to be able to judge the physical design, and the economic and psycho-social acceptability of the model. The sample was selected using a stratified-random design with replacement. It included 491 homes, distributed according to the type of housing, in 215 BUs, 122 HNs, and 154 CUs. The subjects of the study were housewives, or women of 18 or more years of age and at least four years of residence in the neighbourhood.
Population and sample Instruments and procedure The population of the present study was made up of 1241 homes located in the low-income neighbourhood 'Jose Felix Ribas' (JFR). The neighbourhood is divided into eight sectors, each of which is made up of lots which measure between 130 and 150 m 2, with a maximum of 60 m 2 for each construction. Each sector has three housing alternatives, assigned in terms of the income level of the family: (i) The basic unit (BU) is the service area; it is also called the bathroom unit or the Type C Home. It is intended for families with the lowest income and it includes a hand-washing basin, a toilet, a shower and a laundry scrub basin. It is intended that the families build a temporary shack at the back of the lot which will shelter them while they finish their final house. (ii) The home nucleus (HN) or Type B, intended for families with incomes which are above those of
An interview procedure was used. It included 76 questions about selected themes for the purpose of residential evaluation. And it included questions about personal data (age, marital status, place of birth) and a scale for determining the socio-economic level of the family, the categories of which made reference to the occupation of the head of the family, the level of education of the subject and/or the head of the family. Sources of family income were also requested according to categories which included five alternative answers, out of which the subject chose one, and each was given a numerical score. For example, for the occupation of the subject, the alternatives were: (a) university profession and high executives and businessmen or businesswomen (b) technical occupation, (c) employees without university degree or technical preparation, (d) skilled
Public Housing in Venezuela
workers, (e) unskilled workers. The highest status occupation received the higher scores (i.e. 5 for university professionals). The total score was the sum of the separate values obtained in each category. The classification of the subjects in a given socioeconomic level is determined by this total.
Results and Discussion
The analysis of the results was based on frequencies and percentages of the answers in each of the items for the three types of houses separately. When possible the mearis were compared using a t-test. Chi-squared was used for establishing associative relations among variables. Given space restrictions we will only present a s u m m a r y of these results.
Characteristics of the sample Analysis of the demographic data shows t h a t it was homogeneous in the sense that there were no significant differences in terms of the type of housing. For this reason the demographic characteristics of the sample will be presented as a whole. The majority of the women interviewed were married (72%), were housewives, had an educational level limited to elementary school (80%), were supported by fixed salaries--usually their husbands (70%), who were labourers (61%), and came from the middle-lower socio-economic level (99%). Thus, no differences were found in the sample t h a t might explain the different types of housing t h a t were assigned by INAVI.
The neighbourhood The answers corresponding to evaluated aspects of the previous neighbourhood and the present neighbourhood were similar, and independent of the type of present housing arrangement. The mean number of years of residence in both was more t h a n four years. In the two neighbourhoods, the majority of the subjects (86.6%) has between one and five friends, and for 59% of them, these were their best friends. The frequency of visits was irregular because it varied from 'several times a week' to 'almost never'. This irregularity in the visiting might mean t h a t the quality of personal interaction was defined mainly by the kind of interchange which happens between neighbours and not by the quantity of contacts t h a t were established. On the other hand, the presence of family members varied, because half the subjects had family members in
217
the previous neighbourhood, while the majority did not have t h e m in the present neighbourhood. In the two areas the neighbours were evaluated very positively. They were considered to be cooperative (85-8%), friendly (92.5%), respectful (93.3%), not aggressive (80.8%), quiet (90-6%), and not gossipy (75-8%). This is important because the difference in the type of housing might have generated tensions as has been indicated by other studies (Marans & Wellman, 1976; Montero, 1979). It would seem t h a t the housing differences were not seen by the users as indicators of different social status among the neighbours, which could encourage positive attitudes toward them. Probably similar socioeconomic status among the subjects explains this equality. Other aspects which were favourably evaluated in the previous and present neighbourhoods were transportation, educational institutions, commerce, sanitary services, lighting and quietness. On the other hand recreational facilities, police protection (previous) and street maintenance, medical services, and hot weather in the present neighbourhood were unfavourably evaluated. The mean temperature in Maracay is 28°C. It seems t h a t the present neighbourhood was an improvement over the previous one in terms of recreational facilities, although police protection, medical services and warm weather were not. This is interesting because the users had previously resided in the same area (geographically and climatically) in which they were living now. As we will see when we compare previous and present home, the differential evaluation of weather in previous vs present neighbourhood, might be due to the house itself, because the construction materials do not help to insulate from the heat and this negative aspect is extrapolated to the neighbourhood due to its unpleasantness for the inhabitants. Nevertheless there is agreement between the evaluation t h a t was made of the present neighbourhood and the recommendations t h a t were made for improvements in the sector (e.g. police protection and improvement in medical services). These topics are of concern in Venezuelan society in general. In the answers it is interesting to note t h a t the negative judgements t h a t were made about the present neighbourhood do not seem to affect the satisfaction of the people, because the majority of the inhabitants seemed very satisfied (Tables i and 2). The behavioural dimension in the neighbourhood was represented by the item which referred to the participation of the people in neighbourhood activities. Again there was coincidence in the answers,
218
E. W i e s e n f e l d
TABLE 1 Level of satisfaction in previous neighbourhood and type of present house Type of house Level of satisfaction
F
Complete %
F
Nuclear %
F
Bathroom %
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total
57 39 9 49 154
37.0 25.4 5.8 31-8 100.0
47 40 2 33 122
38-0 33.1 1.7 27.2 100.0
74 67 16 58 215
34.4 31.2 7.4 27.0 100.0
Total F
%
178 146 27 140 491
36.2 29.8 5-5 28.5 100.0
TABLE2 Level of satisfaction in present neighbourhood and type of house Type of house Level of satisfaction
F
Complete %
F
Nuclear %
F
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total
95 43 2 14 154
61-7 28.0 1.3 9.0 100-0
77 27 4 14 122
62.8 22.3 3.3 11.6 100.0
138 54 6 17 215
because the majority did not participate either in their previous or their present neighbourhood. Probably this was because the subjects did not see how they might influence the improvement of those elements t h a t were judged to be inadequate. On the other hand, the absence of a relation between neighbourhood satisfaction and the lack of participation in neighbourhood activities, leads us to ask if greater participation would increase neighbourhood satisfaction, as suggested by W a n d e r s m a n and Moos (1981). Another dimension which was explored in the present neighbourhood was the intention to move away, which Weidemann and Anderson (1986) consider a predictor of behavior to move and an indicator of lack of satisfaction. The majority did not intend to move, which is coherent with their general appreciation of the neighbourhood and their satisfaction with it. A Chi-square for satisfaction with the neighbourhood and intentions to move was significant for subjects of the three types housing, being respectively 31.07 for CU, 7-92 for NH and 86.7 for BU, for the 0.001 level of significance. However, we do not know, if this intention reflected real alternatives and/or desires, because such information was not obtained in this study. The salience of some of the characteristics studied
Bathroom % 64.0 25.2 2.8 8.0 100.0
Total F
%
310 124 12 45 491
63.1 25.3 2.4 9.2 100.0
in relation to the previous and present neighbourhoods suggests t hat in the evaluation of this scale of the environment interact with some dimensions which refer fundam ent al l y to the services, the characteristics and behaviour of the members of the neighbourhood and/or community. The first is associated with the basic well-being of the residents because this includes everything related to transportation, education, medical attention, police protection, lighting, water, and maintenance, and the second concerns quietness, which has to do with production of noise by the neighbours, with crowding, sense of belonging, friendship and cooperation among neighbours, elements which are possible above all in low density areas and among homogeneous populations.
Housing The major proportion of the sample had resided in one-family housing made of cement bricks with cement floors (75.6%), and the rest had lived in shacks (15.5%) or in apartments, rented rooms in a house or a p a r t m e n t (9.95%). The kind of tenure varied because only a third of the sample had owned their housing previously, while now 80% did. There were no significant differences between the
219
Public H o u s i n g in V e n e z u e l a
TABLE3 Residential density in previous house and type of present house Type ofhouse Complete
Nuclear
Bathroom %
Density
F
%
F
%
F
< or=2.8 > 2.8 Total Means
80 74 154
52.0 48.0 100.0
73 49 122
59-8 40.2 100.0
135 80 215
2.97
2.73
62-8 37.2 100.0
Total F
%
288 203 491
58.6 41.4 100-0
2.80
2.83
TABLE 4
Residential densi~ inpresenthouse and type ofhouse Type ofhouse Complete Density < or=2.29 > 2.29 Total Means
Nuclear
Bathroom %
F
%
F
%
F
86 68 154
55.0 44.2 100.0
69 53 122
56.5 43.5 100.0
122 93 215
2.24
2.28
mean density in both homes (2-83 in previous compared to 2.29 in the present home, Tables 3 and 4). Nevertheless judgements about the characteristics of the homes varied. With respect to the previous home the temperature was judged to be adequate, (since it was cooler t h a n the present one) especially by the majority of residents t h a t lived in CU or NH, in which the type of construction material was not appropriate for heat insulation. In the present home on the other hand, this was considered the most negative aspect and this finding coincides with the negative judgements about the weather in the present neighbourhood compared to the positive ones in the previous neighbourhood (Tables 5 and 6). In relation to tenure, .in the previous home 'renting' or 'sharing with another family' was considered negatively by the majority of the subjects, in contrast to the present home in which ownership was considered the most favourable attribute by an absolute majority of the people interviewed in the three types of housing (90-6%). This shows t h a t the property tenure is a necessity which when unsatisfied is felt as a lack, and when satisfied is considered to be a gain, This is true for all the types of housing studied. Possibly the importance attached to ownership is not only t h a t of possession, but also includes feelings of stability, security, and of belonging, all of which contribute to a feeling of general well-being.
56.7 43.3 100.0 2.33
Total F
%
277 214 491
56.4 43.6 100.0 2.29
The other factors, (the size of the home, and the bedrooms, the kind of home and its comforts) were valued positively in the previous home by more than half of the sample. In the present home, it is interesting to note the marked preference for the BU compared to the NH, in spite of the fact t h a t both models can be enlarged. We believe t h a t the partial construction which is required for the NH limits the users' freedom to de~ cide on the type and size of the house and the size of rooms of their needs. In synthesis, two of the three types of housing were judged as comfortable, namely, the BU and the CU. The CU was considered to be better, because of its style, but the BU was considered attractive both because of the size of the house and of the bedrooms. If we compare these results of previous findings discussed above, we find some similarities. In relation to low-income, one-family housing, the results of the research of Sutrum (1984) and Fandifio et al. (1985) in Venezuela have shown t h a t user's main evaluation criteria are tenure (preferring ownership), size, comfort and ventilation, which correspond with the results of the present study. Similar results were obtained by Oxman and Carmon (1986) in Israel, and Marans and Wellman (1975) in the U.S.A. Other criteria employed by the users to evaluate living places are the social environment and quiet-
220
E. W i e s e n f e l d
TABLE 5 Judgements about previous house and type of present house Type of house Nuclear
Complete Judgements about house
Adequate F %
Size of house 98 63.6 Type of house 91 59.1 Sizeofbedrooms 88 57.1 Ownership 68 44.1 Temperature 100 65.0 Comfort 95 58.4
Inadequate F % 56 63 66 86 54 64
36.4 40.9 42.9 55.9 35-0 41.6
Adequate F % 67 80 69 53 68 70
55.0 65-5 56.5 43.5 55.7 57.3
Bathroom
Inadequate F % 55 42 53 69 54 52
45.0 34-5 43.5 56-5 44.3 42.7
Adequate F % 115 117 116 83 98 131
53.5 54.4 54.0 58.6 45.6 61.0
Total
Inadequate F % 100 98 99 132 117 84
46.5 45.6 46.0 61.4 54.4 39.0
Adequate F % 280 288 273 204 266 294
57.0 58.6 55.6 41.5 54.1 59.8
Inadequate F % 211 203 218 287 225 197
43.0 41.4 44-4 58.5 45.9 40.2
TABLE 6 Judgements about present house and type of house Type of house Complete Judgements about house Size of house Type of house Size of bedrooms Ownership Temperature Comfort
Adequate F % 105 139 55 143 56 124
68.2 90.3 35.7 92.9 36-4 80-5
Nuclear
Inadequate F % 49 15 99 11 98 30
31.8 9.7 64-3 7.1 63.6 19.5
Adequate F % 60 67 45 105 32 76
49.1 54.9 40.1 86-0 26.2 62.2
Bathroom
Inadequate F % 62 55 77 17 90 46
ness, which w e r e found by M o n t e r o (1977) a n d w h i c h w e r e sources of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e neighb o u r h o o d in o u r study. In spite of the differences found in j u d g e m e n t s a b o u t the e v a l u a t e d a s p e c t s of t h e h o m e s , t h e level of s a t i s f a c t i o n for each t y p e of p r e s e n t h o u s e w a s h i g h e r t h a n the c o r r e s p o n d i n g levels for the subjects' p r e v i o u s dwelling. T h e r e w e r e significant m e a n differences in e a c h case (t-test for each comp a r i s o n w e r e as follows, for CU: t = -4.04, p < 0.001; for HN: t = -3.12, p < 0.002; for BU: t = -5-85, p < 0.001). I n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e t y p e of q u a r t e r s studied, 39.7% of t h e s a m p l e w a s ' v e r y satisfied' w i t h t h e i r previous h o m e , while 60.1% w a s w i t h t h e p r e s e n t one. Also 31.0% w a s ' m o r e or less satisfied' w i t h t h e old living place, while 25.6% felt t h a t w a y a b o u t w h e r e t h e y lived a t t h e t i m e of t h e s t u d y (Tables 7 a n d 8). T h e fact t h a t t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n m e a s u r e is not influenced b y t h e different h o m e t y p e s m a y be due to t h e subjects' efforts to give socially d e s i r a b l e ans w e r s to t h e i t e m t h a t explored this factor. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , it m a y be t h a t satisfaction, as a global
50-9 45.1 59.9 14.0 73.7 37.8
Adequate F % 156 175 160 197 75 177
72.6 81-4 74.4 91-6 35.0 82.3
Total
Inadequate F % 59 40 55 18 140 38
27.4 18.6 25.6 8-4 65.0 17.7
Adequate F % 321 381 260 445 163 377
65.3 77.5 53.7 90.6 33-1 76.7
Inadequate F % 170 110 231 46 328 114
34.7 22-5 47.0 9.4 66.9 23.3
m e a s u r e m e n t , is not affected b y q u e s t i o n i n g details of t h e h o m e situation. A n o t h e r r e a s o n m a y be t h a t t h e a d v a n t a g e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e h o m e outweighed the disadvantages. T h e m o s t c o m m o n r e a s o n for h a v i n g m o v e d f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s h o m e w a s g i v e n as t h e n e e d to acquire o w n e r s h i p of t h e i r h o u s e s (for h a l f t h e subjects). T h e C h i - s q u a r e w a s significant for N H : 21.81, p < 0.01. T h e n e x t m o s t f r e q u e n t r e a s o n w a s t h e n e e d for a l a r g e r place to live (about 25% of t h e s a m p l e in t h e t h r e e h o u s i n g types). T h e C h i - s q u a r e w a s significant for b o t h C U a n d N H : 12.81, p < 0.05 for C U a n d 1 6 . 1 2 , p < 0.10 for NH. T h e m o s t f r e q u e n t r e q u e s t t h a t subjects said t h e y would m a k e to t h e I N A V I could be classified according to t h e t y p e of housing. I n t h e C U a n d t h e H N subjects r e p o r t e d w a n t i n g ' t h e roofs be h i g h e r a n d t h e h o u s e s larger'. T h e f r e q u e n t r e f e r e n c e to t h e size of t h e h o m e reflects, in o u r opinion, t h e relev a n c e t h a t this v a r i a b l e h a s in h o m e e v a l u a t i o n . On the other hand, satisfaction expressed by the s a m p l e w i t h this factor a n d t h e s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t h e r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e y would m a k e , l e a d us to t h i n k
221
Public H o u s i n g in V e n e z u e l a
TABLE7 Level of satisfaction in previous house and type of present house Type of house Level of satisfaction
F
Complete %
F
Nuclear %
F
Bathroom %
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total
59 40 15 40 154
38.3 26.0 9.7 26.0 100.0
54 43 2 23 122
44.3 35.2 1-6 18.9 100-0
82 69 16 48 215
38.1 32.2 7.4 22.3 100.0
Total F
%
195 152 33 111 491
39-7 31.0 6.7 22.6 100.0
TABLE8
Level of satisfaction with present house and type of house Type of house Level of satisfaction
F
Complete %
F
Nuclear %
F
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total
99 38 5 12 154
64.3 24.7 3.2 7.8 100.0
73 29 6 14 122
59.8 23.8 4.9 11.5 100.0
123 59 19 14 215
t h a t enlargement is seen as something which varies according to changes in structure and family dynamics. Thus, we have a high percentage of the sample being satisfied with their living situation and its different aspects. We can conclude from the previous discussion t h a t in this case satisfaction was due in large part to the feeling of ownership. This feeling was associated with stability and security. Probably if subjects had ordered their reasons for having moved we would have found t h a t having one's own home was w h at the residents of the neighbourhood wanted most, an achievement t h a t permitted t hem to feel satisfied with their homes. The great majority of the CUs and the HNs, and to a lesser degree the BUs, were placed in their homes by INAVI. The fact t h a t a choice in housing style had been given to almost 25% of the BUs m ay explain the high percentage of residents who were satisfied with this type of home, because it allowed the possibility of building according to personal taste. Some of the latter group could also choose their type of living situation, and this last fact gave more freedom for decision making and thus a perception of g r eat er control over home design compared to the other two groups. It is interesting to observe t h a t regardless of the
Bathroom % 57.3 27.4 8.8 6-5 100.0
Total F
%
295 126 30 40 491
60.1 25.6 6.1 8-1 100.0
type of housing, the majority of the subjects chose the CU model in the first place, and t h a t the BUs chose their own dwelling in second place (25%). The reasons given for this choice were: (a) t h a t the CU was totally finished, and (b) t h a t t hey were more comfortable and were designed bet t er (Table 9) (Chi-square of 83.44, p < 0.001). These results allow us to suppose t h a t because the CUs did not involve construction, this factor was not mentioned as a reason for having chosen the CU. On the other hand, the positive value t h a t the users of this home model gave to its comfort and size leads us to think t h a t the size of the home forms a comparative base used by residents to judge their living quart ers with respect to the other types of homes in the housing development and not with an 'ideal' size of home. T h a t is, their aspirations are not within the 'true limits' of their possibilities. With respect to the reasons given by the other two types of users: the main one (that the CU is delivered totally built) suggests t h a t the opportunity to construct one's home according to one's taste was inappropriate in the conditions t h a t our population was facing. The low income level of the population, together with the absence of economic and technical help and a complete workday for the head of the family, leads us to question the benefits of self-
222
E. W i e s e n f e l d
TABLE9 House you would presently choose and type of house Type of house House you would choose Compete Nuclear Bathroom None, other Total
Complete
Nuclear
Bathroom %
F
%
F
%
F
136 2 12 4 154
88.3 1-3 7.8 2.6 100.0
89 15 12 6 122
73.0 12.3 9.8 4.9 100.0
144 8 59 4 215
67.0 3.7 27.4 1.9 100-0
Total F
%
369 25 83 14 491
75.1 5.0 17.0 2.8 100.0
TABLE10 Changes done to the present house (construction, enlargement) and type of house Type of house Changes done YES NO Total
Complete
Nuclear
Bathroom %
F
%
F
%
F
112 42 154
72.7 27.3 100.0
98 24 122
80.3 19.7 100.0
200 15 215
construction in such conditions. Maybe the experience of having h a d to build was different from w hat they had anticipated. Nevertheless, the fact t h a t the majority had already finished construction permitted th em to evaluate the aspects of the house on the basis of an already completed process. In other words, if th ey were to be able to choose, t he y would not repeat the experience. If we contrast these results with intension to move, we note t h a t choosing another type of housing model is seen as a hypothetical situation and not a real one. The majority expressed no intention of changing their homes, this coincides with the lack of intention to move from the present neighbourhood, and the Chi-Square for each type of housing and lack of intention to move was significant (30.18, 11.00 and 79.37, respectively, p < 0-001). We do not know, moreover, if this answer reflects intentions which are based on the knowledge of difficulties for achieving it or simply on the desire not to do so. Another interesting factor is the percentage of persons t h a t modified the CU. Although this percentage is low in comparison with the other two models, it was high if we contrast it with the benefits attributed to this type of home both by the users and by those t h a t would have liked to live in one of th em (Table 10). The reasons t h a t were given for these modifications were: space and comfort. The
93.0 7.0 100.0
Total F
%
410 81 491
83.5 16.5 100.0
most frequent changes were construction of a porch and improvements to the bedroom and the kitchen. The changes in the t IN were, first, changes in the a r r a n g e m e n t s of the living room, second, in the bedroom and third, in the kitchen, dining room and porch. In the BU the majority of the rooms had to be built. The bedrooms, living room, kitchen, dining room, l aundry room and the garden where built in more t h a n 80% of the cases interviewed. The bedrooms were usually the first rooms constructed, suggesting t h a t the bedroom represents an import a n t area and from the frequency t h a t quietness was mentioned can be assumed t h a t the bedroom has important connotations of privacy. The frequency and variety of the changes, additions, and construction done on the homes reflects the participation of the user which is associated with home satisfaction. Thus, the high degree of resident satisfaction may be due to participation in the changes which they have made in their homes. This finding would seem at first sight contradictory to the expressed desire of the majority to choose a CU to avoid construction. However, it we take selfconstruction as a process, it is possible t h a t initially the idea of constructing as a function of one's possibilities, desires, and needs was attractive but this idea was transformed during the difficult task of construction.
Public H o u s i n g in V e n e z u e l a
In conclusion, satisfaction and liking was influenced by residents' and neighbours' characteristics, by residential environment and by the favourable attitudes towards all these. In this sense objective characteristics do have value as long as they acquire a particular meaning for the people.
Conclusions
The most notable conclusions from the present work point to the inconvenience of alternative housing programmes for low-income groups, particularly when the programmes are not accompanied by an economic subsidy and technical support from the government which can facilitate the completion of unfinished homes. Remember that the most desired home, with the highest level of satisfaction, was the complete unit, a fact that supports this type of solution compared to enlargeable arrangements. The data also indicate that people prefer the alternative that gives them the greatest building freedom, as is the case of the Basic or 'Bathroom' Unit. The characteristics of the Nuclear Home require a limited construction process imposed by its own design limirations. Note (1) Address to which correspondence should be sent: Apartado 47018, Caracas 1041 A, Venezuela.
References Betancur, J. (1987). Spontaneous settlement housing in Latin America: a critical examination. Environment and Behavior, 19(3), 286-310. Campbell, A., Converse, P. & Rodgers, W. (1976). The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Conyne, R. & Clack, R. J. (1981). Environmental Assessment and Design. New York, NY: Praeger. Fandifio, F., Anca, R. & Monasterio, E. (1985). Evaluaci6n de Viviendas Ampliables. Un Estudio Psicosocial. Tesis de grado, Caracas, Escuela de Psicologia, Universidad Central de Venezuela. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, U. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. & Chenoweth, R. (1974). Evaluating residents satisfaction in housing for low and moderate income families: a multimethod approach. In D. H. Carson, Ed., Man-Environment Interactions. Evaluations and Applications. Washington, DC. vol. 5, 285-295. Franscescato, G. et al. (1979). Residents" Satisfaction in HUD Assisted Housing: Design and Management Factors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
223
Galster, G. & Henseon, G. (1981). Residential satisfaction: compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735-758. Hershberger, R. (1975). The representation and evaluation of environments. In B. Honikman, Ed., Responding to Social Change, Environmental Design Research Association. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, vol. 6, 109-116. Lozar, C. (1978). The emergence of innovative settings as social indicators for psychological impact analysis. In S. Weidemann & J. Anderson, Eds., Environmental Design Research Association. Washington, D.C: EDRA, Inc, vol. 8, 394-399. Marans, R. W. (1979). The determinants of neighbourhood quality. Annual Housing Survey Studies, No. 3. Marans, R. & Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In A. Hawley & V. Rock, Eds., Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Halsted Press, pp. 299-352. Marans, R. & Spreckelmeyer, K. (1981). Evaluating Built Environments. A Behavioral Approach, Ann Arbor, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Marans, R. & Wellman, J. D. (1976). The Quality of Nonmetropolitan Living: Evaluations, Behavior and Expectations of Northern Michigan Residents. Ann Arbor, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Michelson, W. (1977). Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and Residential Satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Montero, M. (1977). Estudio psicosocial de la propiedad. Psicologia, III(2), 229-335. Montero, M. (1979). Relacion entre tipo de vivienda, deterioro y clase social percibida. Psicologia, VI(2-3), 125-134. Mufioz, C. & Villegas, J. (1977). Detaecion y control de conductas vandalicas en una comunidad urbana de Caracas. Psicologia, 3(12), 223-228. Nathanson, C. A., Newman, J. S., Moen, E. & Hiltabiddle, H. (1976). Moving plans among residents of a new town. Journal of The American Institute of Planners, pp. 295-302. Ostrander, E. & Conell, B. (1976). Maximizing cost-benefits of post-construction evaluation. In P. Suedfeld & J. Russell, Eds., Environmental Design Research Association. PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, vol. 7. Oxman, R. & Cartoon, N. (1986). Responsive public-housing: an alternative for low income families. Environment and Behavior, 18(2), 258-284. Sutrum, I. (1984). Satisfaccion Residencial y Tipos de Vivienda: Un Estudio Exploratorio. Tesis de grado, Caracas, Escuela de Psicologia, Universidad Central de Venezuela. Wandersman, D. (1978). User participation: a study of types of participation effects, mediators and individual differences. Environment and Behavior, 11(2), 185-208. Wandersman, A. & Moos, R. (1981). Assessing and evaluating residential environments: a sheltered living environments example. Environment and Behavior, 13(4), 481-508. Weidemann, S., Anderson, J., Butterfield, D. & D. O'Donell, P. (1982). Residents' perceptions of satisfaction and safety: a basis for change in multifamily housing. Environment and Behavior, 14(6) 695-724. Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. (1986). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In T. Altman & C. Werner, C., Eds. Opus Cit. Manuscript received 6 March 1990 Revised manuscript received 20 February 1992
0272-4944/92/030213+11508.00/0
©1992 Academic Press Ltd
F mONMENTAL , +SYCHOLOY PUBLIC HOUSING EVALUATION IN VENEZUELA: A CASE STUDY
ESTHER WIESENFELD 1
Psychology Institute, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela
Abstract
In this work the need to evaluate the residential environment is justified, particularly in the housing solutions planned for low-income families, within a psycho-social framework. This study was done in a neighbourhood in tile city of Maracay, Venezuela. Four hundred and ninety-one housewives residing in three types of single family housing units in a public housing project were interviewed about their personal characteristics, their previous neighbourhoods and homes, and their present neighbourhoods and homes. The results showed a greater percentage of residential satisfaction with the present neighbourhood and home, compared with the previous ones. It was also found that the complete home unit model of housing gave greater satisfaction than the other available models in the project, (a 'nuc!~ar' home and a smaller 'basic' home). Nevertheless, it is considered that the results might have been different if the users of these last two types of housing had been able to count on economic resources and technical help in the self-building arrangements that were associated with the acquisition of these last two models.
Introduction
Environmental evaluation and residential satisfaction The way we feel and behave in different settings depends on the meaning that those settings have for us. The meanings also vary, being influenced both by environmental design characteristics and by the users' personal, socio-cultural and behavioral characteristics. Evaluation in environmental psychology allows us to obtain scientific information whose purpose is to contribute to the quality of the designed environment, or as Lozar (1978) stated 'to increase the execution, efficiency and general quality of life of the occupants of any building' (p. 456). The present study is framed within the literature of post-occupancy evaluation, (POE), a term used by Ostrander and Connell (1976) to guarantee t h a t one is dealing with the evaluation of the built environment once it has been occupied by the user. To evaluate a built environment is to determine whether and to what extent it fits users' needs, expectations and possibilities (Hershberger, 1975; Conyne & Clack, 1981). The methods employed in this evalua-
tion should allow the users to express their feelings and thoughts and to elicit behaviours related to the environment. Research done in POE is numerous, both in terms of volume and of the variety of environments, methods and techniques employed in the studies. Housing, is the most frequently evaluated environment. The interest which exists for this kind of milieu is due to the importance t h a t it has in people's lives, because it is the place where we spend most of our time and where we establish the most relevant social-affective relations. The methods and techniques employed in this type of research go from the classical laboratory experiment to case studies, the most used techniques being observation, interviews and questionnaires. In general one finds t h a t user's evaluation of, and satisfaction with their environment depends on a set of variables which are personal (demographic characteristics of the population, needs, expectations, history, developmental stage of the person); social (neighbourhood relations, the presence of friends and family members); urban (physical qualities of the surroundings such as density, design characteristics, maintenance, nearness to work and
213
214
E. Wiesenfeld
to previous area of residence, and the existence of general services); psychological (the perceptual, cognitive and affective components, recognition and meaning of objective characteristics of the surroundings, their orientation, beliefs, judgements, attitudes, sense of belonging) and behavioural intentions and actual behaviours (participation, mobility, conservation deterioration, move away). Usually the selection of variables examined depends on the aims of the project being evaluated. For example, levels of satisfaction and preferences are generally used as predictors of behavioural intentions to move (Michelson, 1977). Nathanson et al. (1976) have considered as predictors of satisfaction such aspects as demographic characteristics, beliefs about neighbours, and participation in and satisfaction with community activities. Weideman et al. (1982) have found that there is positive correlation between perceived similarity with neighbours and residential satisfaction (RS). The construct ~residential satisfaction' (RS) underlies the majority of the studies on POE. In some research it is indicated as the fundamental purpose of the work, and is measured using a scale put together with this in mind. In other work, although it is not specifically measured, it is used to interpret data which come from the relations studied between design and other environmental variables and the users' cognitive or behavioural characteristics. There is not a precise definition of RS. Nevertheless, there is agreement, that RS is a state of equilibrium between the user and the built design, between the needs and aspirations of the people and the actual housing situation. When this congruence is absent, individuals redefine their needs and aspirations, modify their evaluation of the housing or change the conditions in which they find themselves (Galster & Hensen, 1981). Several authors have proposed models for integrating the variety of variables studied in relation to POE and RS, for guiding research and for constructing theory. A good example of these is Weidemann and Anderson's (1986) integrated conceptual model which incorporates the different dimensions and variables which these and other authors have found to be useful for environmental evaluation and RS. It is based on: (a) a previous model developed by Francescato et al. (1974, 1979), which included a trilogy of affective, cognitive and behavioural responses; (b) Marans and Spreckelmeyer's (1981) model based on the relation between objective environmental conditions, subjective experience of perceiving and feeling the environment, and behaviours in it, and (c) the importance assigned by
Campbell et al. (1976) to satisfaction as a determinant of perceived quality of life. Satisfaction is an affective dimension understood as a function of the residents' and residential environments; design characteristics, users' perceptions or beliefs regarding the environmental design, and the administrative variables of the residence. Additionally, Weidemann and Anderson (1986) included behavioural intention as a more direct predictor of behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). They also included the personal and demographic characteristics of the users and of the environment. Thus, the model provides a framework for identifying variables when evaluating a built environment and the users' satisfaction with it.
The Study
Latin America's housing problem stimulates concern for the quality of life of the homeless and for those who inhabit sub-standard dwellings. Thus, justifiable efforts are directed at generating information which might contribute to the improvement of conditions for these groups. Indeed, the housing crisis in this region requires solutions which go beyond political and economic gestures. It is also necessary to integrate the causal factors of the problem, including the psycho-social aspects. Several South American governments have invested large resources in the construction, administration and maintenance of housing for poor families. Nevertheless, the residents of these homes are frequently unhappy with the conditions of their living arrangements and their neighbourhoods tend to deteriorate quickly both physically and socially (Oxman & Carmon, 1986). This type of housing and neighbourhood is a vital necessity for users who do not have either access to, or the possibility of choosing other types of housing. Thus, planning and design should be directed toward generating the conditions that promote well-being in the inhabitants. And one way of doing this is to get to know the inhabitants needs, their demographic characteristics, their sources of satisfaction, and the reasons for environmental deterioration. In Venezuela, the housing problem has required the elaboration of policies aimed at reducing costs. One way which is becoming widespread is that of 'self-building', subsidizing partially built houses which require different degrees of users' participation in their design and construction. There is no information, however, as to the impact on the user of the different kinds of self-building, in terms of
P u b l i c H o u s i n g in V e n e z u e l a
users' evaluations and the degree of satisfaction with the process and the product achieved. Although for several authors users' participation allows users to acquire a certain degree of control over their environment, because it increases their satisfaction and reinforces a sense of rootedness and belonging (Wandersman, 1978), for others the process of building or finishing a dwelling represents exploitation of poor families who are vulnerable because of their marginal position in the social structure (Betancur, 1987). But even to achieve access to self-construction is difficult for a high proportion of the population, because they live in harsh circumstances and are forced to abandon their shacks due to landslides or evictions. These people are usually allocated in 'temporary solutions' such as barracks or trailers where they stay indefinitely with only the illusion of relocation to a better place. In general there are few evaluations done from a psychological point of view, especially in Latin America, and with regard to the above issues. In the literature reviewed, the reference to POE and RS mainly addresses residential environments designed and built by others rather than by users who aim to fulfil their own needs. This bias is interesting since self-construction is an alternative which is increasing not only in Venezuela among users who do not have access to other types of dwelling, but is also a common choice by those responsible for designing and implementing housing policies. This might be influenced by an economic crisis which prevents the implementation of programmes aimed at completely finished homes. Such policies are designed on the assumption that users will change habits and life styles in order to adapt to a new milieu, but this assumption has to be reconsidered [despite findings by authors like Marans (1979) and Michelson (1977) who have found that people are usually completely or partially satisfied with their dwellings]. The evidence of vandalism, lack of conservation and deterioration which has been detected in some evaluations, (Montero, 1977; Mufioz & Villegas, 1977), reveals that for certain economically deprived sectors of society this might not be true. Therefore, we considered it necessary to carry out research which would allow us to obtain information about how users from low socio-economic levels evaluated their homes, and the effects of different levels of participation. This information would permit us to evaluate the effectiveness of the criteria used for designed neighbourhoods and poor families. With this in mind we have carried out a case
215
study on housing that is representative of the kinds which the state constructs for these families (the 'Jose Felix Ribas' neighbourhood located in the city of Maracay, State of Aragua) which includes different types of detached, single-family housing.
Method
Variables of the study The variables are grouped in the categories of previous neighbourhood, previous housing, present neighbourhood, present home, and personal characteristics of the subjects. In each of these categories a series of aspects was explored, each of which is defined by the corresponding item on the interview protocol designed to obtain the data. They are the following: (a) Previous neighbourhood. Location, years of residence there, social relations (presence and average number of friends or family, frequency of visits by and to family and friends), judgements about the neighbours (co-operative, friendly, respectful, prone to fighting, quiet, gossipy), judgements about different aspects of the neighbourhood (transportation, educational institutions, medical facilities, recreational facilities, maintenance and infrastructure services, shopping areas, etc.), degree of satisfaction with the area, participation in neighbourhood activities (sewer and street repair, cleaning of streets and sewers, chapel construction, attendance at social meetings, attendance of meetings with different institutions). (b) Previous housing. Type of housing, (number of years living there, ownership, number of people living in the house, number of bedrooms), residential density (number of persons sleeping per room), judgements about different aspects of the home (size Of the home and of the bedrooms, ownership, temperature, comfort, etc.), degree of satisfaction with the home, reasons for having moved. (c) Present neighbourhood. Social relations (presence and number of friends and family members in the neighbourhood and the area, frequency of visits by and to friends and family), judgements about the neighbours (cooperative, friendly, respectful, prone to fighting, quiet, gossipy), judgements about different aspects of the area (transportation, educational institutions, medical facilities, recreational facilities, maintenance and infrastructure services, shopping areas, etc.), suggestions for improvements, degree of satisfaction with the area, participation in activities, plans to move away from the neighbour-
216
E. W i e s e n f e l d
hood, and the reasons for these plans, feelings towards the neighbourhood, (comfort, happiness, liking, warmth, desire to stay in it, plans to fix it, Considering it pretty). (d) Present housing. Type of housing, number of years of residence there, ownership, type of ideal home and reasons for it reasons for having selected present homes (when they were able to choose) or type of house they would have requested if they had the possibility for doing so (when the type of house was assigned to them), changes done in the house: types of changes (enlargement, construction, etc.) place (living room, dining room, porch, kitchen, bathroom, bedrooms, etc.) and reason for the changes (for comfort, more space, better appearance, more protection, etc.), first change done: type, place, amount of time after the move in which the change/s was (were) done, help obtained, sources of help, number of persons living in the house, number of bedrooms, residential density (number of people sleeping per room), daily permanence (both real and ideal) in the home, judgements about different aspects of the home, (size of the home and of the bedrooms, ownership, temperature, comfort, etc.), degree of satisfaction with the home, plans to move, reasons for these plans, requests to the National Housing Institute (INAVI), feelings toward the home (comfort, happiness, liking, warmth, desire to stay in it, plans to fix it, considering it pretty). (e) Personal characteristics. Age, marital status, place of birth, occupation of the person interviewed, occupation of the head of the family, degree of education, sources of income, socio-economic level.
the Type C home. This model consists of 36 m 2 of one level floor space, divided among the basic service unit (as in the Type C home), two bedrooms, kitchen area, and living room. It can be enlarged to 60 m 2 on the same floor level. (iii) The complete housing unit (CU) or Type A, has a construction area of 60 m 2, distributed between the bathroom, the laundry, three bedrooms, kitchen, living room and dining room. These homes may be improved in terms of their external appearance with the construction of a porch, window bars, garden etc. In the neighbourhood 682 BUs, 252 HNs and 307 CUs were built, and for the selection of the sample of the present study 521 BUs, 198 HNs and 253 CUs were considered. This neighbourhood was selected because it was a pilot project designed to include the three different types of detached single family housing, and this gave it particular characteristics. Also, the fact that it was located in one of the more heavily populated areas which is economically developed to some extent, motivated the National Housing Institute's (INAVI) interest in the neighbourhood's impact on the resident. It was considered desirable to be able to judge the physical design, and the economic and psycho-social acceptability of the model. The sample was selected using a stratified-random design with replacement. It included 491 homes, distributed according to the type of housing, in 215 BUs, 122 HNs, and 154 CUs. The subjects of the study were housewives, or women of 18 or more years of age and at least four years of residence in the neighbourhood.
Population and sample Instruments and procedure The population of the present study was made up of 1241 homes located in the low-income neighbourhood 'Jose Felix Ribas' (JFR). The neighbourhood is divided into eight sectors, each of which is made up of lots which measure between 130 and 150 m 2, with a maximum of 60 m 2 for each construction. Each sector has three housing alternatives, assigned in terms of the income level of the family: (i) The basic unit (BU) is the service area; it is also called the bathroom unit or the Type C Home. It is intended for families with the lowest income and it includes a hand-washing basin, a toilet, a shower and a laundry scrub basin. It is intended that the families build a temporary shack at the back of the lot which will shelter them while they finish their final house. (ii) The home nucleus (HN) or Type B, intended for families with incomes which are above those of
An interview procedure was used. It included 76 questions about selected themes for the purpose of residential evaluation. And it included questions about personal data (age, marital status, place of birth) and a scale for determining the socio-economic level of the family, the categories of which made reference to the occupation of the head of the family, the level of education of the subject and/or the head of the family. Sources of family income were also requested according to categories which included five alternative answers, out of which the subject chose one, and each was given a numerical score. For example, for the occupation of the subject, the alternatives were: (a) university profession and high executives and businessmen or businesswomen (b) technical occupation, (c) employees without university degree or technical preparation, (d) skilled
Public Housing in Venezuela
workers, (e) unskilled workers. The highest status occupation received the higher scores (i.e. 5 for university professionals). The total score was the sum of the separate values obtained in each category. The classification of the subjects in a given socioeconomic level is determined by this total.
Results and Discussion
The analysis of the results was based on frequencies and percentages of the answers in each of the items for the three types of houses separately. When possible the mearis were compared using a t-test. Chi-squared was used for establishing associative relations among variables. Given space restrictions we will only present a s u m m a r y of these results.
Characteristics of the sample Analysis of the demographic data shows t h a t it was homogeneous in the sense that there were no significant differences in terms of the type of housing. For this reason the demographic characteristics of the sample will be presented as a whole. The majority of the women interviewed were married (72%), were housewives, had an educational level limited to elementary school (80%), were supported by fixed salaries--usually their husbands (70%), who were labourers (61%), and came from the middle-lower socio-economic level (99%). Thus, no differences were found in the sample t h a t might explain the different types of housing t h a t were assigned by INAVI.
The neighbourhood The answers corresponding to evaluated aspects of the previous neighbourhood and the present neighbourhood were similar, and independent of the type of present housing arrangement. The mean number of years of residence in both was more t h a n four years. In the two neighbourhoods, the majority of the subjects (86.6%) has between one and five friends, and for 59% of them, these were their best friends. The frequency of visits was irregular because it varied from 'several times a week' to 'almost never'. This irregularity in the visiting might mean t h a t the quality of personal interaction was defined mainly by the kind of interchange which happens between neighbours and not by the quantity of contacts t h a t were established. On the other hand, the presence of family members varied, because half the subjects had family members in
217
the previous neighbourhood, while the majority did not have t h e m in the present neighbourhood. In the two areas the neighbours were evaluated very positively. They were considered to be cooperative (85-8%), friendly (92.5%), respectful (93.3%), not aggressive (80.8%), quiet (90-6%), and not gossipy (75-8%). This is important because the difference in the type of housing might have generated tensions as has been indicated by other studies (Marans & Wellman, 1976; Montero, 1979). It would seem t h a t the housing differences were not seen by the users as indicators of different social status among the neighbours, which could encourage positive attitudes toward them. Probably similar socioeconomic status among the subjects explains this equality. Other aspects which were favourably evaluated in the previous and present neighbourhoods were transportation, educational institutions, commerce, sanitary services, lighting and quietness. On the other hand recreational facilities, police protection (previous) and street maintenance, medical services, and hot weather in the present neighbourhood were unfavourably evaluated. The mean temperature in Maracay is 28°C. It seems t h a t the present neighbourhood was an improvement over the previous one in terms of recreational facilities, although police protection, medical services and warm weather were not. This is interesting because the users had previously resided in the same area (geographically and climatically) in which they were living now. As we will see when we compare previous and present home, the differential evaluation of weather in previous vs present neighbourhood, might be due to the house itself, because the construction materials do not help to insulate from the heat and this negative aspect is extrapolated to the neighbourhood due to its unpleasantness for the inhabitants. Nevertheless there is agreement between the evaluation t h a t was made of the present neighbourhood and the recommendations t h a t were made for improvements in the sector (e.g. police protection and improvement in medical services). These topics are of concern in Venezuelan society in general. In the answers it is interesting to note t h a t the negative judgements t h a t were made about the present neighbourhood do not seem to affect the satisfaction of the people, because the majority of the inhabitants seemed very satisfied (Tables i and 2). The behavioural dimension in the neighbourhood was represented by the item which referred to the participation of the people in neighbourhood activities. Again there was coincidence in the answers,
218
E. W i e s e n f e l d
TABLE 1 Level of satisfaction in previous neighbourhood and type of present house Type of house Level of satisfaction
F
Complete %
F
Nuclear %
F
Bathroom %
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total
57 39 9 49 154
37.0 25.4 5.8 31-8 100.0
47 40 2 33 122
38-0 33.1 1.7 27.2 100.0
74 67 16 58 215
34.4 31.2 7.4 27.0 100.0
Total F
%
178 146 27 140 491
36.2 29.8 5-5 28.5 100.0
TABLE2 Level of satisfaction in present neighbourhood and type of house Type of house Level of satisfaction
F
Complete %
F
Nuclear %
F
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total
95 43 2 14 154
61-7 28.0 1.3 9.0 100-0
77 27 4 14 122
62.8 22.3 3.3 11.6 100.0
138 54 6 17 215
because the majority did not participate either in their previous or their present neighbourhood. Probably this was because the subjects did not see how they might influence the improvement of those elements t h a t were judged to be inadequate. On the other hand, the absence of a relation between neighbourhood satisfaction and the lack of participation in neighbourhood activities, leads us to ask if greater participation would increase neighbourhood satisfaction, as suggested by W a n d e r s m a n and Moos (1981). Another dimension which was explored in the present neighbourhood was the intention to move away, which Weidemann and Anderson (1986) consider a predictor of behavior to move and an indicator of lack of satisfaction. The majority did not intend to move, which is coherent with their general appreciation of the neighbourhood and their satisfaction with it. A Chi-square for satisfaction with the neighbourhood and intentions to move was significant for subjects of the three types housing, being respectively 31.07 for CU, 7-92 for NH and 86.7 for BU, for the 0.001 level of significance. However, we do not know, if this intention reflected real alternatives and/or desires, because such information was not obtained in this study. The salience of some of the characteristics studied
Bathroom % 64.0 25.2 2.8 8.0 100.0
Total F
%
310 124 12 45 491
63.1 25.3 2.4 9.2 100.0
in relation to the previous and present neighbourhoods suggests t hat in the evaluation of this scale of the environment interact with some dimensions which refer fundam ent al l y to the services, the characteristics and behaviour of the members of the neighbourhood and/or community. The first is associated with the basic well-being of the residents because this includes everything related to transportation, education, medical attention, police protection, lighting, water, and maintenance, and the second concerns quietness, which has to do with production of noise by the neighbours, with crowding, sense of belonging, friendship and cooperation among neighbours, elements which are possible above all in low density areas and among homogeneous populations.
Housing The major proportion of the sample had resided in one-family housing made of cement bricks with cement floors (75.6%), and the rest had lived in shacks (15.5%) or in apartments, rented rooms in a house or a p a r t m e n t (9.95%). The kind of tenure varied because only a third of the sample had owned their housing previously, while now 80% did. There were no significant differences between the
219
Public H o u s i n g in V e n e z u e l a
TABLE3 Residential density in previous house and type of present house Type ofhouse Complete
Nuclear
Bathroom %
Density
F
%
F
%
F
< or=2.8 > 2.8 Total Means
80 74 154
52.0 48.0 100.0
73 49 122
59-8 40.2 100.0
135 80 215
2.97
2.73
62-8 37.2 100.0
Total F
%
288 203 491
58.6 41.4 100-0
2.80
2.83
TABLE 4
Residential densi~ inpresenthouse and type ofhouse Type ofhouse Complete Density < or=2.29 > 2.29 Total Means
Nuclear
Bathroom %
F
%
F
%
F
86 68 154
55.0 44.2 100.0
69 53 122
56.5 43.5 100.0
122 93 215
2.24
2.28
mean density in both homes (2-83 in previous compared to 2.29 in the present home, Tables 3 and 4). Nevertheless judgements about the characteristics of the homes varied. With respect to the previous home the temperature was judged to be adequate, (since it was cooler t h a n the present one) especially by the majority of residents t h a t lived in CU or NH, in which the type of construction material was not appropriate for heat insulation. In the present home on the other hand, this was considered the most negative aspect and this finding coincides with the negative judgements about the weather in the present neighbourhood compared to the positive ones in the previous neighbourhood (Tables 5 and 6). In relation to tenure, .in the previous home 'renting' or 'sharing with another family' was considered negatively by the majority of the subjects, in contrast to the present home in which ownership was considered the most favourable attribute by an absolute majority of the people interviewed in the three types of housing (90-6%). This shows t h a t the property tenure is a necessity which when unsatisfied is felt as a lack, and when satisfied is considered to be a gain, This is true for all the types of housing studied. Possibly the importance attached to ownership is not only t h a t of possession, but also includes feelings of stability, security, and of belonging, all of which contribute to a feeling of general well-being.
56.7 43.3 100.0 2.33
Total F
%
277 214 491
56.4 43.6 100.0 2.29
The other factors, (the size of the home, and the bedrooms, the kind of home and its comforts) were valued positively in the previous home by more than half of the sample. In the present home, it is interesting to note the marked preference for the BU compared to the NH, in spite of the fact t h a t both models can be enlarged. We believe t h a t the partial construction which is required for the NH limits the users' freedom to de~ cide on the type and size of the house and the size of rooms of their needs. In synthesis, two of the three types of housing were judged as comfortable, namely, the BU and the CU. The CU was considered to be better, because of its style, but the BU was considered attractive both because of the size of the house and of the bedrooms. If we compare these results of previous findings discussed above, we find some similarities. In relation to low-income, one-family housing, the results of the research of Sutrum (1984) and Fandifio et al. (1985) in Venezuela have shown t h a t user's main evaluation criteria are tenure (preferring ownership), size, comfort and ventilation, which correspond with the results of the present study. Similar results were obtained by Oxman and Carmon (1986) in Israel, and Marans and Wellman (1975) in the U.S.A. Other criteria employed by the users to evaluate living places are the social environment and quiet-
220
E. W i e s e n f e l d
TABLE 5 Judgements about previous house and type of present house Type of house Nuclear
Complete Judgements about house
Adequate F %
Size of house 98 63.6 Type of house 91 59.1 Sizeofbedrooms 88 57.1 Ownership 68 44.1 Temperature 100 65.0 Comfort 95 58.4
Inadequate F % 56 63 66 86 54 64
36.4 40.9 42.9 55.9 35-0 41.6
Adequate F % 67 80 69 53 68 70
55.0 65-5 56.5 43.5 55.7 57.3
Bathroom
Inadequate F % 55 42 53 69 54 52
45.0 34-5 43.5 56-5 44.3 42.7
Adequate F % 115 117 116 83 98 131
53.5 54.4 54.0 58.6 45.6 61.0
Total
Inadequate F % 100 98 99 132 117 84
46.5 45.6 46.0 61.4 54.4 39.0
Adequate F % 280 288 273 204 266 294
57.0 58.6 55.6 41.5 54.1 59.8
Inadequate F % 211 203 218 287 225 197
43.0 41.4 44-4 58.5 45.9 40.2
TABLE 6 Judgements about present house and type of house Type of house Complete Judgements about house Size of house Type of house Size of bedrooms Ownership Temperature Comfort
Adequate F % 105 139 55 143 56 124
68.2 90.3 35.7 92.9 36-4 80-5
Nuclear
Inadequate F % 49 15 99 11 98 30
31.8 9.7 64-3 7.1 63.6 19.5
Adequate F % 60 67 45 105 32 76
49.1 54.9 40.1 86-0 26.2 62.2
Bathroom
Inadequate F % 62 55 77 17 90 46
ness, which w e r e found by M o n t e r o (1977) a n d w h i c h w e r e sources of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e neighb o u r h o o d in o u r study. In spite of the differences found in j u d g e m e n t s a b o u t the e v a l u a t e d a s p e c t s of t h e h o m e s , t h e level of s a t i s f a c t i o n for each t y p e of p r e s e n t h o u s e w a s h i g h e r t h a n the c o r r e s p o n d i n g levels for the subjects' p r e v i o u s dwelling. T h e r e w e r e significant m e a n differences in e a c h case (t-test for each comp a r i s o n w e r e as follows, for CU: t = -4.04, p < 0.001; for HN: t = -3.12, p < 0.002; for BU: t = -5-85, p < 0.001). I n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e t y p e of q u a r t e r s studied, 39.7% of t h e s a m p l e w a s ' v e r y satisfied' w i t h t h e i r previous h o m e , while 60.1% w a s w i t h t h e p r e s e n t one. Also 31.0% w a s ' m o r e or less satisfied' w i t h t h e old living place, while 25.6% felt t h a t w a y a b o u t w h e r e t h e y lived a t t h e t i m e of t h e s t u d y (Tables 7 a n d 8). T h e fact t h a t t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n m e a s u r e is not influenced b y t h e different h o m e t y p e s m a y be due to t h e subjects' efforts to give socially d e s i r a b l e ans w e r s to t h e i t e m t h a t explored this factor. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , it m a y be t h a t satisfaction, as a global
50-9 45.1 59.9 14.0 73.7 37.8
Adequate F % 156 175 160 197 75 177
72.6 81-4 74.4 91-6 35.0 82.3
Total
Inadequate F % 59 40 55 18 140 38
27.4 18.6 25.6 8-4 65.0 17.7
Adequate F % 321 381 260 445 163 377
65.3 77.5 53.7 90.6 33-1 76.7
Inadequate F % 170 110 231 46 328 114
34.7 22-5 47.0 9.4 66.9 23.3
m e a s u r e m e n t , is not affected b y q u e s t i o n i n g details of t h e h o m e situation. A n o t h e r r e a s o n m a y be t h a t t h e a d v a n t a g e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e h o m e outweighed the disadvantages. T h e m o s t c o m m o n r e a s o n for h a v i n g m o v e d f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s h o m e w a s g i v e n as t h e n e e d to acquire o w n e r s h i p of t h e i r h o u s e s (for h a l f t h e subjects). T h e C h i - s q u a r e w a s significant for N H : 21.81, p < 0.01. T h e n e x t m o s t f r e q u e n t r e a s o n w a s t h e n e e d for a l a r g e r place to live (about 25% of t h e s a m p l e in t h e t h r e e h o u s i n g types). T h e C h i - s q u a r e w a s significant for b o t h C U a n d N H : 12.81, p < 0.05 for C U a n d 1 6 . 1 2 , p < 0.10 for NH. T h e m o s t f r e q u e n t r e q u e s t t h a t subjects said t h e y would m a k e to t h e I N A V I could be classified according to t h e t y p e of housing. I n t h e C U a n d t h e H N subjects r e p o r t e d w a n t i n g ' t h e roofs be h i g h e r a n d t h e h o u s e s larger'. T h e f r e q u e n t r e f e r e n c e to t h e size of t h e h o m e reflects, in o u r opinion, t h e relev a n c e t h a t this v a r i a b l e h a s in h o m e e v a l u a t i o n . On the other hand, satisfaction expressed by the s a m p l e w i t h this factor a n d t h e s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t h e r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e y would m a k e , l e a d us to t h i n k
221
Public H o u s i n g in V e n e z u e l a
TABLE7 Level of satisfaction in previous house and type of present house Type of house Level of satisfaction
F
Complete %
F
Nuclear %
F
Bathroom %
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total
59 40 15 40 154
38.3 26.0 9.7 26.0 100.0
54 43 2 23 122
44.3 35.2 1-6 18.9 100-0
82 69 16 48 215
38.1 32.2 7.4 22.3 100.0
Total F
%
195 152 33 111 491
39-7 31.0 6.7 22.6 100.0
TABLE8
Level of satisfaction with present house and type of house Type of house Level of satisfaction
F
Complete %
F
Nuclear %
F
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total
99 38 5 12 154
64.3 24.7 3.2 7.8 100.0
73 29 6 14 122
59.8 23.8 4.9 11.5 100.0
123 59 19 14 215
t h a t enlargement is seen as something which varies according to changes in structure and family dynamics. Thus, we have a high percentage of the sample being satisfied with their living situation and its different aspects. We can conclude from the previous discussion t h a t in this case satisfaction was due in large part to the feeling of ownership. This feeling was associated with stability and security. Probably if subjects had ordered their reasons for having moved we would have found t h a t having one's own home was w h at the residents of the neighbourhood wanted most, an achievement t h a t permitted t hem to feel satisfied with their homes. The great majority of the CUs and the HNs, and to a lesser degree the BUs, were placed in their homes by INAVI. The fact t h a t a choice in housing style had been given to almost 25% of the BUs m ay explain the high percentage of residents who were satisfied with this type of home, because it allowed the possibility of building according to personal taste. Some of the latter group could also choose their type of living situation, and this last fact gave more freedom for decision making and thus a perception of g r eat er control over home design compared to the other two groups. It is interesting to observe t h a t regardless of the
Bathroom % 57.3 27.4 8.8 6-5 100.0
Total F
%
295 126 30 40 491
60.1 25.6 6.1 8-1 100.0
type of housing, the majority of the subjects chose the CU model in the first place, and t h a t the BUs chose their own dwelling in second place (25%). The reasons given for this choice were: (a) t h a t the CU was totally finished, and (b) t h a t t hey were more comfortable and were designed bet t er (Table 9) (Chi-square of 83.44, p < 0.001). These results allow us to suppose t h a t because the CUs did not involve construction, this factor was not mentioned as a reason for having chosen the CU. On the other hand, the positive value t h a t the users of this home model gave to its comfort and size leads us to think t h a t the size of the home forms a comparative base used by residents to judge their living quart ers with respect to the other types of homes in the housing development and not with an 'ideal' size of home. T h a t is, their aspirations are not within the 'true limits' of their possibilities. With respect to the reasons given by the other two types of users: the main one (that the CU is delivered totally built) suggests t h a t the opportunity to construct one's home according to one's taste was inappropriate in the conditions t h a t our population was facing. The low income level of the population, together with the absence of economic and technical help and a complete workday for the head of the family, leads us to question the benefits of self-
222
E. W i e s e n f e l d
TABLE9 House you would presently choose and type of house Type of house House you would choose Compete Nuclear Bathroom None, other Total
Complete
Nuclear
Bathroom %
F
%
F
%
F
136 2 12 4 154
88.3 1-3 7.8 2.6 100.0
89 15 12 6 122
73.0 12.3 9.8 4.9 100.0
144 8 59 4 215
67.0 3.7 27.4 1.9 100-0
Total F
%
369 25 83 14 491
75.1 5.0 17.0 2.8 100.0
TABLE10 Changes done to the present house (construction, enlargement) and type of house Type of house Changes done YES NO Total
Complete
Nuclear
Bathroom %
F
%
F
%
F
112 42 154
72.7 27.3 100.0
98 24 122
80.3 19.7 100.0
200 15 215
construction in such conditions. Maybe the experience of having h a d to build was different from w hat they had anticipated. Nevertheless, the fact t h a t the majority had already finished construction permitted th em to evaluate the aspects of the house on the basis of an already completed process. In other words, if th ey were to be able to choose, t he y would not repeat the experience. If we contrast these results with intension to move, we note t h a t choosing another type of housing model is seen as a hypothetical situation and not a real one. The majority expressed no intention of changing their homes, this coincides with the lack of intention to move from the present neighbourhood, and the Chi-Square for each type of housing and lack of intention to move was significant (30.18, 11.00 and 79.37, respectively, p < 0-001). We do not know, moreover, if this answer reflects intentions which are based on the knowledge of difficulties for achieving it or simply on the desire not to do so. Another interesting factor is the percentage of persons t h a t modified the CU. Although this percentage is low in comparison with the other two models, it was high if we contrast it with the benefits attributed to this type of home both by the users and by those t h a t would have liked to live in one of th em (Table 10). The reasons t h a t were given for these modifications were: space and comfort. The
93.0 7.0 100.0
Total F
%
410 81 491
83.5 16.5 100.0
most frequent changes were construction of a porch and improvements to the bedroom and the kitchen. The changes in the t IN were, first, changes in the a r r a n g e m e n t s of the living room, second, in the bedroom and third, in the kitchen, dining room and porch. In the BU the majority of the rooms had to be built. The bedrooms, living room, kitchen, dining room, l aundry room and the garden where built in more t h a n 80% of the cases interviewed. The bedrooms were usually the first rooms constructed, suggesting t h a t the bedroom represents an import a n t area and from the frequency t h a t quietness was mentioned can be assumed t h a t the bedroom has important connotations of privacy. The frequency and variety of the changes, additions, and construction done on the homes reflects the participation of the user which is associated with home satisfaction. Thus, the high degree of resident satisfaction may be due to participation in the changes which they have made in their homes. This finding would seem at first sight contradictory to the expressed desire of the majority to choose a CU to avoid construction. However, it we take selfconstruction as a process, it is possible t h a t initially the idea of constructing as a function of one's possibilities, desires, and needs was attractive but this idea was transformed during the difficult task of construction.
Public H o u s i n g in V e n e z u e l a
In conclusion, satisfaction and liking was influenced by residents' and neighbours' characteristics, by residential environment and by the favourable attitudes towards all these. In this sense objective characteristics do have value as long as they acquire a particular meaning for the people.
Conclusions
The most notable conclusions from the present work point to the inconvenience of alternative housing programmes for low-income groups, particularly when the programmes are not accompanied by an economic subsidy and technical support from the government which can facilitate the completion of unfinished homes. Remember that the most desired home, with the highest level of satisfaction, was the complete unit, a fact that supports this type of solution compared to enlargeable arrangements. The data also indicate that people prefer the alternative that gives them the greatest building freedom, as is the case of the Basic or 'Bathroom' Unit. The characteristics of the Nuclear Home require a limited construction process imposed by its own design limirations. Note (1) Address to which correspondence should be sent: Apartado 47018, Caracas 1041 A, Venezuela.
References Betancur, J. (1987). Spontaneous settlement housing in Latin America: a critical examination. Environment and Behavior, 19(3), 286-310. Campbell, A., Converse, P. & Rodgers, W. (1976). The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Conyne, R. & Clack, R. J. (1981). Environmental Assessment and Design. New York, NY: Praeger. Fandifio, F., Anca, R. & Monasterio, E. (1985). Evaluaci6n de Viviendas Ampliables. Un Estudio Psicosocial. Tesis de grado, Caracas, Escuela de Psicologia, Universidad Central de Venezuela. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, U. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. & Chenoweth, R. (1974). Evaluating residents satisfaction in housing for low and moderate income families: a multimethod approach. In D. H. Carson, Ed., Man-Environment Interactions. Evaluations and Applications. Washington, DC. vol. 5, 285-295. Franscescato, G. et al. (1979). Residents" Satisfaction in HUD Assisted Housing: Design and Management Factors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
223
Galster, G. & Henseon, G. (1981). Residential satisfaction: compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735-758. Hershberger, R. (1975). The representation and evaluation of environments. In B. Honikman, Ed., Responding to Social Change, Environmental Design Research Association. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, vol. 6, 109-116. Lozar, C. (1978). The emergence of innovative settings as social indicators for psychological impact analysis. In S. Weidemann & J. Anderson, Eds., Environmental Design Research Association. Washington, D.C: EDRA, Inc, vol. 8, 394-399. Marans, R. W. (1979). The determinants of neighbourhood quality. Annual Housing Survey Studies, No. 3. Marans, R. & Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In A. Hawley & V. Rock, Eds., Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Halsted Press, pp. 299-352. Marans, R. & Spreckelmeyer, K. (1981). Evaluating Built Environments. A Behavioral Approach, Ann Arbor, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Marans, R. & Wellman, J. D. (1976). The Quality of Nonmetropolitan Living: Evaluations, Behavior and Expectations of Northern Michigan Residents. Ann Arbor, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Michelson, W. (1977). Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and Residential Satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Montero, M. (1977). Estudio psicosocial de la propiedad. Psicologia, III(2), 229-335. Montero, M. (1979). Relacion entre tipo de vivienda, deterioro y clase social percibida. Psicologia, VI(2-3), 125-134. Mufioz, C. & Villegas, J. (1977). Detaecion y control de conductas vandalicas en una comunidad urbana de Caracas. Psicologia, 3(12), 223-228. Nathanson, C. A., Newman, J. S., Moen, E. & Hiltabiddle, H. (1976). Moving plans among residents of a new town. Journal of The American Institute of Planners, pp. 295-302. Ostrander, E. & Conell, B. (1976). Maximizing cost-benefits of post-construction evaluation. In P. Suedfeld & J. Russell, Eds., Environmental Design Research Association. PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, vol. 7. Oxman, R. & Cartoon, N. (1986). Responsive public-housing: an alternative for low income families. Environment and Behavior, 18(2), 258-284. Sutrum, I. (1984). Satisfaccion Residencial y Tipos de Vivienda: Un Estudio Exploratorio. Tesis de grado, Caracas, Escuela de Psicologia, Universidad Central de Venezuela. Wandersman, D. (1978). User participation: a study of types of participation effects, mediators and individual differences. Environment and Behavior, 11(2), 185-208. Wandersman, A. & Moos, R. (1981). Assessing and evaluating residential environments: a sheltered living environments example. Environment and Behavior, 13(4), 481-508. Weidemann, S., Anderson, J., Butterfield, D. & D. O'Donell, P. (1982). Residents' perceptions of satisfaction and safety: a basis for change in multifamily housing. Environment and Behavior, 14(6) 695-724. Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. (1986). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In T. Altman & C. Werner, C., Eds. Opus Cit. Manuscript received 6 March 1990 Revised manuscript received 20 February 1992