Journal of Environmental Psychology (1990) 10, 313 325

RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION IN COUNCIL HOUSING*

M A R I A AMI~RIGO and JUAN I G N A C I O ARAGONI~S

Departamento de Psicologia Social, Facultad de Psicologia, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Planners' and architects' knowledge of the needs of users as well as their perceptions of the residential environment, has been commented on in many studies dealing with residential satisfaction. In this study--based on primary research in an area of council housing in Madrid--the main goal is the study of objective and subjective factors, on both physical and social levels, which influence council housing residents' satisfaction. A sample of 447 housewives responded to a questionaire, a multiple regression analysis of which showed that attachment to the neighbourhood and relationships with neighbours explained the greatest variance in residential satisfaction. Some methodological issues about the measurement of residential satisfaction are also discussed.

Introduction

Despite the considerable amount of empirical work which has been carried out on residential satisfaction, the theoretical systematization developed in this area can be considered quite limited. Holahan (1986) in his review of Environmental Psychology, fundamentally looks at empirical research data, but not theoretical models.

Generally speaking, empirical studies in this area can be divided into two distinct approaches. On the one hand, there are those studies in which residential satisfaction is considered as a criterion of residential quality, e.g. M arans and Rodgers (1975), Galster and Hesser (1981), Cutter (1982), Weidemann et al. (1982), etc. The objective of studies such as these is to establish which fac tors - -both of the residential environment and of the individual--determine the degree to which he/she is satisfied with his/her residential environment. Within this approach, the study of housing satisfaction carried out by Canter and Rees (1982) based on Gut tman 's facet theory, can be considered as offering a new way of dealing with this subject. These authors consider the residential environment as consisting of three components: neighbourhood, house and neighbours.

Other authors, such as Speare (1974) or Newman and Duncan (t979), consider residential satisfaction not as a criterion, but as a predictor of behaviour. Using this approach, a low level of residential satisfaction can predict such behaviour as moving house, or, in cases where this is not possible, the adaptat ion of the housing to new needs as they arise, e.g. carrying out home improvements (Premius, 1986). Thus, the studies

* This study was supported by lnstituto de la Vivienda de Madrid (IVIMA).

02724944/90/040313 + 13 $03.00/0 © 1990 Academic Press Limited

314 M. Am6rigo and J. 1. Aragon6s

which deal with residential mobility and its consequences use residential satisfaction as a variable predictor of such behaviour.

Although not empirically tested, a study which combines the two approaches is the model offered by Weidemann and Anderson (1985). In this study, residential satisfaction is considered as an attitude, and in their model these authors include some classic concepts of attitude theory, such as behaviour intentions, based on Fishbein and Ajzen's model (1975).

In the studies carried out on the basis of the first approach, the subject's socio- economic status has been one of the variables to which most attention has been given. The majority of studies which deal with the relationship between socioeconomic status and residential satisfaction conclude, as Haney and Knowles (1978) affirm, that there are no differences in the level of satisfaction with the residential environment between subjects of different social status, and, furthermore, that this level of satisfaction is relatively high. But what is most interesting to comment on here, are those mechanisms which lead a subject of low social status, and therefore with minimal resources, to conform or to adapt to a residential environment, in many cases impoverished, in order to reach a moderate level of satisfaction.

In this respect, there are some works which have been landmarks in the study of residential satisfaction in residents with low incomes. Hence the work of Fried and Gleicher (1961) dealt with a depressed area of Boston-- the West End; or the work of Yancey (1972) on the demolition of the well known Pruitt-lgoe urbanization in the city of Saint Louis. Both works record the importance of the environment as perceived by the resident, and how these perceptions vary as a perception of social class.

It can be argued that town-planners and designers should take into account not only the needs but also the perceptions of the resident in order to create a more harmonious residential environment, maximizing comfort with the resources at their disposal.

A first attempt to determine the predictors of residential satisfaction in a sample of housewives residing in a neighbourhood of Madrid, was carried out by Am6rigo and Aragon6s (1988).

This research was carried out in a peripheral neighbourhood of low socioeconomic status in the south of Madrid, Orcasitas. The aim of this study was to establish a comparison between predictors of residential satisfaction in a sample of residents in housing controlled by the council, and predictors obtained in similar samples in other countries, following the methodology used by Marans and Rodgers (1975), Weidemann et al. (1982), Hourihan (1984), Loo (1986), Cook (1988), etc. The results were consistent with those of the above-mentioned studies, but the low values obtained in the multiple regression coefficient--due to a minimal variation in the sample--and certain methodological problems with the instrument used (Am6rigo 1989), have led us to believe that it is important to carry out further research.

The study of Orcasitas led to the conclusion that the improvement of the instrument and its application to more heterogenous samples would probably produce statistically more worthwhile results, and consequently be more reliable as regards its contribution towards an explanation of theoretical questions, such as those related to the process of interaction between the individual and his/her residential environment.

The objectives of this study are, firstly, to test the extent to which satisfaction with the three components of residential environment, neighbourhood, house and neighbours, as distinguished by Canter and Rees (1982), explain residential satisfaction. Secondly the study also seeks to establish the objective and subiective

Satisfaction in Council Housing 315

predictors of both physical and social character, which influence the residential satisfaction of a sample of housewives residing in council housing projects.

Environmental Settings

The problem of the homogeneity of the Orcasitas sample previously commented on, made it necessary for the study to be undertaken with a more heterogenous sample within the population which lived in housing controlled by public bodies. For this reason, it was important to obtain, not only distinct geographical placement of the samples, but also to consider that the samples were subjected to different levels of procedure by the Institute of Housing of Madrid, a body which deals with housing in the Community of Madrid.

Therefore three different areas, which are controlled by different procedures of the responsible body, were considered: (1) the polygon '11' of San Blas: (Figures l a and l b), which is awaiting rehabilitation, (2) The overspill town of La Ventilla: (Figures 2a and 2b), where the inhabitants expect to move to new housing; and (3) recently allocated housing (Figures 3a and 3b) belonging to the neighbourhood of La Ventilla. Although these are areas with different types of intervention, the last two are situated in the same geographic zone.

As regards residential quality, it is worth pointing out that the quality of housing construction goes from better to poorer in the following order: Remodelado, San Blas and Ventilla, which coincides with the number of years since construction.

Subjects

The total number of the population of housewives in San Blas was 602, that of Ventilla 620, and that of Remodelado, 135. All of the housewives were living in public housing and thus the socioeconomic status can be regarded as similar. The remaining sociodemographic characteristics which were considered will be described in the results section. The total sample of housewives interviewed was 447, this being a simple random sample without replacement, i.e. the probability of a subject being selected depended on those who have already been chosen to form part of the sample (Azorin, 1970).

The number of housewives chosen was 194 in San Blas, 213 in Ventilla, and 40 in Remodelado. The sizes of these samples are large enough to be representative.

Instrument

The instrument for collecting the data in this study corresponded to a questionnaire worked out by Amerigo (1989), used in the investigation of Orcasitas. The questionnaire was in three different parts:

(1) The first part had 43 items which aimed to measure the subject's perception of her residential environment. It was based on that used by Canter and Rees (1982) and grouped into three main categories: the neighbourhood, the house, and the relationship maintained with the neighbours. These items were formulated in a quantitative and ordinal scale--a lot, quite, a little or none - -o f the particular attribute.

(2) The second part consisted of the scale type used to measure residential satisfaction. Two scales were included with the purpose of measuring the individual's

316 M. Am6rigo and J. 1. Aragon6s

FIGURE la. San Bias.

FIGURE lb. San Bias. A view of the rehabilitation process.

Satisfaction in Council Housing 317

FIGURE 2a. Ventilla.

FIGURE 2b. Ventilla, A detail of the entrance to a house.

318 M. Am6rigo and J. I. Aragon6s

FIGURES 3a and 3b. Remodelado. Two aspects of the renewal area.

level of satisfaction with her house, neighbourhood and neighbours. The first scale consisted of three questions formulated in a direct way:

(1) How satisfied are you with your neighbourhood? (2) How satisfied are you with your house? (3) How satisfied are you with your neighbours?

Nevertheless, this scale could create problems of social desirability by asking the subject directly about her level of satisfaction with her house, neighbourhood and neighbours. To try to avoid this problem a second scale was created formulating the same items in a more indirect way, following the works of Zehner (1972) and Weidemann et al. (1982):

(1) How would you define your neighbourhood as a place to live?

Satisfaction in Council Housing 319

(2) If you could make changes to your house, how many would you make? (3) If you moved neighbourhood, how many neighbours would you like to meet

in the new neighbourhood?

Both the direct and indirect scales are formulated in the same way for the 43 initial items, that is to say, in a quantitative and ordinal scale.

(3) Finally, the last part of the questionnaire was made up of a series of sociodemographic questions shown to be relevant in the literature on residential satisfaction: life cycle status, measured by means of the subject's age and that of her youngest child living at home; level of education; time spent living in the neighbourhood and house; and degree of attachment to the neighbourhood. This last variable was analysed according to three different degress, from low (Attachment 1) to high (Attachment 3) degree of attachment to the neighbourhood:

Attachment 1: The subject would like to leave the neighbourhood. Attachment 2: The subject would leave the neighbourhood if she were offered

better housing. Attachment 3: The subject would not leave the neighbourhood even if she were

offered better housing.

Some objective questions about the residential environment were also included in this third part: About relations living in the neighbourhood; housing density (ratio between the number of inhabitants and bedrooms); heating use; and consumption and home improvements.

The field work was carried out by psychology students who had been previously trained by means of a role play with the questionnaires. It began at the end of October 1988 and finished at the beginning of December of the same year.

Results

With regard to both the sociodemQgraphic characteristics and those objective characteristics of the residential environment, a profile of the samples studied can be established by means of synthesis in Table 1 enabling us to understand the results in a better way.

In every case the subject was of low socioeconomic status with a limited level of education. As regards life cycle status, the sample was of advanced age with an average age of 52. The oldest sub-sample was from Ventilla, in which the age of the youngest child living at home was greater than 21 in over 50% of the sub-sample. However, in San Blas and Remodelado, more than half had children under 15 years of age.

The housewives in the San Blas sample were clearly of a more migratory background than those of the Ventilla and Remodelado neighbourhoods; similarly the former were found to have resided a shorter period of time in their house and in the neighbourhood than the housewives in Ventilla, and consequently the attachment shown to the neighbourhood was less in the residents of San Blas.

The majority of the homes in Ventilla have no central heating, only 10.8% had installed their own heating. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that, in San Blas, although there was central heating, it was hardly used, which leads us to conclude that the system was expensive. As regards the question of whether the residential environment has been altered by means of any improvements, Table 1

320 M. Am~rigo and J. 1. Aragon,s

TABLE 1 Objective residential environment and sociodemographic characteristics of the

sample

San Blas VentiIla Remodelado (N = 194) (N = 213) (N = 40)

Age 0-30 6'8 7-5 7.5 30-39 19'8 9'0 20.0 40-49 28-6 7'5 17.5 50-59 19"8 36-8 25-0 60 or + 25"0 39-2 30"0

Education Graduate 1'6 4'7 7.5 level A level 8"3 9.4 10"0

O level 56'8 55-7 42.5 Illiterate 40"0 33"3 30.2

Origin Madrid 31-8 49.5 72-5 City 15"1 10-4 12.5 Town 53'1 40'1 15.0

Time in 1-5 5'2 6'6 12"5 neighbourhood 6-15 5.8 6.6 10.0

16-30 26.4 57"5 30"0 + 30 10.4 29.2 47-5

Time in 1-5 8.8 7.5 100.0 house 6-15 80.8 10.8 0.0

16-30 10.4 78.3 0"0 + 30 0-0 3.3 0-0

Density 0-1 39.1 49-0 35'9 1-1.5 26.0 26.9 41.0 + 1.5 34-9 24.0 23.1

Youngest 0--5 19"0 12" 1 20'0 child 6-10 17.0 5.0 20.0

11-15 28.1 10.0 16'7 16-20 17-6 17.9 23'3 21-30 12.4 42-9 13.3 +30 5.9 12.1 6"7

Relatives Yes 62.0 54.5 55"0 No 38-0 45.5 45.0

Attachment Att 1 60.2 28"8 20-0 Att 2 25'7 48.6 20'0 Att 3 14.l 22-6 60'0

Heating Yes 79-3 10-8 97-5 No 20.7 89.2 2-5

Heating always 20.6 85.7 48"7 use When cold 28-4 7.1 48-7

Occasionally 12.3 7-1 2"6 Never 38'7 0'0 0"0

Home Yes 36.8 65.6 5'0 improvements No 63-2 34-4 95"0

shows tha t in Vent i l la some form o f home i m p r o v e m e n t has been carr ied out in the ma jo r i t y o f cases. Final ly , and as regards whether the subject ' s res ident ia l env i ronment includes the presence o f relat ions, Table 1 indicates tha t this was so in over ha l f o f the cases, in all three o f the n e i g h b o u r h o o d s studied.

The s tat is t ical analysis , app l ied to see in wha t measu re the three concepts (ne ighbourhoodl house and ne ighbours) explain res ident ia l sat isfact ion, was a step-

S a t i s f a c t i o n in C o u n c i l H o u s i n g

TABLE 2 Regression of the direct and indirect scales on residential satisfaction

321

(A) Direct (B) Indirect

R 2 Standard reg. R z Standard reg. coefficient coefficient

Neighbourhood 0-381 5 0"424" Neighbourhood 0"169 0 0-345" Neighbours 0"4792 0331 a House 0.2034 -0.179 a House 0.516 5 0'205 a Neighbours 0.227 3 0"163"

" p < 0.001.

wise multiple regression analysis. The variable criteria used for the analysis, as much with one scale as with the other, was the residential satisfaction in general which the interviewees said they had, measured by the question: ' H o w satisfied are you with these things together: your house, your ne ighbourhood and your neighbours, that is to say, living where you live?': 'very', 'quite', ' somewhat ' , or 'no t at all'.

The results obtained in Table 2 show that the direct scale predicts 51.65 % residential satisfaction, while the indirect scale only predicts 22.73 %. These results confirm that in effect residential satisfaction is a function o f the ne ighbourhood, the house and the

TABLE 3 Main component

Items Components I II llI

Your house is small. -0.817 The quality of the construction of the house is good. 0.784 In general you could say that your house is comfortable. 0.764 You feel cramped in the rooms of your house. -0-759 The kitchen in your house is big enough. 0"753 Your house is equipped with a built in cupboard. 0.749 Your house is well insulated from the cold. 0'753 The equipment in the bathroom is good. 0'599 In winter in your house you feel the cold. -0 '544 Your neighbourhood is equipped with sanitory services such as

ambulances, emergency services, pharmacies, etc, 0"435 The transport in your neighbourhood allows you to get to the

centre of the town easily. 0'424

The relations which you maintain with your neighbours are good. In general the people in your neighbourhood are nice people. When you need help your neighbours are disposed to help you. Your neighbours meddle in your private life. In general the people in your neighbourhood are bad.

When you walk through your neighbourhood you are frightened of being attacked.

In your neighbourhood there is delinquency, In your neighbourhood drugs are a serious problem. Are the streets of your neighbourhood watched, e.g. by the police,

etc.

Variance explained (%) 18"97

0'806 0"732 0-700

--0-548 --0"443

9"93

0"735 0-700 0'679

- 0'450

6'77

co~linued

322 M. Am6rigo and J. I. Aragon6s

TABLE 3--contd.

Items Components IV V VI VII VII1

In respect to sanitory services such as ambulances, emergency services, chemists, etc. your neighbour- hood is equipped.

Your neighbourhood is provided with parks and gardens.

Transport in your neighbourhood allows you to get to the city centre easily.

Your neighbourhood is well lit at night. The streets in your neighbourhood are bad due to pot-

boles, worn surfaces, etc.

Your neighbourhood is polluted. There is rubbish in the streets of your neighbourhood. Your neighbourhood is in a run-down state.

The ventilation in your house is good. During the day your house is light. The view from your house is nice. There are people in the streets of your neighbourhood.

Your neighbourhood is supplied with shops. Your neighbourhood is noisy. Your neighbours are noisy.

Your neigbbours are in general bad people. In your house there are often problems with humidity The view from your house is nice.

You frequently go to the parks and gardens in your neighbourbood,

Your neighbourhood is endowed with parks and gardens.

Variance explained (%)

0"547

0"466

0"419 0-491

- O-485

0"672 0'657 0"541

0'778 0"657 0-419

0"619

0"578 0"548 0"418

5'1 4.37 3-98 3"54

0'558 0.530 0-522

0.736

0.537

3-24 3.11

neighbours. The results obtained imply that the direct scale is, as can be clearly seen, a better predictor than the indirect scale. But the figures produced by the new scale mean that this is a good means of attaining an indirect scale which measures residential satisfaction without having to use evaluations in which social desireability could be a possible obstacle in the appraisal of the results.

The main objective of this study was to obtain predictors of satisfaction, both subjective and objective, and originating both from the residential environment and from the personal characteristics of the inhabitant.

The potential subjective predictors originating from the residential environment, were determined by the 43 items which formed the first part of the questionnaire of residential satisfaction. In order to reduce these 43 items into a smaller, but equally representative series of the subject's perceived residential environment, the items were subjected to an analysis of the main components.

The result of the analysis is shown in Table 3, in which the saturations greater than 0"5 of each item in its corresponding component can be seen. Nine components

Satisfaction in Council Housing 323

TABLE 4 Results of the analysis of regression including the scores of the main components and objective and sociodemographic

variables

R 2 Standard reg. coefficient

Attachment 0.160 4 0'320" Factor II 0.231 4 0.26& Factor I 0.273 8 0"290" Factor VI 0-311 0 0"187 a Family 0.335 2 - 0.200 a Age 0.343 2 -0-131 a Period of

residence in neighbourhood 0.351 8 0"108"

Factor IX 0"355 5 -0-072 ~ Home

improvements 0-359 1 -0.077" Factor V 0'363 5 -0'061" Factor IV 0-366 3 0.069 ~ Heating 0.369 0 0'079" Factor VIII 0.370 9 0-047 a

P<0.001.

emerged which explained a 59% of the variance, and these were identified by the following labels:

(I) Basic residencial infrastructure (II) Relationship with neighbours (Ill) Safety of the town (IV) Infrastructure of the neighbourhood (V) Deterioration (VI) Connection with the outside world (VII) Urban activity and noise (VIII) Miscellaneous (IX) Open natural spaces

Once the principal components are defined it is possible to ascertain which conditions are the variables which predict the satisfaction of the subjects with their residential environment. In order to do this a step-wise multiple regression analysis of all the independent variables or predictors concerning general satisfaction with the residential environment was carried out.

Looking at the results which appear in Table 4, the principal components together with the objective attributes and the sociodemographic variables explain 37.09% of the variance in satisfaction, an acceptable quantity if it is compared with other similar investigations--already quoted previously--which obtained values of explanation approximately between 30% and 50%.

The variable which predicts mos t satisfaction is the a t t achment to the neighbourhood, followed by Component I I - - ' re la t ionship with the neighbours ' - - ; both variables are those which appear frequently in the literature on residential satisfaction in subjects of low social status (Fried & Gleicher, 1961).

324 M. Am~rigo and J. I. Aragon,s

Immediately afterwards Component I appears--Basic residential infrastructure--. This deserves to be conspicuous. It is the factor which explains the most variance in the questionnaire and is also the clearest dimension in itself. The next entrant in the regression is Component VI--Connection with the outside world. This component collects together interesting aspects of housing; referring fundamentally to the number and size of the windows and how these influence residential satisfaction. Other objective and subjective attributes influence the proportion of the variance explained, as shown in Table 4.

Component I I I - -Safety--which explains 6.77% of the variance of the questionnaire, does not appear in the analysis, which may at first seem strange, since the neighbourhoods looked at are evaluated as being high in cases of delinquency. Nevertheless, it has been observed that of all the items except one of this component, there are no significant differences in perception of insecurity of the inhabitants' surroundings, which in all cases is very high. But because there is no variation about safety, this variable does not appear as a predictor of residential satisfaction in the populations studied.

Discussion

The results lead to the conclusion that the improvement of the instrument and the heterogeneity of the sample have produced more consistent predictors than was found in the last study (Am6rigo & Aragon6s, 1988), as well as a greater percentage of variance on satisfaction. It has shown again the importance of physical residential environments: house and neighbourhood; and those of a social nature: neighbours. Nevertheless, we must in future consider ways to improve the scales which measure residential satisfaction in an indirect way, like the one used in this investigation, because part of the relationship between the three components of the direct scale and residential satisfaction in general is that both are formulated in a similar way: 'To what degree are you satisfied with... ' . These can be affected by social desirability by directly asking the subject about her level of satisfaction.

The technique of multiple regression used so frequently in this type of study of residential satisfaction is incomplete. Although it shows predictors which allow us to see the influence over variable criteria, it does not pick up certain relevant attributes in the concrete residential whole, if there is a strong homogeneity in the evaluation of a population in relation to a certain attribute. One indication of this is the absence of clearly important factors such as component III 'safety', which in spite of appearing as a basic lack in the three neighbourhoods studied does not emerge as a basic predictor of residential satisfaction, although obviously the absence of delinquency might improve the quality of life of residents of the area. The difficulties which this analysis poses suggest the necessity of resorting to other techniques of collecting data and statistics when dealing with such situations.

To conclude, it is worthwhile pointing out how curious it is in this type of sample that when their own objective situation demands a better real quality of life, it is not this-- although this is obviously important--which is the factor most relevant in explaining their level of residential satisfaction, but rather questions ofa psychosocial type such as the level of attachment to the place they live in and social interactions or networks which form between inhabitants. Perhaps a certain conformism or acceptance of their status leads this type of population to develop mechanisms which compensate for the

Satisfaction in Council Housing 325

evident lack o f objective quality in the place where they are living, to thus reach an acceptable level o f satisfaction with their residential environment.

References

Amerigo, M. & Aragones, J. I. (1988). Satisfacci6n residencial en un barrio remodelado: Predictores fisicos y sociales. Revista de Psicologia Social, 3, 61-70.

Amerigo, M. (1989). Estudio de fiabilidad de un cuestionario de satisfacci6n residencial aplicado a sujetos de bajo estatu~. H Jornadas de Psicologia Ambiental. Palma de Mallorca, 1989.

Azorin, F. (1970). Curso de muestreo y aplicaciones. Caracas, Venezuela: Facultad de Economia, Instituto de Investigaciones Econ6micas.

Canter, D. & Rees, K. (1982). A multivariate model of housing satisfaction. International Review of Applied Psychology, 31, 185-208.

Cook, C. (1988). Components of neighborhood satisfaction. Responses from urban and suburban single-parent women. Environment and Behavior, 20, 115-149.

Cutter, S. (1982). Residential satisfaction and the suburban homeowner. Urban Geography, 3, 315 327.

Fishbein, M. & Azjen, J. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.

Fried, M. & Gleieher, P. (1961). Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 27, 305-315.

Galster, G. C. & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction. Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13, 735-758.

Haney, W. G. & Knowles, E. S. (1978). Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban resident. Human Ecology, 6, 201-214.

Holahan, Ch. (1986). Environmental Psychology. Annual Review Psychology, 37, 381407, Hourihan, K. (1984). Context-Dependent models of residential satisfaction. An analysis of

housing groups in Cork, Ireland. Environment and Behaviour, 16, 369-393. Loo, C. (1986). Neighborhood satisfaction and safety. A study of a low-income ethnic area.

Environment and Behavior, 18, 109-131. Marans, R. W. & Rodgers, S. W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In

A. Hawley & V. Rock, Eds. Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspective. New York: Halstead Press.

Newman, S. J. & Duncan, G. J. (1979). Residential problems, dissatisfaction and mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, 154-166.

Premius, H. (1986). Housing as a social adaptation process. A conceptual scheme. Environment and behavior, 18, 31-52.

Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography, 11, 173-188.

Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. R., Butterfield, D. J. & O'Donell, P. M. (1982). Residents perception of satisfaction and safety. Basis for change in multifamily housing. Environment and Behavior, 14, 95-724.

Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In I. Altman & C. H. Werner, Eds., Home Environments. New York: Plenum Press.

Yancey, W. L. (1972). Architecture, interaction and social control: The case of a large-scale housing project. In J. F. Wohlwill & D. Carson, Eds., Environment and the Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Zehner, R. B. (1972). Neighborhood and community satisfaction: A report on new towns and less planned suburbs. In J. F. Wohlwill & D. Carson, Eds. Environment and the Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Manuscript received 23 April 1990 Revised manuscript received 4 July 1990