İkametgâh Memnuniyeti ve Şehir İçi İkametgâh Hareketliliği

Öz

İkametgâh memnuniyeti; coğrafya, sosyoloji, psikoloji ve planlama gibi disiplinler arasında uzun zamandır başlıca araştırma konusu olmuştur. Bu konunun gözde oluşu iki nedene dayanmaktadır: Birincisi, ikametgâh memnuniyetinin bireyin genel yaşam kalitesinin önemli bir unsuru olarak kabul edilmesidir. İkincisi, bireylerin konut ve oturdukları semte ilişkin kişisel değerlendirmelerinin, onların ikametgâh çevresine bir yanıt verme ve kamu faaliyetlerinin ana taleplerini şekillendirme yolu olmasıdır. Göçün davranışsal kavramsallaştırması içinde düşük düzeyli ikametgâh memnuniyeti, konut ve hareketlilik davranışında öncelikli kabul edilmektedir. Bireyler halen oturdukları konut ve semtten memnuniyetsizlik duyuyorlarsa; başka bir yere yerleşme konusunu düşünebilirler ve fiili olarak başka bir yere taşınabilirler. Bu nedenle, ikametgâh memnuniyetine yön veren etmenler hakkındaki bilgi, hane halkının hareketlilik karar sürecini daha iyi kavramak üzere son derece önemlidir. Birinin ikametgâh konumundan memnuniyeti, o kişinin halen oturduğu ve oturmak istediği yerler arasındaki yüksek düzeyli bir uyuma, ihtiyaç ve özlemlere göre bu yerden bir şikâyetin olmayışına işaret eder. Diğer taraftan halen oturulan konut veya semt ile gerekli koşullar arasındaki uyumsuzluk ise, memnuniyetsizliği başlatabilir. Memnuniyetsizlik yaklaşımı literatürü, halen oturulan ikametgâh çevresinin, hane halkının ürettiği baskı veya memnuniyetsizlikle etkileşim halinde olduğu ve bu memnuniyetsizliğin bazı eşiklere ulaştığında hane halkının, ikametgâhla ilgili harekete yol açabilecek bir arama sürecine başladığı üzerinde durmaktadır. Bu makale, ikametgâh memnuniyeti ve ikametgâh hareketliliği hakkındaki literatürü gözden geçirmekte ve ikametgâh hareketliliği ile ikametgâh memnuniyeti arasındaki ilişkileri anlamak üzere bağlamsal bir çerçeve sunmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İkametgâh memnuniyeti, ikametgâh hareketliliği, konut, konut çevresi, sosyal çevre

Residential satisfaction and intra-urban residential mobility

Öz

Residential satisfaction has long been a major research topic in such disciplines as geography, sociology, psychology, and planning. The reason for this topic’s popularity is twofold. First, residential satisfaction is recognized as an important component of individuals’ general quality of life. Second, individuals’ subjective evaluations of their housing and neighborhood determine the way they respond to residential environment and form the basis of demands for public action. In behavioral conceptualization of migration, low levels of residential satisfaction is postulated to precede housing and mobility behavior. If individuals feel dissatisfied with their current housing or neighborhood, they may very well consider relocating and actually move to a different unit. Knowledge about the factors that shape residential satisfaction is therefore critical for a better understanding of household mobility decision process. Satisfaction with one’s residential situation indicates the absence of complaints and a high degree of congruence between actual and desired situations. On the other hand, incongruence between their actual housing or neighborhood and needed conditions may lead to dissatisfaction. In the literature on dissatisfaction approaches, the current residential environment interacts with the household to produce stress or dissatisfaction and when this dissatisfaction reaches some threshold the household then begins a search process that may lead to a residential move. This paper examines literature about residential satisfaction and residential mobility and presents a contextual framework for understanding the relations between residential mobility and residential satisfaction

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Residential satisfaction, residential mobility, housing, residential environment, social environment

Kaynakça

1. Adams, J. S. (1984) ―The meaning of housing in America‖, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74, (4), 515-526.
2. American Housing Survey, (2008) http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
3. Amerigo, M.; Aragones, J. I. (1997) ―A theorical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction‖, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 47-57.
4. Baillie, S. T.; Peart, V. (1992) ―Determinants of housing satisfaction for older married and unmarried women in Florida‖, Housing and Society, 19, (2), 101-116.
5. Baker, E. (2003) Public housing tenant relocation: Residental mobility, satisfaction, and the development of a tenant’s spatial decision support system, The Adelaide University Departement of Geographical and Environmental Studies, Ph.D. Thesis, Adelaide, Australia.
6. Bender, A.; Din, A.; Favarger, P.; Hoesli, M.; Laakso, J. (1997) ―An analysis of perceptions concerning the environmental quality of housing in Geneva‖, Urban Studies, 34, (3), 503-514.
7. Bird, H. (1976) ―Residential mobility and preference patterns in the public sector of the housing market‖, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 1, (1), 20-33.
8. Böheim, R.; Taylor, M. (1999) ―Residential mobility, housing tenure and the labour market in Britain‖ Institute for Social and Economic Research ISER Working Paper, University of Essex.

9. Brown,L.A.; Moore, E. G. (1970) ―The Intra-urban migration process: A perspective‖, Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography, 52, (1), 1-13.
10. Braubach, M. (2007) ―Residential conditions and their impact on residential environment satisfaction and health: results of the WHO large analysis and review of European housing and health status (LARES) study‖, International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 30, (3/4), 384-403.
11. Bruin, M. J. ; Cook, C. C. (1997) ―Understanding constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income single-parent families‖ Environment and Behavior, 29, (4), 532-553.
12. Burby, R. J.; Rohe, W. M. (1989) ―Deconcentration of public housing: Effects on residents’ satisfaction with their living environment and their fear of crime‖, Urban Affairs Quaterly, 25, (1), 117-141.
13. Cho, J. ; Morris, E.W. ; Winter, M. (1990) ―Removing housing deficits in the transition from rental to ownership‖, Housing and Society 17, (2), 45-59.
14. Clark, W.A.V., Deurloo, M.C., Dieleman, F.M. (2006) ―Residential mobility and neighbourhood outcomes‖, Housing Studies, 21, (3), 323-342.
15. Clark, W.A.V.; Dieleman, F.M. (1996) ―Households and housing: choice and outcomes‖ The Housing Market içinde, Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, N.J.
16. Clark, W. A. V.; Onaka, J.L. (1983) ―Life cycle and housing adjustment as explanations of residential mobility‖, Urban Studies, 20, 47-57.
17. Cook, C. C., Bruin, M. J. ; Laux, S. (1994) ―Housing assistance and residential satisfaction among single-parent women‖, Housing and Society, 21, (2), 62-75.
18. Crull, S. R.; Bode, M. E.; Morris, E. W. (1991) ―Two tests of the housing adjustment model of residential mobility‖, Housing and Society, 18, (3), 53-64.
19. Cutter, S. (1982) ―Residential satisfaction and the suburban homeowner‖, Urban Geography 3, (4), 315–327.
20. Çalışkan, V.; Sarış, F. (2008) ―Çanakkale şehrinde üniversite ve konut ilişkisi‖, Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 20, 215-237.
21. Çubukçu, E.; Girginer-Akdeniz, S. (2006) ―Toplu konut ve kent merkezi konut yerleşimlerinde kullanıcı memnuniyeti‖, Ege Mimarlık Dergisi, 2006/2, 57, 18-21.
22. Davies, R.B.; Pickles, A.R. (1991) ―An analysis of housing careers in Cardiff‖, Environment and Planning A 23, 629-650.
23. De Jong, G. F. (1994) Choice Processes in Migration Intentions and Behaviour, International Summer School, the Netherlands Graduate School of Research in Demography, Wasenaar, The Netherlands.
24. Dökmeci, V.; Berköz, L. (2000) ―Residential-location preferences according to demographic characteristics in Istanbul‖, Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 45-55.
25. Dökmeci, V.; Berköz, L.; Levent, H.; Yürekli, H.; Çağdaş, G. (1996) ―Residential preferences in Istanbul‖, Habitat International, 20, (2), 241-251.
26. Faist, T. (2003) Uluslararası Göç ve Ulusaşırı Toplumsal Alanlar, Çev. A.Z. Gündoğan ve C. Nacar, Bağlam Yayınları, 208, İstanbul.
27. Fang, Y. (2006) ―Residential satisfaction, moving intention and moving behaviours: a study of redeveloped neighborhoods in inner Beijing", Housing Studies, 21, (5), 671-694.
28. Fernández, G. F. M; Pérez, F. R.; Abuín, J. M .R. (2003) ―Components of the residential environment and socio-demographic characteristics of the elderly‖, Journal of Housing For the Elderly,18, (1), 25-49.
29. Fried, M. (1982) ―Residential attachment: sources of residential and community satisfaction‖, Journal of Social Issues, 38, (3), 107-119.
30. Fried, M.; Gleicher, P. (1961) ―Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum‖, Journal of American Institute of Planners 27, (4), 305-315.
31. Fuller, N. (1995) ―The impact of relocation on public housing tenents: a survey of residents experiences‖, Australian Planner, 32, (3), 175-180.
32. Galster, G. (1987) ―Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: An empirical critique‖, Environment and Behavior 19, (5), 539-568.
33. Galster, G.C. ; Hesser, G. W. (1981) ―Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates‖, Environment and Behavior 13, (6), 735-758.
34. Geis, K. J.; Ross, C. E. (1998) ―A new look at urban alienation: The effect of neighbourhood disorder on perceived powerlessness‖, Social Psychology Quaterly, 6, (3), 232-246.
35. Gober, P. (1992) ―Urban housing demography‖, Progress in Human Geography 16, (2), 171-189.
36. Golledge, R.G.; Stimson, R. J. (1997) Spatial behaviour: a geographic perspective, Guilford Press, New York.
37. Green, A.E. (1997) ―A question of compromise? Case study evidence on the location and mobility strategies of dual career households‖, Regional Studies, 31, (7), 641-657.
38. Greenberg, M.R.(1999) ―Improving neighbourhood quality: A hierarchy of needs‖, Housing Policy Debate, 10, (3), 601-624.
39. Ha, M.; Weber, M.J. (1991) ―The determinants of residential environmental qualities and satisfaction: Effects of financing, housing programs and housing regulations‖, Housing and Society 18, (3), 65-76.
40. Heeman, B.; Johnsen, S.; James, H. (1998) Intra-urban Migration, Caversham Working Paper, 1998-1
41. Horner, M.W.; Mascarenhas, A. K. (2007) ―Analyzing location-based accessibility to dental services: An Ohio case study‖, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 67, (2), 113-118.
42. Hourihan, K. (1984) ―Context-dependent models of residential satisfaction: an analysis of housing groups in Cork, Ireland‖, Environment and Behaviour, 16, (3), 369-393.
43. Huang, Y.; Deng, F. (2006) ―Residential mobility in Chinese cities: A longitudinal analysis‖, Housing Studies, 21, (5), 625- 652.
44. Kellekci, Ö.L.; Berköz, L. (2006) ―Konut ve çevresel kalite memnuniyetini yükselten faktörler‖, İTÜ Dergisi/A ,5, (2), 165- 176.
45. Kendig, H. L. (1984) ―Housing careers, life cycle and residential mobility: Implications for the housing market‖, Urban Studies, 21, 271-283.
46. Kintrea, K. Clapham, D. (1986) ―Housing choice and search strategies within an administered housing system‖, Environment and Planning A, 18, 1281-1296.
47. Kocatürk, F.; Bölen, F. (2005) ―Kayseri’de konut alanı yer seçimi ve hanehalkı hareketliliği‖, İTÜ Dergisi/A, 4, (2), 17-24.
48. Kulu, H.; Milewski, N. (2007) "Family change and migration in the life course: An introduction", Demographic Research, 17, 567-590.
49. Lee, E. S. (1966) ―A theory of migration‖, Demography, 3, 47-57.
50. Lévy-Leboyer, C. (1993) ―The need for space and residential satisfaction‖, Architecture & Comportement / Architecture & Behaviour, 9, (4), 475-490.
51. Loo, C. (1986) ―Neighbourhood satisfaction and safety: a study of a low-income ethnic area‖, Environment and Behaviour, 18, (1), 109-131.
52. Lu, M. (1998) ―Analyzing migration decisionmaking: Relationship between residential satisfaction, mobility intentions, and moving behavior. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1473-1495.
53. Lu, M. (1999) ―Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. regression model‖, Growth and Change, 30, (2), 264-276.
54. Maher, C. (1994) ―Residential mobility, locational disadvantage and spatial inequality in Australian cities‖, Urban Policy and Research, 12, (3), 185-191.
55. Marın, M.C.; Altıntaş, H. (2004) ―Konut yer seçimi-ulaşım etkileşim teorileri: Kritik bir literatür incelemesi‖, Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19, (1), 73-88.
56. McAuley, W. J.; Nutty, C. L. (1982) "Residential preferences and moving behavior: A family life-cycle analysis", Journal of Marrage and the Family, 44, (2), 301-309.
57. McHugh, K.E. (1984) ―Explaining migration intentions and destination selection‖, The Professional Geographer, 36, (3), 315-325.
58. McHugh, K. E. ; Hogan, T. D. ; Happel, S.K. (1995) ―Multiple residence and cyclical migration: A life course perspective‖, The Professional Geographer, 47, (3), 251-267.
59. Mesch, G.S.; Manor, O. (1998) ―Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment‖, Environment and Behaviour, 30, (4), 504-520.
60. Michelson, W. (1977) Environmental choice human behavior and residential satisfaction, Oxford University Press, New York.
61. Mirowsky, J. ; Ross, C. E. (1996) ―Fundamental analysis in research on wellbeing: Distress and the sense of control‖, The Gerontologist, 36, (5), 584-594.
62. Morris, E.W. ; Winter, M. (1975) ―A theory of family housing adjustment‖, Journal of Marriage and the Family 37, 79-88.
63. Nathan, V. (1995) ―Residents’ satisfaction with the sites and services approach in affordable housing‖, Housing and Society 22, (3), 53-78.
64. Özcan-Kocatürk, F. (2006) ―Konut alanı yer seçimi ve hanehalkı hareketliliğine yönelik kuramsal bir inceleme‖, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21, (2), 73-95.
65. Pickles, A.R. ; Davies, R.B. (1991) ―The empirical analysis of housing careers: A review and a general statistical modelling framework. Environment and Planning A 23, 465-484.
66. Rent, G. S. ; Rent, C. S. (1978). Low-income housing: factors related to residential satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 10, 459–488.
67. Roseman, C. C. (1971) ―Migration as a spatial and temporal process‖, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 61, (3), 589-598.
68. Rossi, P. H. (1955) Why Families Move, A study in the social psychology of urban residential mobility, Free Press, Glencoe III.
69. Sabagh, G.; Van Arsdol, M. D.; Butler, E. W. (1969) ―Some deteriminants of intrametropolitan residential mobility: Conceptual considerations‖, Social Forces, 48, (1), 88-98.
70. Schwirian, K. P.; Schwirian, P.M. (1993) ―Neighboring, residential satisfaction, and psychological well-being in urban elders‖, Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 285-299.
71. Sell, R. R. (1983) ―Analyzing migration decisions: the first step-whose decisions?‖, Demography, 20, (3), 299-311.
72. Speare, A. Jr. (1974) ―Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility‖, Demography, 11, (2), 173- 188.
73. Stapleton, C. M. (1980) ―Reformulation of the family life-cycle concept: Implications for residential mobility‖, Environment and Planning A 12, 1103-1118.
74. Tognoli, J. (1987) Residential environments, Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 1, New York.
75. Türkoğlu, H. (1997) ―Resident’ssatisfaction of housing environments: The case of Istanbul, Turkey‖, Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 55-67.
76. Weidemann, S. ; Anderson, J. R. (1982) ―Residents’ perception of satisfaction and safety: A basis for change in multifamily housing‖, Environment and Behavior, 14, 695-724.
77. Weidemann, S. ; Anderson, J. R. (1985) ―A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction‖, I. Altman ve C. H. Werner, (Ed.), Home Environments içinde, New York. Plenum Press, 153–182.
78. Wolpert, J. (1966) ―Migration as an adjustment to environmental stres‖, Journal of Social Issues, 22, 91-102.