Cities 145 (2024) 104708

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Does have-want discrepancy or have-had discrepancy explain residential

satisfaction? A study of migrant workers in Wuhan, China
Yue Wang a, Donggen Wang b, *, Fenglong Wang c, Sanwei He a, Longzhuo Wang a
a
College of Public Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China
b
Department of Geography, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
c
School of Geography & The Center of Administrative Division and Spatial Governance, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, Guangdong, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research interests in residential satisfaction have persisted for decades, but there are still knowledge gaps that
Residential satisfaction need to be addressed. Numerous studies have attempted to theorize residential satisfaction and identify the
Have-want discrepancy factors that contribute to it. Residential satisfaction is often understood as being related to the difference between
Have-had discrepancy
one’s current living conditions and a reference point, which can be either one’s own aspirations or the living
Wuhan
conditions of a peer group. This study aims to investigate and compare two potential gaps that may explain
residential satisfaction: the gap between what individuals currently have and what they prefer to have (referred
to as the "have-want" gap), and the gap between what individuals currently have and what they used to have
(referred to as the "have-had" gap). The empirical study was conducted in Wuhan, China, and data was collected
from a sample of 813 respondents, the majority of whom were migrant workers, including both skilled and
unskilled laborers from various neighborhoods of the city, in July 2021. Through multivariate modeling of the
data, it was found that the "have-want" gap had a greater explanatory power for residential satisfaction compared
to the "have-had" gap. Specifically, dimensions such as living space, housing decoration, neighborhood aes­
thetics, and a noise-free neighborhood were found to significantly contribute to residential satisfaction when
considering the "have-want" gap. These findings suggest that addressing and managing people’s aspirations for
housing is crucial for promoting residential satisfaction.

1. Introduction 2011). It can also be understood as satisfaction specifically related to

one's residential domain, which directly and indirectly influences
Residential satisfaction is a long-standing and widely researched overall life satisfaction (Mouratidis, 2020a).
topic in the fields of housing and urban studies (Biswas et al., 2021; Drawing on the field of well-being research, the assessment of
Dekker et al., 2011; Fried & Gleicher, 1961; Galster & Hesser, 1981). It is housing conditions can be approached from a eudaimonic or hedonic
not only a crucial component of overall well-being and life satisfaction perspective (Schwanen & Wang, 2014). The eudaimonic approach fo­
(Fernández-Portero et al., 2017; Yan & Bao, 2018), but also a significant cuses on goal attainment and evaluates residential satisfaction based on
predictor of residential mobility (Clark & Huang, 2003; Speare, 1974). the extent to which the residential environment facilitates the realiza­
Moreover, it serves as an important indicator for assessing the effec­ tion of personal goals (Amole, 2009; Canter & Ress, 1982). On the other
tiveness of housing policies, including relocation and redevelopment hand, the hedonic perspective emphasizes subjective evaluation in terms
programs (Liu & Ma, 2021). The extensive research attention on resi­ of the pleasure experienced or the avoidance of displeasure (Schwanen
dential satisfaction is justified not only by its academic significance but & Wang, 2014). This evaluation can be cognitive, affective, or attitu­
also its relevance to policy-making. dinal in nature (Amole, 2009; Canter & Ress, 1982; Wang & Wang,
Residential satisfaction refers to an individual's overall evaluation of 2016; Weidemann & Anderson, 1985). While both approaches are valid,
their living situation and the positive emotions derived from residing in empirical studies have predominantly adopted the eudaimonic
their residential environment (Adriaanse, 2007). This includes both the approach, considering residential satisfaction as the discrepancy be­
physical dwelling and the surrounding neighborhood (Dekker et al., tween an individual's current living conditions and a reference point

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104708
Received 8 August 2022; Received in revised form 22 November 2023; Accepted 24 November 2023
Available online 1 December 2023
0264-2751/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

(Bao & Saunders, 2021; Galster, 1987; Jansen, 2014a). For example, employed. Section 4 presents the analytical results and reports the
Wang and Wang (2020) define residential satisfaction as “an individual's research findings. The final section summarizes the contributions of the
assessment of residential conditions and environment in comparison to study and discusses the policy implications.
their goals, expectations, or aspirations.” The choice of reference point is
crucial in the gap approach. Apart from one's own housing aspirations 2. Literature review
and preferences, reference points can also include the housing condi­
tions of peers and social norms. Yan and Bao (2018) distinguish between Residential satisfaction encompasses both the physical and social
internal and external reference points, with the former referring to an aspects of one's living environment and can be assessed through various
individual's housing conditions at different points in time and the latter dimensions related to housing/dwelling and the residential neighbor­
focusing on the living conditions of relevant others, such as peers or hood (Dekker et al., 2011). The study of residential satisfaction has a
neighbors. rich history, dating back to the 1960s, and has been the subject of
Housing preferences have been found to be a significant factor in extensive research encompassing theoretical, methodological, and
determining housing and residential satisfaction (Jansen, 2014a; Wu, empirical investigations (Biswas et al., 2021). A significant amount of
2008). The “have-want” discrepancy, or the gap between preferred and research has been devoted to understanding the conceptualization of
actual housing conditions, plays a crucial role in explaining residential residential satisfaction and identifying the factors that contribute to it,
satisfaction. Research suggests that people's preferences for amenities, both for the general population and specific socioeconomic groups, such
opportunities for social interactions, and safety in their living environ­ as migrant workers (Li & Wu, 2013; Wang & Wang, 2016).
ment greatly influence their overall satisfaction with their residence The gap approach, which is a conceptualization of residential satis­
(Kahana et al., 2003). Cao and Wang (2016) highlighted the impact of a faction, can be traced back to the housing deficit theory. This theory
mismatch between preferred and actual neighborhood characteristics, suggests that residential dissatisfaction is associated with a housing
such as appearance, safety, parks, and open spaces, on residential deficit, which is measured by evaluating one's actual housing in relation
satisfaction. However, Jansen (2014a) argued that a mismatched living to cultural and family norms (Morris & Winter, 1975). The housing
environment does not necessarily reduce residential satisfaction. In fact, deficit theory has been further developed into the “gap approach” by
Jansen found that residential satisfaction increased when the actual Galster (1987), where the term “deficit” is replaced by interchangeable
living space exceeded the preferred living space. terms such as ‘gap’, ‘discrepancy’, ‘dissonance’, and ‘mismatch’ (Jansen,
Recent studies have highlighted the significance of housing experi­ 2014a). In the context of the gap approach, several internal reference
ence as a crucial factor in assessing housing and residential satisfaction points have been considered to define the gap. These include residential
(Jansen, 2013; Wang & Wang, 2016). Jansen (2013) argued that in­ aspiration (Galster, 1987), residential preference (Jansen, 2014a), and
dividuals tend to appreciate their current living environment more if residential expectation (Yan & Bao, 2018). Some studies have focused
they have previous experience living in a similar housing situation, on examining the role of residential preference in residential satisfac­
compared to those who do not have such experience. Wang and Wang tion, such as the studies conducted by Jansen (2013) and Tao et al.
(2016) demonstrated that the actual experience of living in a residential (2014).
environment, including the activities conducted and time spent there,
plays a vital role in determining residential satisfaction. These studies 2.1. Studies on the determinants of residential satisfaction
indicate that, in addition to housing preference (Cao & Wang, 2016),
housing experience is an essential reference point for evaluating resi­ Personal and household socioeconomics, as well as the residential
dential satisfaction. environment, have been identified as significant predictors of residential
Furthermore, we propose that past living experience is equally satisfaction (Emami & Sadeghlou, 2020; Wang & Wang, 2016). In their
important in assessing residential satisfaction, alongside the current study, Amérigo and Aragonés (1997) categorized the predictors of res­
living environment. In other words, the discrepancy between past and idential satisfaction into four types based on two dimensions and two
present living experiences may also significantly impact residential perspectives: the physical vs social dimension and the objective vs
satisfaction. This notion is particularly relevant for recent home movers subjective perspectives. The residential environment can be evaluated at
and migrants who have a relatively fresh memory of their immediate various spatial scales, such as the dwelling, neighborhood, and com­
past home. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been a lack munity (Jansen, 2014a; Marans, 1976). However, most studies on resi­
of research examining the influence of past housing experience on dential satisfaction have primarily focused on the housing and
satisfaction and comparing the contributions of housing preference and neighborhood levels (e.g., Jansen, 2014a; Wang & Wang, 2016).
past housing experience to overall satisfaction levels. The major objective indicators of housing conditions that influence
This study aims to address the research gap by comparing the residential satisfaction are housing ownership, housing space, and
contribution of the “have-want” gap with that of the “have-had” gap to housing quality. Firstly, numerous studies have reported that housing
residential satisfaction among migrant workers. The empirical study was tenure has a strong effect on residential satisfaction (Grinstein-Weiss
conducted in Wuhan, China, and involved collecting data from a sample et al., 2011; Lu, 1999). Owner-occupiers tend to have higher residential
of 813 migrant workers in different neighborhoods of Wuhan in July satisfaction compared to renters (Elsinga & Hoekstra, 2005). Addition­
2021. The respondents were asked to report not only their current living ally, renters who transition to homeownership experience a significant
conditions but also their immediate past living conditions. Multivariate increase in their residential satisfaction (Diaz-Serrano, 2009). Secondly,
analysis models were developed to assess the contributions of the “have- a more spacious dwelling and a greater number of rooms are generally
want” and “have-had” gaps in different dimensions of housing and res­ associated with higher levels of residential satisfaction (Li & Song, 2009;
idential neighborhoods to residential satisfaction. The findings reveal Wang & Wang, 2016). The availability and condition of housing facil­
that both residential experience and preference have an impact on res­ ities, such as toilets, gas, and kitchens, also have important effects on
idential satisfaction. These research findings have implications for residential satisfaction (Li & Wu, 2013). Furthermore, housing type and
designing housing policies that cater to the housing needs of migrant the quality of housing also significantly impact residential satisfaction
workers, who have become increasingly important in large cities due to (Dekker et al., 2011; Lu, 1999).
negative population growth in China. The objective indicators that affect residential satisfaction in the
The structure of this paper is as follows. The next section provides a neighborhood include socioeconomic compositions, neighborhood
summary of related studies, identifies research gaps, and justifies the design, and accessibility to facilities. The demographic and socioeco­
need for this study. Section 3 describes the research methodology, nomic composition of the neighborhood has been found to be related to
including details about the data collection and analytical methods residential satisfaction. For instance, Galster and Hesser (1981) found

2
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

that the ethnic composition and population density of the neighborhood Some other studies, which focus on satisfaction rather than percep­
can predict residential satisfaction. However, a study by Dekker et al. tion of neighborhood attributes, provide similar evidence. For instance,
(2011) indicated that the socioeconomic composition, specifically the Savasdisara (1988) discovered that satisfaction with roads, roadside
percentage of immigrants and owner occupiers, is not significantly walkways, parking, safety, and accessibility of a neighborhood were
associated with residential satisfaction. Several studies have investi­ predictors of residential satisfaction. Türkoğlu (1997) conducted a study
gated the effects of neighborhood design and physical form on resi­ in Istanbul and found that residential satisfaction is largely determined
dential satisfaction. Lee et al. (2008) found that patch density and the by satisfaction with dwelling and neighborhood characteristics. Hur and
largest patch index, Yang (2008) found that mixed land use, and Lovejoy Morrow-Jones (2008) conducted a study in Ohio, which also revealed
et al. (2010) found that neighborhood attractiveness are important de­ that satisfaction ratings of neighborhood factors such as safety, access to
terminants of neighborhood satisfaction. The accessibility and avail­ stores, appearance, and density of housing have an impact on neigh­
ability of various facilities both within and nearby the neighborhood borhood satisfaction. Additionally, there are studies that examine both
also contribute to residential satisfaction. For example, Neal and the objective and perceived residential environment's influences on
Watling Neal (2012) found that individuals are more satisfied with their residential satisfaction. Lu (1999) suggests that perceived residential
neighborhood if the local public schools are of good quality. The loca­ conditions are more predictive of residential satisfaction than objective
tion of the neighborhood within the city or region is also a predictor of conditions.
residential satisfaction, as indicated by Lu (1999). Furthermore, the
compactness of the neighborhood in terms of density, access to public
transport, distance from the city center, and land use mix have been 2.2. Studies on the determinants of migrants' residential satisfaction
found to be positive contributors to neighborhood satisfaction, accord­
ing to Mouratidis (2017). Residential satisfaction plays a vital role in driving migration (Lu,
Residential satisfaction can vary among residents due to their 1999; Speare, 1974). Numerous studies have focused on exploring the
different perceptions of the residential environment. Objective neigh­ relationship between residential satisfaction and intra-urban residential
borhood characteristics, such as density, land use diversity, design, and mobility (Wang & Wang, 2020; Wu, 2004), as well as rural-urban
amenities, have been found to influence residential and life satisfaction migration (Barcus, 2004; Lin & Li, 2017). Additionally, researchers
through perceived neighborhood characteristics, as reported by Cao have also examined the outcomes of residential changes. For instance,
(2016). Mouratidis and Yiannakou (2022) conducted a recent study studies have investigated the residential satisfaction of individuals who
revealing that both objective neighborhood characteristics (e.g., prox­ have moved into public housing programs (Gan et al., 2016; Liu & Ma,
imity to city center) and perceived neighborhood features (e.g., 2021), resettled housing (Fang, 2006; Li & Song, 2009), and informal
perceived safety and place attachment) are determinants of neighbor­ settlements (Li & Wu, 2013).
hood satisfaction. For instance, Jorgensen et al. (2007) examined the The determinants of residential satisfaction for migrants are largely
role of woodland in the local area on residential satisfaction and found similar to those of ordinary residents. Firstly, housing conditions play a
that residents may perceive the woodland differently. While some crucial role in migrants' residential satisfaction. Studies have shown that
appreciate its aesthetic and restorative functions, others may be con­ factors such as housing space (Li et al., 2019; Li & Song, 2009), housing
cerned about the risks of physical or sexual assault or robbery. Mour­ facilities (Chen et al., 2020; Lin & Li, 2017), and housing quality (Gan
atidis (2020b) demonstrated that although physical neighborhood et al., 2016) significantly impact migrants' satisfaction with their living
characteristics, such as local amenities like green space and public arrangements. Housing ownership is also an important factor influ­
transport, are not lacking in deprived neighborhoods, the perceived encing migrants' residential satisfaction. For example, shifts in housing
neighborhood characteristics are negatively associated with neighbor­ tenure have been found to predict changes in residential satisfaction
hood deprivation. According to Amérigo and Aragonés (1997), objective after migration (Barcus, 2004; Wang & Wang, 2020). However, there is
residential environment primarily influences residential satisfaction evidence suggesting that migrant homeowners may have lower resi­
indirectly through subjective attributes. Therefore, it is argued that dential satisfaction compared to home renters (Chen et al., 2020).
subjective indicators of the residential environment have a greater Secondly, the neighborhood environment is another key determinant
explanatory power for residential satisfaction than objective indicators. of residential satisfaction. Wang and Wang (2020) found that changes in
Numerous empirical studies have examined the effects of perceived the physical design of the neighborhood, accessibility to facilities, and
residential environment, particularly neighborhood attributes, on resi­ absence of nuisances significantly contribute to changes in residential
dential satisfaction. Neal (2021) found that most of the variation in satisfaction following home relocation. Similarly, factors such as estate
neighborhood satisfaction is driven by respondents' perceptions of the management and services (Gan et al., 2016), perceived neighborhood
neighborhood. Hourihan (1984) discovered that perceived cleanliness, safety, public transit accessibility (Liu & Ma, 2021), and neighborhood
friendliness, quietness, stability, and economic composition of the socioeconomic status (Li & Song, 2009) have been shown to significantly
neighborhood are correlated with neighborhood satisfaction. Similarly, predict residential satisfaction. Commuting time has also been found to
Christensen and Carp (1987) explored the effects of various residential have a strong negative association with residential satisfaction (Chen
environmental factors on residential satisfaction using the Perceived et al., 2020). Social networks, participation in neighborhood activities,
Environmental Quality Indices (PEQIs) and found that the dwelling and social attachment within the community are additional significant
environment, related to quality of life factors such as safety, health, determinants of residential satisfaction (Li & Wu, 2013), which may
convenience, aesthetics, and privacy, is significantly correlated with explain why residents in redeveloped neighborhoods often report lower
residential satisfaction. levels of satisfaction compared to residents in non-redeveloped neigh­
Wang and Wang (2016, 2020) found that the perceived neighbor­ borhoods (Zhang & Lu, 2016).
hood environment across four dimensions (physical design, absence of Thirdly, migrants' personal characteristics can also influence their
nuisance, social interaction, and accessibility to various facilities) residential satisfaction. For instance, the number of family members in
significantly influences residential satisfaction. Yang (2008) and Dekker the destination has been found to be significantly associated with resi­
et al. (2011) suggested that individuals' perception of problems or crime dential satisfaction (Tao et al., 2014). Moreover, different generations of
in and around the neighborhood are factors that impact neighborhood migrants exhibit different patterns of residential satisfaction, with the
satisfaction. Cao and Wang (2016) documented that perceptions of new generation being more sensitive to factors such as workplace
parks and open spaces, appearance, safety, economic similarity among accessibility and availability of recreational amenities (Zeng et al.,
neighbors, and the presence of high-quality schools nearby are explan­ 2021). Personal residential experiences have also been reported to in­
atory variables for residential satisfaction. fluence the residential satisfaction of resettled tenants (Li et al., 2019).

3
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

2.3. Studies on the role of residential preference in residential satisfaction found that housing instability, measured by the number of relocations,
and experiences of renting from the private housing market, signifi­
Residential aspiration, preference, and expectation are sometimes cantly influenced the residential satisfaction of tenants. Furthermore,
used interchangeably (e.g., Jansen, 2013). However, as argued by Pre­ Wang and Wang (2020) examined changes in residential satisfaction
ece et al. (2020), these terms have distinct meanings. Housing prefer­ before and after home relocation. They found that changes in housing
ence refers to a specific desire or “want” for a particular type of housing, conditions, such as tenure and dwelling space, as well as changes in the
while housing expectation refers to the anticipated housing outcome neighborhood environment, including physical design, absence of nui­
that individuals foresee. Both housing preference and housing expecta­ sances, social interaction, and accessibility to various facilities, were
tion are connected to housing choice. On the other hand, housing significant factors in explaining the shifts in residential satisfaction. In
aspiration represents a desire to achieve housing-related goals in the essence, these findings suggest that previous residential experiences
future, which is considered ideal and independent of housing choice. have a significant impact on current residential satisfaction.
This means that individuals who are not planning to move or have These studies indicate that individuals often use their previous res­
limited housing options may still have housing aspirations. idential conditions as a reference point when assessing their satisfaction
Kahana et al. (2003) argued that, in addition to personal character­ with their current living environment. Consequently, residential history
istics and environmental features, the congruence between environ­ and past housing experiences are likely to be important factors in
mental characteristics and personal preferences, also known as ‘person- determining residential satisfaction. Furthermore, the discrepancy be­
environment fit,’ is a predictor of residential satisfaction among elderly tween one's current and previous residential conditions can serve as a
community dwellers. Tao et al. (2014) conducted a study on the effects useful benchmark for evaluating overall residential satisfaction. How­
of residential preferences on residential satisfaction for migrant workers ever, it is unfortunate that there has been limited research dedicated to
in Shenzhen. However, they reported that the effects of residential understanding the impact of residential experience on residential
preferences were not found to be significant. Jansen (2013) investigated satisfaction.
the relationship between housing preference and housing appreciation
in the Netherlands and found that residents who lived according to their 3. Data and methods
preferences had higher levels of appreciation and were more satisfied
with their housing. In a subsequent study, she examined the effects of 3.1. Sample and data
having a discrepancy between actual and preferred housing and neigh­
borhood variables on residential satisfaction. The study found that To address the research questions, it is necessary to gather data on
mismatched variables were significant predictors of residential satis­ previous residential experiences. Migrant workers are a particularly
faction, with a larger dwelling space than one preferred leading to a suitable target group for this study due to their higher likelihood of
significant increase in satisfaction (Jansen, 2014a). Cao and Wang recent home relocation, which enables them to provide more reliable
(2016) also studied the mismatch between residents' perception and information about immediate past residential experiences compared to
preference for neighborhood characteristics and its impact on residen­ other population groups. Therefore, we have selected the East Lake
tial satisfaction. They found that mismatched neighborhood character­ High-Tech Development Zone in Wuhan, a major city in central China,
istics, such as safety and appearance, significantly reduced residential for the empirical study. The study area's location is depicted in Fig. 1.
satisfaction. This specific zone was chosen because it is home to a significant number
It is argued that housing preferences, aspirations, and expectations of migrant workers, encompassing both skilled and unskilled laborers.
may change along with housing careers or through residential mobility. Established in 1988, the East Lake High-Tech Zone is one of the earliest
For example, Adu-Gyamfi et al. (2020) demonstrated that homeowner­ national high-tech zones in China. It covers an area of 518 km2 and
ship aspirations can be influenced by previous experiences as a renter. houses 42 colleges and universities, 56 national and provincial research
Drawing from theories on the endogenous formation of preferences institutes, over 300,000 professionals and technicians, and >800,000
(Bowles, 1998), Zangger (2021) argued that residential preferences are university students. The district's population structure exhibits three
shaped by previously experienced neighborhood conditions and resi­ main characteristics: a higher proportion of migrant workers compared
dential mobility. Similarly, when residents are unable to move due to to local residents, a higher level of educational attainment among its
limited capability or housing alternatives, they may adapt their housing residents compared to the city average (with 47.2 % of individuals
needs or aspirations (Amérigo & Aragonés, 1997) and consequently holding a bachelor's degree, surpassing the city average of 33.9 %), and
perceive their current housing as satisfactory. This notion is supported a younger population compared to the overall city population.
by studies conducted by Jansen (2013, 2014b), which found that resi­ The Proportion to Population Size (PPS) sampling strategy was uti­
dents often exhibit high levels of residential satisfaction by adjusting lized to select respondents from 30 residential communities in East Lake
their aspirations, appreciating their current housing situation, and High-Tech Development Zone. The study team had access to a database
reevaluating their perception of dwelling conditions. containing telephone numbers of migrant workers residing in these
communities. Sampling and data collection took place in July 2021.
2.4. The role of residential experience in residential satisfaction and Randomly selected telephone numbers from the database were con­
research gaps tacted via cold calls, and migrant workers were invited to participate in
a home interview. Our target population consisted of migrant workers
Recent research has shown that housing/residential experience plays aged 16–59 years old, who had resided in Wuhan for at least 6 months.
a crucial role in determining residential satisfaction. Jansen (2013) Full-time students were excluded from the study. The aim was to sample
argued that individuals tend to appreciate their living environment between 20 and 50 migrant workers from each residential community,
more when they actually reside there. Wang and Wang (2016) con­ depending on the size of the migrant worker population in that com­
ducted a study on the effects of usage and affective experiences in the munity. On average, approximately 25 % of the contacted respondents
residential environment, revealing that daily activities at home and in agreed to participate in our study and successfully completed the home
the neighborhood, as well as the associated levels of valence and acti­ interview. Each respondent who successfully completed the question­
vation, significantly impact residential satisfaction. Similarly, Wu et al. naire was awarded a cash coupon worth RMB 50 Yuan (approximately 7
(2020) investigated the relationship between park usage and residential US dollars). The questionnaire covered various topics including resi­
satisfaction, finding a significant link between the frequency of park dential history, current housing and residential conditions, residential
visits and overall satisfaction with the residential setting. In a study by satisfaction, residential preferences, and more. Additionally, informa­
Liu and Ma (2021) focusing on public housing renters in Beijing, it was tion on personal and household socioeconomics was collected. In total,

4
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

1023 questionnaires were collected successfully. However, 210 ques­ that the majority of respondents fall within the middle-age range.
tionnaires were deemed incomplete due to missing information on key Moreover, over 60 % of the respondents have obtained a bachelor's
variables and were consequently excluded from the analysis. As a result, degree or higher, indicating a higher level of education compared to the
a total of 813 valid questionnaires were used for this study. general population in the city. Regarding income, approximately 25.6 %
Table 1 presents the sample profile. Although there is a slightly of the respondents have a personal monthly income below 4000 Chinese
higher proportion of males compared to females, the gender distribution Yuan or approximately 592 US dollars, while 49.4 % fall between the
in the sample is relatively balanced. Given that the target population is range of 4000 and 8000 Yuan. Additionally, 25.0 % of the respondents
migrant workers between the ages of 16 and 59, it is not surprising to see have an income above 8000 Yuan. In terms of housing sources, 55.2 % of
the respondents rent their homes from the market, 24.7 % live in
Table 1 housing provided by their companies, and around 20.0 % of the sample
Sample profile. own their homes.
Variables Cases Percentage

Gender Male 470 57.8 % 3.2. Variables

Female 343 42.2 %
Age ≤25 240 29.5 %
26–45 486 59.8 % The dependent variable in this study is residential satisfaction with
46–60 87 10.7 % the current home. According to Wang and Wang (2016), residential
Education Junior secondary or lower 117 14.4 % satisfaction is evaluated across five dimensions, as shown in Table 2,
High school 194 23.9 % using a five-point Likert scale. Participants were asked to rate their level
Undergraduate or higher 502 61.8 %
Marital Status Never married 363 44.7 %
of agreement with each of the five descriptions, ranging from “strongly
Married 385 47.4 % disagree = 1” to “strongly agree = 5”. The scores for each description
Others 65 8.0 % were then summed to calculate an overall score. Table 2 presents the
Hukou Type Agricultural 587 72.2 % descriptive statistics for the overall score of residential satisfaction, as
Non-agricultural 226 27.8 %
well as the scores for each of the five descriptions. The table reveals that
Housing Sources Owned 163 20.0 %
Rent 449 55.2 % the average score for residential satisfaction is 14.982, which is close to
Staff Dormitory 201 24.7 % the midpoint of the measurement scale. This suggests that, on average,
Monthly income 4000 CNY and lower 208 25.6 % respondents hold a neutral stance regarding their current home. Among
4000–8000 CNY 402 49.4 % the five descriptions, the statement ‘I am very satisfied with my current
>8000 CNY 203 25.0 %
home’ received the highest score of 3.536, indicating a relatively high

5
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

Table 2 Table 3
Descriptive statistics of the dependent variable. Descriptive statistics of the independent variables.
Variable Mean (SD) Min Max Observations Variables Have-want Have-had Want-had
discrepancy discrepancy discrepancy
Residential satisfaction 14.982 5 25 813
(4.127) Mean(SD) Mean (SD) Mean(SD)
I am quite satisfied with my current 3.536 1 5 813
Decent housing decoration − 0.638 − 0.257 0.381(1.382)
home (0.908)
and furniture (1.304) (1.301)
Living here makes me feel at home 3.155 1 5 813
Large housing size − 0.878 − 0.244 0.635(1.385)
(1.259)
(1.350) (1.577)
I don't want to make any changes to 2.883 1 5 813
Good accessibility to city − 0.426 − 0.022 0.403(1.495)
my home. (1.241)
center (1.369) (1.513)
Living here is one of the best times 2.750 1 5 813
Good access to shops for − 0.119 0.196 (1.378) 0.316(1.327)
in my life (1.230)
daily goods (1.224)
The current home is close to my 2.657 1 5 813
Good access to public − 0.401 0.002 (1.487) 0.403(1.384)
dream home (1.204)
transport (1.399)
High quality schools nearby − 0.117 0.325 (1.591) 0.442(1.765)
(1.728)
level of agreement with this statement. On the other hand, ‘the current Close to where I work 0.047 (1.295) 0.619 (1.589) 0.572(1.595)
home is close to my dream home’ received the lowest score of 2.657, Many employment − 0.101 0.221 (1.419) 0.322(1.554)
suggesting a lower level of agreement with this particular statement. opportunities nearby (1.443)
Housing condition and residential environment were assessed using Safe neighborhood for − 0.280 0.189 (1.154) 0.470(1.235)
walking (1.131)
15 indicators, which were adapted from Lovejoy et al. (2010) and Cao
Good neighborhood − 0.247 0.076 (1.370) 0.323(1.483)
and Wang (2016). These indicators covered various aspects such as aesthetics (1.340)
housing condition, amenities and accessibility, appearance, safety, and Quiet neighborhood − 1.130 − 0.283 0.847(1.452)
neighborhood social environment. Participants were asked to rate their (1.433) (1.599)
High level of neighborhood − 0.991 0.157 (1.522) 1.149(1.490)
current and immediate past housing and neighborhood environments
upkeep (1.402)
based on each of these dimensions, using a five-point Likert scale Safe neighborhood for kids − 0.555 − 0.005 0.550(1.553)
ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Addi­ to play (1.452) (1.443)
tionally, participants were also asked to indicate their preferences for Neighbors are of similar 0.159 (1.515) − 0.095 − 0.253(1.564)
each of the 15 indicators using the same measurement scale. Using these socioeconomics and (1.419)
origins
ratings, we calculated two independent variables: the have-want
Lots of communications − 0.704 − 0.466(1.672) 0.237(1.600)
discrepancy and the have-had discrepancy for each of the 15 di­ among neighbors (1.384)
mensions of housing and neighborhood. The have-want discrepancy
represents the difference between the ratings of the current living
environment and the respondents' preferences. The have-had discrep­ analysis. The ordered response model assumes the existence of an un­
ancy is determined by comparing the ratings of the current and imme­ derlying latent continuous variable, denoted as y*, which represents the
diate past living environments. probability that an individual chooses a particular level of satisfaction.
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the independent vari­ Specifically, the model can be specified as follows:
ables related to the discrepancies between what individuals have and
y* = β1 X1 + β2 X2 + β3 X3 + ε
what they want or had in their living environments. The table indicates
that the ratings for the current and immediate past living environments where X1 represents the have-want discrepancy variables; X2 stands for
are similar, as the have-had discrepancies are positive for eight items the have-had discrepancy variables; X3 denotes the control variables
and negative for seven items. This suggests that respondents perceive including respondents' socioeconomic characteristics; and ε is the error
the current living environment to be relatively similar to the immediate term. The relationship between the latent y * and the observed y is:
past one, with no significant improvement or decline. In contrast, the
have-want discrepancies are mostly negative, indicating that the current y = j if rj− 1 < y* < rj , j = 0, 1, 2……
living environment does not align with respondents' preferences. Spe­
cifically, regarding have-had discrepancies, respondents perceived im­ where r0 < r1 < r2 < … < rj− 1 , and all are parameters to be estimated.
provements in accessibility to shopping facilities, schools, and
workplaces in their current residence compared to their previous one. 4. Modelling results and research findings
They also believed that the property management and safety of the
neighborhood community were better in their current residence. How­ To answer the research question, we developed three ordered
ever, they considered the social environment, including socioeconomic response regression models. Specifically, Model 1 includes the have-
similarity and communication among neighbors, to be worse in the want discrepancy variables; Model 2 contains the have-had discrep­
current residence compared to the previous one. Regarding have-want ancy variables; Model 3 includes both the have-want and have-had
discrepancies, most items had negative scores, except for workplace variables. In order to identify multicollinearity among the indepen­
accessibility and socioeconomic similarities among neighbors. This dent variables, we performed a variance inflation factor (VIF) test. The
means that respondents believed the current living environment had VIF values for all variables were below 5, indicating moderate correla­
better workplace accessibility and socioeconomic environment than tions between the variables and no issue of multicollinearity in Model 3.
their preference, but did not match their preference on the other 13 Additionally, all three models shared a common set of control variables.
items. Similarly, most want-had discrepancies had positive scores, The modelling results are presented in Table 4, where the coefficients
except for the item related to neighbors being of similar socioeconomics are unstandardized. The model fit and statistical significance are shown
and origins. in the third and second last rows of Table 4, respectively. Despite the low
model fit, which can be attributed to the relatively large sample size, all
3.3. Modelling approach three models are statistically significant, indicating their statistical
validity. Model 1 demonstrates better model fit than Model 2, suggesting
Since the dependent variable, residential satisfaction, is measured on that the “have-want” discrepancy variables better explain residential
an ordinal scale, the ordered logit model is chosen for the multivariate satisfaction compared to the “have-had” discrepancy variables, as both

6
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

Table 4 to their past residential experience when evaluating their current resi­
Modelling results. dential environment. This finding builds upon earlier studies by Wang
(1) (2) (3) and Wang (2016), Wu et al. (2020), and Liu and Ma (2021) that have
emphasized the importance of living experience with the current resi­
Have- Have-Had Have-Want & Have-
Want Had dence for residential satisfaction. It suggests that past residential expe­
rience also plays a significant role in explaining residential satisfaction,
Decent housing decoration 0.200*** 0.141** 0.172*** 0.084
and furniture (0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.06)
underscoring the need to consider residential history in future studies on
Large housing size 0.311*** 0.163*** 0.227*** 0.068 residential satisfaction. Secondly, the findings demonstrate that the
(0.05) (0.05) (0.07) (0.06) “have-want” discrepancy better explains residential satisfaction than the
Good accessibility to city 0.022 0.070 0.019 0.062 “have-had” discrepancy, implying that residential preference may be
center (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
more influential than residential experience in determining residential
Good access to shops for daily − 0.070 0.102* − 0.149* 0.158**
goods (0.07) (0.05) (0.08) (0.07) satisfaction. This finding aligns with previous research by Jansen (2013)
Good access to public 0.059 − 0.011 0.068 − 0.044 and Cao and Wang (2016), which have emphasized the importance of
transport (0.06) (0.05) (0.07) (0.06) residential preference in residential satisfaction. Recent studies, such as
High quality schools nearby − 0.046 − 0.080* 0.012 − 0.095* those by Jansen (2013, 2014a) and Zangger (2021), have also recog­
(0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)
Close to where I work − 0.080 − 0.060 − 0.080 − 0.001
nized that residential preference adapts to both current and past resi­
(0.05) (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) dential environments, further supporting the notion that residential
Many employment 0.035 0.026 0.037 − 0.012 preference is more significant than past residential experience in
opportunities nearby (0.05) (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) explaining residential satisfaction. Overall, these findings underscore
Safe neighborhood for − 0.042 0.021 − 0.085 0.115
the importance of considering both past residential experience and
walking (0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07)
Good neighborhood 0.122** 0.106* 0.107* 0.080 residential preference in understanding residential satisfaction.
aesthetics (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.07) Earlier studies have consistently shown that spacious dwellings
Quiet neighborhood 0.132** 0.104** 0.093 0.058 contribute to higher levels of residential satisfaction (Li & Song, 2009;
(0.05) (0.04) (0.07) (0.06) Wang & Wang, 2016). Additionally, housing facilities and qualities have
High level of neighborhood 0.086 0.021 0.140** − 0.075
upkeep (0.06) (0.05) (0.07) (0.06)
also been found to play a significant role in residential satisfaction
Safe neighborhood for kids to 0.036 − 0.059 0.069 − 0.072 (Dekker et al., 2011; Li & Wu, 2013; Lu, 1999). These findings are in line
play (0.05) (0.05) (0.06) (0.07) with the results of the present study. Table 4 provides further insights
Neighbors with similar − 0.027 − 0.042 − 0.019 − 0.018 into the relationship between housing dimensions and residential
socioeconomics and origins (0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.06)
satisfaction. Both the have-want and have-had discrepancies related to
Lots of communications 0.087 0.055 0.085 0.017
among neighbors (0.06) (0.04) (0.06) (0.05) housing space and furniture are found to be significant explanatory
Gender (ref: male) variables in both Model 1 and Model 2. Importantly, even when both the
Female 0.314** 0.356** 0.356** have-want and have-had discrepancy variables are included in Model 3,
(0.14) (0.15) (0.15) the have-want discrepancy variables remain significant. This finding
Marital status (ref: never
married)
supports the notion that residential preference holds greater importance
Married 0.275 0.112 0.313 than residential experience in determining residential satisfaction.
(0.19) (0.19) (0.20) Both discrepancies in neighborhood aesthetics, specifically the have-
Others 0.405* 0.140 0.335 want and have-had discrepancies, have a significant impact on resi­
(0.23) (0.25) (0.25)
dential satisfaction. In Model 3, the have-want variable remains signif­
Education attainment
(ref: high school or lower) icant, while the have-had variable becomes insignificant when both
Undergraduate 0.053 − 0.082 0.057 variables are included. This suggests that the have-want discrepancy is
(0.26) (0.24) (0.26) more important than the have-had discrepancy in determining resi­
Postgraduate or higher − 0.341 − 0.355 − 0.311 dential satisfaction. This finding aligns with the study by Lovejoy et al.
(0.25) (0.24) (0.25)
(2010), which emphasizes the importance of an attractive neighborhood
Income 0.136 0.006 0.080
(0.13) (0.14) (0.13) appearance in satisfaction with the neighborhood. Additionally, in
Age (ref: 25 or younger) Model 1, the have-want discrepancy on a quiet neighborhood is signif­
26–45 − 0.256 − 0.362** − 0.249 icant, whereas in Model 2, the have-had discrepancy becomes signifi­
(0.17) (0.18) (0.18)
cant. However, in Model 3, both variables lose their significance, with
46–60 − 0.142 − 0.030 − 0.099
(0.30) (0.29) (0.30) the have-had discrepancy becoming insignificant.
Housing source (ref: owned) In terms of the accessibility variables, the discrepancies between
Rent − 1.371*** − 1.036*** − 1.315*** having and wanting on all accessibility variables do not have a signifi­
(0.19) (0.19) (0.20) cant effect on residential satisfaction (Model 1). However, the discrep­
Staff dormitory − 1.692*** − 1.385*** − 1.621***
ancy between having and had on accessibility to shops for daily goods is
(0.24) (0.23) (0.24)
Number of home relocations − 0.189*** − 0.200*** − 0.202*** significant (Model 2). This significance becomes even stronger in Model
(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) 3, where the discrepancy between having and wanting on accessibility
Pseudo R2 0.054 0.043 0.061 to shops for daily goods also becomes significant. The variable repre­
Log pseudolikelihood − 2161.28 − 2185.87 − 2145.10
senting the discrepancy between having and had is significant and
N 813 813 813
positive in both Model 2 and Model 3, indicating that an improvement in
Standard errors in parentheses. accessibility to daily goods shopping increases residential satisfaction.
*
p < 0.10. This finding aligns with earlier studies, such as Wang and Wang (2016).
**
p < 0.05. Interestingly, in Model 3, the coefficient for the discrepancy between
***
p < 0.01.
having and wanting on accessibility to shops for daily goods is negative.
This suggests that having better accessibility to daily goods shopping
models share the same set of control variables. than what one wants actually reduces residential satisfaction. This
These findings address the two main research questions of this study. finding contradicts the result from Jansen (2014a) that having a
Firstly, they highlight the relevance of past residential experience in dwelling space larger than what one wants increases residential satis­
relation to residential satisfaction, indicating that individuals may refer faction (Jansen, 2014a). One possible explanation for this contradiction

7
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

is that places near daily goods shops in Chinese cities are often noisy and associated with housing consumption. Secondly, future studies should
unhygienic, which may offset the benefits of improved accessibility. aim to explain how and why certain types of reference points hold more
Regarding the impact of control variables, Table 4 demonstrates that significance than others. The reference point theory (Kahneman, 1992)
females exhibit higher levels of residential satisfaction in comparison to and the concept of ‘person-environment fit’ (Kahana et al., 2003) are
males. Additionally, when examining housing sources, it is found that theoretical frameworks that can prove helpful in this regard. For
residential satisfaction is notably lower among migrants living in rental instance, the asymmetric emotional response to losses and gains relative
and staff dormitories, as opposed to those residing in owned housing. to reference points may partially account for why the gaps related to
This finding further emphasizes the significance of housing ownership in unfulfilled desires (“have-want”) have a greater explanatory power for
relation to residents' satisfaction with their living arrangements (Wang residential satisfaction compared to the gaps related to achieved desires
& Wang, 2020). Furthermore, it is observed that an increase in the (“have-had”). Thirdly, future studies may need to develop more robust
frequency of relocations, indicative of poor residential stability, is methods for quantifying the gaps between the residential environment
associated with a decrease in migrants' residential satisfaction. under scrutiny and the reference points. While this study employed
Likert scales for ratings, which allows for convenient comparisons be­
5. Conclusion and discussion tween different types of reference points, it fails to provide information
relevant for policy interventions concerning the reference points,
This study aimed to address the following research questions: Does particularly in terms of residential preferences. Therefore, greater
residential experience have an impact on residential satisfaction? If so, attention should be given to accurately measuring residential prefer­
which is more influential: residential experience or residential prefer­ ences and assessing their effects on residential satisfaction, in order to
ence? The empirical study was conducted in Wuhan, a major city in generate policy-relevant information.
central China. The study participants consisted of migrant workers who This study offers valuable insights for addressing the housing needs
had resided in Wuhan for a minimum of six months. First-hand data was of migrant workers and provides policy directions for practical appli­
gathered from 813 migrant workers residing in one of the districts with a cations. For a long time, the floating population has been excluded from
substantial migrant worker population in Wuhan. the housing security system due to the urban-rural dual system, leading
Our study confirms that past residential experience plays a signifi­ to significant housing pressure for this group. However, in recent years,
cant role in explaining residential satisfaction. This finding builds upon the floating population has played a pivotal role in the development of
previous studies that have focused on the influence of current living large cities, particularly in the context of negative population growth in
experience on residential satisfaction (e.g., Wang & Wang, 2016; Wu China. As a result, it has become essential for local governments to
et al., 2020; Liu & Ma, 2021; etc.), by suggesting that experiences with implement talent recruitment plans that address the housing problem
previous homes also contribute to residential satisfaction. Additionally, faced by new citizens and young people. Therefore, this research on the
our study uncovers that residential preference may be even more crucial residential satisfaction of migrant workers serves as a valuable reference
than residential experience in determining residential satisfaction. This for formulating housing policies aimed at attracting the floating popu­
finding further supports previous research by Jansen (2013) and Cao lation. The study reveals that housing satisfaction is influenced by both
and Wang (2016), which emphasized the importance of residential housing experience and housing expectations, with expectations having
preference in residential satisfaction. Notably, our study stands out as a greater impact. This implies that housing policies should take into
one of the first to compare the effects of different gaps on residential account the residential preferences of migrant workers, particularly
satisfaction. This comparison may stimulate discussions on the reference regarding interior space, community aesthetics, and neighborhood
points individuals adopt when evaluating their residential satisfaction environment, including factors like shopping convenience. In addition
and shed light on the psychological processes involved in this to providing affordable rental housing, the government should also
evaluation. explore the housing supply of shared property housing for the floating
The findings of this research significantly contribute to the existing population. By considering these factors and incorporating them into
literature by highlighting the impact of residential experience on resi­ housing policies, local governments can effectively attract and accom­
dential satisfaction. Additionally, the study suggests that future research modate migrant workers, ultimately contributing to their overall satis­
on residential satisfaction should take into account individuals' resi­ faction and well-being.
dential history in order to gain a better understanding of their satisfac­ This study has several limitations. Firstly, the data were collected
tion levels. Moreover, the findings imply that policy measures aimed at during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have influenced re­
changing residential preferences can potentially enhance residential spondents' subjective evaluation of the residential environment. Sec­
satisfaction. In recent years, there have been several studies conducted ondly, the study had a relatively small proportion of respondents who
in the fields of housing and transportation, such as the research con­ owned a home (approximately 20 %), while the majority were living in
ducted by De Vos et al. (2018) and van Wee et al. (2019), which examine rental houses or company dormitories. Since house tenure has a signif­
the effectiveness of adapting attitudes and preferences through modifi­ icant impact on residential satisfaction (e.g., Grinstein-Weiss et al.,
cations in the built environment (e.g., home relocation) and behavior. 2011; Lu, 1999), future studies should focus on homeowners who have
The insights obtained from these studies can be highly relevant in recently relocated to confirm the research findings of the present study.
designing policies that promote residential satisfaction. Thirdly, it is important to note that the study is based on cross-sectional
This study has significant implications for future housing research. data, which means that the research findings only show associations and
Firstly, the findings highlight the importance for researchers to analyze not causal relationships. Fourthly, the sample used in this study is
the specific connotations of reference points when residents evaluate somewhat skewed towards migrant workers with relatively high levels
their residential satisfaction. While previous studies have commonly of education. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies verify the
utilized the “gap” approach to define residential satisfaction, which fo­ research findings using samples of migrant workers with relatively low
cuses on the disparity between the quality of the residential environ­ levels of education. Lastly, future studies should consider collecting data
ment and that of the reference points, many of these studies have from respondents living in different areas or districts within the same
primarily concentrated on the impact of the residential environment city in order to control for the possible influence of residential location
while overlooking the influence of the reference points. This study offers and the built environment on residential satisfaction.
preliminary yet insightful findings indicating that the reference points
do play a role in residential satisfaction. Subsequent studies can expand Funding
on these findings by examining the effects of different reference points,
such as the quality of residence within peer groups or the social norms This work was supported by a General Research Fund (GRF) grant

8
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

from the Hong Kong Research Grant Council (HKBU12609621), a grant order to English language editing. After using this tool/service, the
from National Natural Science Foundation of China (42071207), and a author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full
Hong Kong Baptist University Initiation Grant for Faculty Niche responsibility for the content of the publication.
Research Areas (RC-FNRA-IG/19-20/SOSC/02).
Declaration of competing interest
CRediT authorship contribution statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Yue Wang: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Validation. Donggen Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Super­ the work reported in this paper.
vision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Fenglong
Wang: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. Sanwei He: Data Data availability
curation, Investigation, Resources. Longzhuo Wang: Data curation,
Formal analysis, Validation. Data will be made available on request.

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the

writing process

During the preparation of this work the author(s) used ChatGPT in

Appendix A

Please rate your preferred, current, immediate past residential contion based on your current household economic level:
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = So-so; 4 = Agree; 5 = Fully Agree

Description Current residence Former residence Prefered residence

Decent housing decoration and furniture 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Large housing size 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Good accessibility to city center 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Good access to shops for daily goods 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Good access to public transport 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
High quality schools nearby 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Close to where I work 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Many employment opportunities nearby 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Safe neighborhood for walking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Good neighborhood aesthetics 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Quiet neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
High level of neighborhood upkeep 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Safe neighborhood for kids to play 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Neighbors are of similar socioeconomics and origins 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Lots of communications among neighbors 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

References Cao, X., & Wang, D. (2016). Environmental correlates of residential satisfaction: An
exploration of mismatched neighborhood characteristics in the Twin Cities.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 150, 26–35.
Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring residential satisfaction: A residential
Chen, Y., Dang, Y., & Dong, G. (2020). An investigation of migrants’ residential
environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
satisfaction in Beijing. Urban Studies, 57, 563–582.
22(3), 287–304.
Christensen, D. L., & Carp, F. M. (1987). PEQI-based environmental predictors of the
Adu-Gyamfi, A., Poku-Boansi, M., & Cobbinah, P. B. (2020). Homeownership aspirations:
residential satisfaction of older women. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7(1),
Drawing on the experiences of renters and landlords in a deregulated private rental
45–64.
sector. International Journal of Housing Policy, 20(3), 417–446.
Clark, W. A. V., & Huang, Y. Q. (2003). The life course and residential mobility in British
Amérigo, M. A., & Aragonés, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to
housing markets. Environment and Planning A, 35(2), 323–339.
the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1),
De Vos, J., Ettema, D., & Witlox, F. (2018). Changing travel behaviour and attitudes
47–57.
following a residential relocation. Journal of Transport Geography, 73, 131–147.
Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students' housing. Journal of Environmental
Dekker, K., de Vos, S., Musterd, S., & van Kempen, R. (2011). Residential satisfaction in
Psychology, 29, 76–85.
Housing Estates in European cities: A multi-level research approach. Housing Studies,
Bao, H. X. H., & Saunders, R. (2021). Reference dependence in the UK housing market. In
26(04), 479–499.
Housing studies (pp. 1–29).
Diaz-Serrano, L. (2009). Disentangling the housing satisfaction puzzle: Does
Barcus, H. (2004). Urban-rural migration in the USA: An analysis of residential
homeownership really matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 745–755.
satisfaction. Regional Studies, 38, 643–657.
Elsinga, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of
Biswas, B., Sultana, Z., Priovashini, C., Ahsan, M. N., & Mallick, B. (2021). The
Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 401–424.
emergence of residential satisfaction studies in social research: A bibliometric
Emami, A., & Sadeghlou, S. (2020). Residential satisfaction: A narrative literature review
analysis. Habitat International, 109, Article 102336.
towards identification of core determinants and indicators. Housing, Theory and
Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous preferences: The cultural consequences of markets and
Society, 1–29.
other economic institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 75–111.
Fang, Y. (2006). Residential satisfaction, moving intention and moving behaviours: A
Canter, D., & Ress, K. A. (1982). Multivariate model of housing satisfaction. International
study of redeveloped neighbourhoods in Inner-City Beijing. Housing Studies, 21,
Review of Applied Psychology, 32(1982), 185–208.
671–694.
Cao, X. (2016). How does neighborhood design affect life satisfaction? Evidence from
Fernández-Portero, C., Alarcón, D., & Padur, A. B. (2017). Dwelling conditions and life
Twin Cities. Travel Behavior and Society, 5, 68–76.
satisfaction of older people through residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 49, 1–7.

9
Y. Wang et al. Cities 145 (2024) 104708

Fried, M., & Gleicher, P. (1961). Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban Mouratidis, K. (2017). Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled
slum. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 27(4), 305–315. neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satisfaction. Urban Studies, 55(11), 2408–2430.
Galster, G. C. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: An empirical Mouratidis, K. (2020a). Commute satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction, and housing
critique. Environment and Behavior, 19(5), 539–568. satisfaction as predictors of subjective well-being and indicators of urban livability.
Galster, G. C., & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and Travel Behaviour and Society, 21, 265–278.
contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735–758. Mouratidis, K. (2020b). Neighborhood characteristics, neighborhood satisfaction, and
Gan, X., Zuo, J., Ye, K., Li, D., Chang, R., & Zillante, G. (2016). Are migrant workers well-being: The links with neighborhood deprivation. Land Use Policy, 99, Article
satisfied with public rental housing? A study in Chongqing, China. Habitat 104886.
International, 56, 96–102. Mouratidis, K., & Yiannakou, A. (2022). What makes cities livable? Determinants of
Grinstein-Weiss, M., Yeo, Y., Anacker, K., Van Zandt, S., Freeze, E. B., & Quercia, R. G. neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood happiness in different contexts. Land
(2011). Homeownership and neighborhood satisfaction among low- and moderate- Use Policy, 112, Article 105855.
income households. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(3), 247–265. Neal, Z. (2021). Does the neighbourhood matter for neighbourhood satisfaction? A meta-
Hourihan, K. (1984). Residential satisfaction, neighbourhood attributes, and personal analysis. Urban Studies, 58(9), 1775–1791.
characteristics: An exploratory path analysis in Cork, Ireland. Environment and Neal, Z. P., & Watling Neal, J. (2012). The public school as a public good: Direct and
Planning A, 16(4), 425–436. indirect pathways to community satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(5),
Hur, M., & Morrow-Jones, H. (2008). Factors that influence residents’ satisfaction with 469–486.
neighborhoods. Environment and Behavior, 40(5), 619–635. Preece, J., Crawford, J., McKee, K., Flint, J., & Robinson, D. (2020). Understanding
Jansen, S. J. T. (2013). Why is housing always satisfactory? A study into the impact of changing housing aspirations: A review of the evidence. Housing Studies, 35(1),
preference and experience on housing appreciation. Social Indicators Research, 113 87–106.
(3), 785–805. Savasdisara, T. (1988). Resident's satisfaction and neighbourhood characteristics in
Jansen, S. J. T. (2014a). The impact of the have–want discrepancy on residential Japanese urban communities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(3–4), 201–210.
satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 26–38. Schwanen, T., & Wang, D. (2014). Well-being, context, and everyday activities in space
Jansen, S. J. T. (2014b). Why is housing always satisfactory? A study into the impact of and time. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 833–851.
cognitive restructuring and future perspectives on housing appreciation. Social Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential
Indicators Research, 116(2), 353–371. mobility. Demography, 11(2), 173–188.
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., & Dunnett, N. (2007). Woodland as a setting for housing- Tao, L., Wong, F. K. W., & Hui, E. C. M. (2014). Residential satisfaction of migrant
appreciation and fear and the contribution to residential satisfaction and place workers in China: A case study of Shenzhen. Habitat International, 42(Supplement C),
identity in Warrington New Town, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3–4), 193–202.
273–287. Türkoğlu, H. D. (1997). Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: The case of
Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39(1), 55–67.
person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders. Environment van Wee, B., De Vos, J., & Maat, K. (2019). Impacts of the built environment and travel
and Behavior, 35(3), 434–453. behaviour on attitudes: Theories underpinning the reverse causality hypothesis.
Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Journal of Transport Geography, 80, Article 102540.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(2), 296–312. Wang, D., & Wang, F. (2016). Contributions of the usage and affective experience of the
Lee, S.-W., Ellis, C. D., Kweon, B.-S., & Hong, S.-K. (2008). Relationship between residential environment to residential satisfaction. Housing Studies, 31(1), 42–60.
landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape and Wang, F., & Wang, D. (2020). Changes in residential satisfaction after home relocation: A
Urban Planning, 85(1), 60–70. longitudinal study in Beijing, China. Urban Studies, 57(3), 583–601.
Li, J., Li, D., Ning, X., Sun, J., & Du, H. (2019). Residential satisfaction among resettled Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. A. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential
tenants in public rental housing in Wuhan, China. Journal of Housing and the Built satisfaction. In I. Atman, & R. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 154–182).
Environment, 34, 1125–1148. London (1985): Plenum Press.
Li, S.-M., & Song, Y.-L. (2009). Redevelopment, displacement, housing conditions, and Wu, C.-H. (2008). The role of perceived discrepancy in satisfaction evaluation. Social
residential satisfaction: A study of Shanghai. Environment and Planning A, 41(5), Indicators Research, 88, 423–436.
1090–1108. Wu, F. (2004). Residential relocation under market-oriented redevelopment: The process
Li, Z., & Wu, F. (2013). Residential satisfaction in China’s informal settlements: A case and outcomes in urban China. Geoforum, 35, 453–470.
study of Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Urban Geography, 34(7), 923–949. Wu, W., Dong, G., Sun, Y., & Yun, Y. (2020). Contextualized effects of park access and
Lin, S., & Li, Z. (2017). Residential satisfaction of migrants in Wenzhou, an ‘ordinary city’ usage on residential satisfaction: A spatial approach. Land Use Policy, 94, Article
of China. Habitat International, 66, 76–85. 104532.
Liu, Z., & Ma, L. (2021). Residential experiences and satisfaction of public housing Yan, J., & Bao, H. X. H. (2018). A prospect theory-based analysis of housing satisfaction
renters in Beijing, China: A before-after relocation assessment. Cities, 113, Article with relocations: Field evidence from China. Cities, 83, 193–202.
103148. Yang, Y. (2008). A tale of two cities: Physical form and neighborhood satisfaction in
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban metropolitan Portland and Charlotte. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74
versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in (3), 307–323.
eight California neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(1), 37–48. Zangger, C. (2021). The contexts of residential preferences. An experimental
Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. regression examination of contextual influences in housing decisions. Housing Studies, 1-23.
models. Growth and Change, 30(2), 264–287. Zeng, H., Ke, Q., & Yu, X. (2021). Investigating the factors affecting the residential
Marans, R. W. (1976). Perceived quality of residential environments. In K. H. Craik, & satisfaction of new-generation migrants: A case study of Hangzhou in China.
E. H. Zube (Eds.), Perceiving environmental quality: Research and applications (pp. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 25, 16–30.
123–147). Boston, MA: Springer US. Zhang, C., & Lu, B. (2016). Residential satisfaction in traditional and redeveloped inner
Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of city neighborhood: A tale of two neighborhoods in Beijing. Travel Behaviour and
Marriage and Family, 37(1), 79–88. Society, 5, 23–36.

10