ALVARO MASTER ThesisBook PDF

I.
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
A. Introduction
The last few decades, urban housing like the medium-rise building
housing (MRB) generates a lot of interests among various sectors of the society.
Upscale housing firms like Ayala, The SM group, DMCI, PHINMA and among
others show interest in this housing typology. Due to the need of increasing
housing density in Metro Manila and in suburbs cities and towns, MRB housing
is apparently becoming widely considered since there is an increasing demand
for new housing in all economic classes. Currently, developers from private,
public including non-governmental organization were geared towards the
benefits derived from constructing MRB housing development. In Metro Manila,
there is quite a number of MRB housing built in the recent years. The concept of
vertical living in a form of MRB housing are manifested in condominiums or
apartment buildings for the upscale market and walk-up tenements for the
lower and middle class. Reading from a Real Estate News1 editorial reported,
that currently, more developers are switching from building high rise to
medium rise structure for condominiums due to economic reasons in
construction costs. Lower selling prices that resulted to lower construction costs
sell more affordable units. Thus, MRB condominiums fill in the gap in the
marketplace between subdivision type and high rise housing. With complete
1
http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view/20080920-161742/Medium-rise-
buildings-lessen-construction-costs-says-expert
1 Inside Out of Vertical Living: Dimensions of Residents’ Perception and Satisfaction of Living in MRB Housing
Lemuel Jim P. Alvaro, M. Architecture, College of Architecture, University of the Philippines Diliman.2011
simple luxury and all modern day conveniences that the residents need, MRB
housing is far better in terms of practicality and complementary to the
resident’s lifestyle.
A.1 The History of MRB in the Philippines
The concept of medium rise and high-rise housing has long been
adopted by the government as early as 1953 according to NHA reckoning. It all
started with the construction of Bagong Barangay Housing Project (BBHP) or
Project 5 in Pandacan, Manila , built for informal settlers and other low-income
families. The project was consisted of 17 three storey buildings with a total of
483 residential units. Few years later, followed all other MRB housing projects
in Metro Manila, including the flagship projects of the Bagong Lipunan Sites and
Services of the Marcos administration (BLISS) to the current Arroyo and Aquino
Administration.
In 2001, the Housing and Urban Development Coordination Council
(HUDCC) and National Housing Authority (NHA) had an exhibit about the MRB
Housing Program, with the theme ''Building Homes, Building Lives.'' The exhibit
showed images of the finished Mass Housing Projects, it focused on MRB
Housing program that had been waged around Metro Manila as sponsored by
the government in collaboration with private developers. This program was
dedicated to make housing in crowded areas of Metro Manila.
From a presentation paper during the fifth Asian Forum in January 2006,
Mr. Uy said, “Medium Rise Housing in the Philippines gained support in the
1970s under the Marcos Administration. The then, Ministry of Human
Settlements started the construction of Bagong Lipunan Sites and Services
(BLISS units) or medium-rise housing which aimed to address the housing needs
of low-salaried employees in urban areas. These BLISS medium-rise
developments were mostly located within Metro Manila. Medium housing had
been seen as a way to address the growing population in urban centers by
providing cheap but decent housing. Building vertically was perceived as a way
to spread out the more expensive cost of land in these urban centers, compared
to land prices in the provinces.”2
2
, Uy,Willie J, National President of Subdivision and Housing Development Association
(SHDA).Tokyo,Japan.2006
To date, the government has sponsored 22 MRB Housing projects. Here
is a list of completed projects namely; 1.) Bagong Barangay Housing Project or
Project 5, Pandacan Manila; 2.) Del Pan Tenement or Tondo Forshore, Tondo, Manila;
3.) Philippine North Avenue Apartment, North Avenue Subd. Q.C.; 4.) Ang Bagong
Lipunan Condominium, Taguig, Metro Manila; 5.) Ang Bagong Lipunan Condominium,
Pag-asa, Road, 3, Q.C.; 6.) Teacher Bliss Condominium I, MIA-Pasay City; 7.) Teachers
Bliss Condominium II, Balintawak, Q.C.; 8.) Hulo Silva Medium-Rise Housing,
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila; 9.) Vitas Medium-Rise House, Tondo, Manila; 10.) Domus
Mariae Medium-Rise Housing, Malate, Manila; 11.) Maharlika Condominuim I, Upper
Bicutan, Taguig Metro Manila; 12.) Malaria 1 MRH Project, Caloocan City, M.M.; 13.)
Malaria 2 MRH Project, Malaria, Caloocan City, M.M.; 14.) Malaria 3 MRH Project,
Malaria, Caloocan City, M.M.; 15.) Mandaluyong Site 1 MRH Project, Mandaluyong City,
M.M; 16.) Dagupan Extension MRH, Dagupan Ext., Tondo,MM; 17.)Alay Pabahay Phase
2, Malabon,MM; 18.) Camarin MRH Project, Camarin, Cal.,MM; 19.)Karangalan Site 2
MRH Project, Karangalan, Cainta; 20.) PRTC Phase 2, Kalayaan Avenue, Pasay,MM; 21.)
Maharlika Condo 2 project, Maharlika Village, Taguig, MM; 22.) Muntilupa Phase 2,
Magsaysay Rd., Karangalan Village, Pasig,MM.3
This study had looked into the residents’ perspective of living in MRB
housing in Taguig City and Quezon City areas. The author gained an
understanding from residents’ MRB utilization by conducting interviews using
questionnaire and was able to gather information that would answer the
overall perception in terms of their feeling of satisfaction of living in MRB
3
NHA Primer.Information Division, September 2001.
Housing. This housing design approach had been presented as an alternative to
conventional lot residential development that sprawls everywhere. MRB
housing, a typology of housing emphasizes the quality as well as the quantity of
land preservation and good building construction economics. The format offers
a means for local government units to accommodate residential growth while
preserving natural areas, rural features and wildlife habitat that are typically
altered as sprawl spreads from urban centers. Regardless of what Filipinos’
perception on living in MRB housing, this concept in housing development is
here to stay.
This study would provide useful feedback to those developers and
planners seeking to implement this building type philosophy. Furthermore,
residents’ understanding of this concept may be the key to their active
involvement in preserving and managing effectively their homeowner
association and advocating this approach to those who live generally in house
and lot development thereby resulting to urban sprawl.
The author has chosen the topic because of his inclination in MRB
housing that started when he had a short course in Shelter Design and
Development at Lund University in Sweden and had been impressed of what he
learned about MRB housing system in Sweden and Copenhagen during their
study tour.
The concept of housing development is timely in the country’s housing
industry. The general masses of our Filipino people who dwell in urban centers
may learn to accept the reality of vertical living and paving the way for our
provincial cities to learn and adopt this housing development concept, so, to
minimize the impact of unmanaged urban physical growth and sprawl.
A.2 Profile of Study Areas
Different sectors had carried out their MRB Housing projects in various
locations in Metro Manila. This study had been conducted from the following
locations that were economically accessible and appropriately fit to the
required criteria. For Private and Public initiated MRBs’, locations were selected
in Quezon City and NGO initiated which can be found only in Taguig City.
Figure 1 Map of Metro Manila
Table 1 Comparative Table of Different MRB Housing Development
MRB Private Public NGO
Sectors (NHA) (HFHI,GK,
CHF)
MRB Housing in ? 22 2
MM (to date)
Location Quezon City Quezon City Taguig
City
MRB study Sunny Villas Teachers BLISS Family
area Condo ll Townho
mes
Population 116/Villas 92 96
No. of 9 1 8
Bldg/s
Ave. Floor 30.31 sq.m 52-60 sq.m 26.1 sq.m

Area
Price per Php Php 74,480- Php
Unit 450,000- 450,000.00? 180,000.
(outright 1,000,000.0 00?
sale) 0?
Number of 5 4 3
Storey
Monthly 500.00 50.00 100.00
Dues
PRIVATE: Sunny Villas, East Fairview, Quezon City
“Sunny Villa is located at Pearl St., East Fairview adjacent to Eco Park
along Commonwealth Avenue which is part of northern Quezon City, by walking
distance, going west is the FEU medical school and hospital, National College of
Business and Arts, Fairview Center Mall and nearby Montessori schools, and to
the north is a five minute short trip to SM Fairview and south is Ever Gotesco
Mall passing thru Sandigan Bayan and Batasan Pambansa, a residential
community of high quality and affordable Mediterranean-inspired condominium
units. It features a 5-storeybuilding that has been designed to provide a
condominium lifestyle of convenience, comfort, security, peace of mind and
privacy within Metro Manila.”4
Commonwealth Avenue
Figure 2 Map of Barangay Fairview in Quezon City
Built in 2004, they have an organized Homeowners Association that runs
all administrative and maintenance support to their 814 registered tenant
members. The whole project was in collaboration with a Phinma Properties a
private developer and the housing section of Quezon City local government.
They have their regular board and membership meeting which is presided by
their current HOA President who has been serving for 4 years.
4
http://www.realestatephilippines.info/condominiums/sunny-villas-quezon-city.html
One of the programs the HOA initiated like re-painting is very evident
in its building façades. Only 74% members are paying their monthly dues of Php
500.00. The management has its standby maintenance and security crew that
response to members’ needs. The unit average floor area is 30.31 sq.m.
PUBLIC: Teachers’ Bliss Condo, Balonbato, Balintawak, Quezon City
The Teachers BLISS is a public housing project initiated by the National
Housing Authority (NHA) in 2000. It has 86 registered tenant members with 90%
members paying their monthly dues of Php 50.00. Their Home Owner
Association was organized by the housing agency when it started to full
occupancy. The current HOA president has served for 8 years in a row now.
They have their monthly officers meeting and a regular once a year general
membership meeting. One of their board priorities is to make their area secured
from bad elements since the vicinity of their place is located in a very congested
and thickly populated neighborhood. The average floor area is 40 sq.m which is
higher than the private and NGO initiated MRB housing development. The
author was told that the strength of their MRB homeowners is attributed to
their close and solid relationship as community.
Quirino Highway
Figure 3 Map of Barangay Balonbato in Quezon City
NGO: Family Town Homes, FTI, Taguig City
In September of 2006, the Taguig City Government began addressing the
problem by launching the Family Townhomes Project, which aimed to provide
decent but affordable shelter to thousands of homeless residents.
Building the townhomes, even at the lowest cost possible, would require
resources that are beyond the city government’s capacity. Fortunately, three
non-government organizations (NGOs)– Gawad Kalinga (GK), Habitat for
Humanity, and the Coalition for the Homeless Foundation (CHF)–share Taguig
City’s vision and committed to extend their assistance, experience and expertise
in building homes for the underprivileged. Hence, the city government
shouldered site development costs, while GK, Habitat and CHF extended
housing subsidies, which were crucial in jumpstarting the housing project.
FTI (Food Terminal, Inc.
Figure 4 Map of FTI in Taguig City
In implementing the project, the city government introduced the usufruct
arrangement. This means that the land will continue to be owned by the
government but the beneficiaries of the housing units will be issued separate
Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs). From the start, it was made clear that
the awarding of the property titles to beneficiaries would not be for free. The
housing beneficiaries were required to amortize their newly-acquired property
through financing with Pag-IBIG and the Social Housing Finance Corporation. As
project originators, the city government and its partners believe that
beneficiaries would only have the strong sense of ownership, if they themselves
contribute to the project.
The housing units are quite spacious and well built and amortization is
affordable. Some houses can be amortized for as low as P500 per month for 30
years; others have a monthly amortization of as much as P1,800. This meant
that recipients are carefully evaluated and selected by a Family Selection
Committee, composed of the Taguig Local Housing Office and the respective
NGO partner. Those who belong to the underprivileged class that do not have
permanent homes but have the earning capacity are qualified awardees.
In lieu of the down payment in a normal housing loan transaction, the
beneficiaries provide “sweat equity.” Qualified beneficiaries are required to
render 1,000 hours of volunteer work building houses. With the sweat equity,
beneficiaries are not only recipients, but also participants in their own housing
project.
In order to house more beneficiaries in a single land title, the Taguig City
Government designed Medium-Rise Buildings or condominium-type housing
units. Each three story MRB is equipped with 12 housing units and uses Habitat
for Humanity’s award-winning housing innovation: the concrete interlocking
blocks (CIB) and steel frame technologies.
Last June 2008, the Family Townhomes in Western Bicutan was
completed, benefiting 96 families , some of which are city employees, teachers,
PNP and military personnel, and qualified informal settlers. This project with
Habitat for Humanity involved the development of a 6,000-sq. m. property at
the FTI Compound, where eight MRBs were constructed or a total of 96 units.
Good for a small Filipino family, each unit has a floor area of 26.10 square
meters, has height allowance for an optional loft, and has provision for a shared
service area for each floor. 5
B. The Research Problem
B.1 Statement of the Problem
MRB housing has similar typologies initiated by private, public and NGO
sectors. It takes the forms of BLISS Condo or Walk up Tenement by the
government sector through NHA, PHINMA housing projects on the private
developers’ side, and Habitat for Humanity for the NGO group. They normally
structured from 3-5 storey in heights and has continue to sprout anywhere in
urban areas. However, there has not been an integrated study done on their
level of satisfaction and perception on functionality among MRB housing
5
http://www.galingpook.org/main/component/content/article/134-taguig-city
residents coming from these different sectors except “for their own survey done
by Habitat for Humanity Philippines(HFHP) to their home partners”6.
Level of satisfaction may be measured from the dimensions of
acceptability and functionality may be understood by also looking at the
dimensions of adequacy, utilization and adaptability.
The purpose of this study is to look into the perception and satisfaction
characteristics of residents’ use of MRB housing among Private, Public and NGO
MRB housing developments. It aims to answer the question of how residents of
various MRB developments (Private, Public and NGO) compare in terms of the
dimensions of perception and satisfaction characterizing their medium-rise
living.
B.2.Sub-Problems
This research aims to answer the following sub-problems
B.2.1 How do residents of MRB housing develop by private, public and NGO
sectors perceive the use of their housing in terms of the following factors?
 Physical features of living areas inside the unit (includes living, dining,
kitchen and etc);
 common areas such as hallway, stairs, laundry areas, storage;
6
http://www.habitat.org.ph/site/index.php?option=banner&mode=view&id=5
 Outside the building amenities such as facilities for socio-economic,
religious, educational and recreational activities manifested in green
yard, parking areas, perimeter fencing and multi-function areas.
B.2.2How do the residents describe their feeling of satisfaction in the use of
MRB housing developed by private, public and NGO related to the following
aspects?
 Safety ,security and sense of community
 Comfort and privacy,
 Affordability and proximity to work
 Homeowners association management
(i.e. maintenance mechanisms), and
 Aesthetic quality and prestige (image and taste)
B.2.3. How do residents living in private, public and NGO MRB developments compare in
terms of the dimensions of their perception and satisfaction?
C. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Study Diagram
Figure 5
The goal of this research is to determine residents’ perception and
satisfaction of living in MRB housing. Better understanding of this concept
would somehow improve the living condition in MRB housing design and
implementation.
Housing satisfaction in terms of acceptability of building aspect that
would consider safety from natural disaster, security from burglars and other
bad elements, sense of community, comfortable living through good thermal
and indoor quality, privacy from noise, affordability of monthly amortization

and rental fees, building and surrounding maintenance, quality (image and
taste) and prestige, proximity from workplace and services from homeowners
association management.
Perception on functionality focuses on adequacy, utilization and
adaptability. These include living unit features, common areas such as hallways,
stairways, laundry areas, storage and outside amenities like gates, green space
yard for gardening, vehicle parking, perimeter fence and multi-function hall for
meetings and activities.
Table 2 Measuring Factors on Satisfaction and Perception
Satisfaction Perception on Functionality

Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4
Acceptability on Adequacy in Utilization of Adaptability of
Social, Economic, the Residential Common Areas Public Amenities
Emotional and Unit Features inside the outside the
Environmental Building building.
Safety Living Spaces Hallways Entrance/Exit Gates
Security (all features Stairs Green Yard
Sense of inside the Laundry Parking
Community residential unit) Storage Areas Fence
Monthly Fees Multi-function Hall
Maintenance
Quality
Prestige
Proximity to Work
Comfort
Privacy
HOA Services
Adaptation from Mohit and Nazyddah “The Housing Satisfaction Bundle”
Perspectives on Assessment of Housing Satisfaction7
Housing satisfaction refers to the degree of contentment experienced
by an individual or a family member with regard to the current housing
situation. It is basically a non-economic and normative quality evaluation
approach which is used to assess the quality of housing units and services,
based on the identification of a ‘minimum standard or intervention points’
beyond which something needs to be done to avert further deterioration of
housing (Ogu, 2002, p.39). Residents’ satisfaction with housing has been a guide
for many planners, designers, developers and policy makers who attempt to
provide housing to a variety of people (Ukoha & Beamish, 1997, p.446). It has
been used as - (a) a key predictor of an individual’s perceptions of general
“quality of life”, (b) an indicator of incipient residential mobility and hence has
altered housing demands and affected neighbourhood change, (c) an ad hoc
evaluative measure for judging the success of developments constructed by
private and public sectors, and (d) an assessment tool of residents’ perceptions
of inadequacies in their current housing environment in order to improve the
status quo (Djebarni and Al- Abed, 2000).
Theoretical perspective on housing satisfaction is based upon the idea
that housing satisfaction measures the difference between households’ actual
7
Cited in Mohammad Abdul Mohit & Nurul Nazyddah. Assessment of residential satisfaction with low-cost
housing provided by Selangor Zakat Board in Malaysia. Refereed papers presented at the 4th Australasian
Housing Researchers Conference Sydney, 5th - 7th August 2009
and desired/aspired housing and neighborhood situations (Galster, 1987).
Morris and Winter (1978, 1975) introduced the idea of “housing deficit” and
conceptualized housing satisfaction as a dynamic process. In their housing
adjustment model of residential mobility, they theorized that households judge
their housing conditions according to two types of norms, personal or cultural
which may not coincide. An incongruity between the actual housing satisfaction
and housing norms results in a housing deficit, which in turn gives rise to
housing dissatisfaction, leading to some form of housing adjustments that may
be either in situ such as revising their housing needs and aspirations in order to
reconcile the incongruity, or improve their housing conditions through
remodeling, or else they may move to another place and bring their housing
into conformity with their aspirations or needs (Morris and Winter, 1978).
 Francescato et al. (1987) observe that satisfaction depends on three
elements - the design which includes its space organization, layout and
facilities provided; the management practices; and the surrounding
social aspects.
 Varady and Carrozza (2000), tenant satisfaction encompasses four
distinct types of satisfaction - (1) satisfaction with the dwelling unit; (2)
satisfaction with the services provided, including repair service; (3)
satisfaction with the whole package received for the rent paid – dwelling
and service; and (4) satisfaction with the neighbourhood or area.
 Nurizan and Hashim (2001) reported that besides facilities in the house,
basic facilities such as shops, markets, schools, clinic, mailing system,
community hall, playground, and others are important to support the
daily life of the dwellers, and enhance residents’ quality of life.
 Mohit and Nazyddah(2009) their research study adopted a housing
satisfaction bundle which contains five components namely; Housing
unit features, housing unit support services, Public Facilities, Social
Environment and Neighborhood facilities and 45 variables.
D. Study Objectives
1. To compare the characteristic profile of residents of Private, Public and NGO
MRB housing development.
2. To look into the perception of residents in Private, Public and NGO MRB
Housing as to their feeling or level of satisfaction related to acceptability,
adequacy, utilization and adaptability.
3. To describe the dimension of satisfaction of residents in private , public and
NGO in relations to characteristic profile.
4. To identify problems, difficulties, concerns, issues that affect satisfaction and
perception of residents in private, public and NGO housing development.
5. To infer on the implication of the findings of the study on how to improve
MRB housing development.
E. Significance of the Study
The study will produce a material reference for future researcher who
wants to explore more on the built environment industry that produce MRB
Housing in terms of the prevailing condition of production of units, materials
used and performance, aspects of building design, user preferences, safety and
security issues, emerging trends that considered climate adaptation and among
others.
The research will also provide a pattern for the development of a
framework in enhancing MRB Housing design on the part of the proponent.
Developers who want to optimize profits will be concerned on the long term
delight to their clienteles in order to compete in the marketplace among
housing deliverers, thus, housing satisfaction is critical in the business survival.
When clients’ needs and wants remain unmet then they would move out and
get the value of their money elsewhere. Improving financial performance
requires understanding current levels of customer satisfaction on what it means
in the future and identifying ways to optimize profitability. Also, residents will
participate actively if they understood their basic housing rights and have
knowledge on how MRB housing works to their advantage. Lastly,
Government-will benefit from this study as a basis for their project assessments
and provide them with a good criteria and consideration in implementing future
MRB designs, land-use optimization, net residential densities and bringing down
the price of housing.
Multiplier Effects-
1. Can be further learned and studied to benefit future developments in the
suburban areas where actions are taking place.
2. Implication to policy development or advocacy for good urban planning and
management. `
Replicability-
1. Other new emerging urban developments are also potential elements for
application of this research output. The results of this study can be used to
assess MRB housing development in provincial cities like Cebu, Davao and
among others.
F. Scope and Delimitation
 Geographical scope
MRB Housing Development done by Private developers, Public or Government
housing agencies and NGO housing sector within Metro Manila areas.
 Target beneficiaries
Sunny Villa in East Fairview, Quezon City, Teachers BLISS Walk up Tenements in
Balonbato, Balintawak, Quezon City and Family Townhomes at FTI in Taguig
City.
Homeowners associations among the above MRBs
Buyers categorized as Middle Class (Class C and D).
 Data coverage :
Data shall come from respondents survey, HOA officer’s in-depth interview,
in situ observation and Desk research :PD 1096 & 957, BP 220, NHA updates
and related laws, Website internet.
 Methods:
Shall be descriptive using empirical data and Scoring using Likert point
system, and mapping.
G. Definition of Terms and Acronyms
1. MRB- Medium Rise Building, a housing type that started in the 70’s thru BLISS
program. PD 1096 Table Vll.2 (R2 typeOccupancy- three to five storey walk-ups)
2. Private-Private Developers initiated development like Condominium.
3. Public-Government initiated development like BLISS and Walk-up Tenements.
4. NGO –Non-governmental Organization like Habitat for Humanity, Gawad
Kalinga
5. BLISS- Bagong Lipunan Sites and Services, a housing program of then
President Ferdinand Marcos.
6. Perception- is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of
sensory information. The word "perception" comes from the Latin words
perceptio, percipio, and means "receiving, collecting, action of taking
possession, apprehension with the mind or senses."8 Synonyms: Observation,
assessment, insights, awareness, view, reading.
7. Satisfaction- contentment, pleasure, fulfillment or approval
8. Functional- The quality of being suited to serve a purpose well; practicality. 9
Synonyms: purposeful, efficient, well-designed, useful and practical
9. Building Height Limit (BHL) –the maximum height to be allowed for
building/structures based on their proposed use or occupancy.
10. Sense of community- defined as "a feeling that members have of belonging,
a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared
faith that members' needs will be met through their commitment to be
together." McMillan & Chavis (1986)
11. Sampling frame-is the source material or device from which a sample is
drawn. It is a list of all those within a population who can be sampled, and may
include individuals, households or institutions.10
8
Oxford English Dictionary
9
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
10
Carl-Erik Särndal; Bengt Swensson; Jan Wretman (2003). Model assisted survey sampling. Springer. pp. 9–12
II. Review of Related Literature
1. Ringer Taruc Manalang, Junzo Munemoto,Tetsu Yoshida and Christopher
Espina entitled “A study on residents, self-built improvements at MRB dwelling
units in Metro Manila” and was later continued to a further study entitled “A
study on residents’ Self-built improvements as a Predictor of their Intentions on
Residential Mobility at MRB Dwelling units in Metro Manila.
The first study examined and clarified the residents’ adjustment
behaviors in reference to the process of self-built improvements they made into
their dwelling units in MRBs. The succeeding study clarify the validity of
residents’ self-built improvements as predictors of their intention to move or
stay- are valuable indicators of the residential mobility. These two literatures
are valuable in the study because they provided essential information as far as
MRBs are concerned. Though not much on measuring satisfaction, the process
that they have done is indeed very similar in many ways.
2. Willie J. Uy “MEDIUM-RISE HOUSING: THE PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE
National President , Subdivision and Housing Developers Association, Inc.
(SHDA)
In his paper presented to the Fifth Asian Forum on January 2006 in
Tokyo, Japan, he highlighted the experience of private sector partnership with
local government and specified aspects that defined MRB thrusts:
• Affordability – units must offer an affordable & decent alternative to
majority of the working class who live in the city.
• Accessibility – to public transport & proximity to major commercial,
office, educational & religious centers.
• Unit sizes – must be habitable sizes, good for singles and start-up
families
• Building floor layout – had to offer privacy, security as a major
consideration
• Site Development – must offer wide open spaces that are a contrast to
buyer’s perception of living in a crowded urban area.
• Specifications – must allow us to offer a high quality product but at
affordable prices.
• Fast turnover – of units. Money & time is precious for today’s urban
dweller.
This article explained the country’s experience of building MRB around
urban areas of Metro Manila by both private and public developers, he also
mentioned how success of one MRB leads to another projects which eventually
became a norm in housing industry. It also emphasized the leading role of LGU
by partnering with either private and non-government organization sectors.
3. Jaafar, Mastura; Hasan, Noor Liza; Mohamad, Osman; Ramayah,T. “The
Determinants of Housing Satisfaction Level: A Study on Residential
Development Project by PENANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,” Universiti
Sains Malaysia.
This study attempts to improve the understanding of the determinants
of Housing satisfaction among the residents of Penang Development
Corporation (PDC)’s development projects. The population being studied
involves residents of 21,123 housing units sold by PDC in various locations in
Penang Island and Seberang Perai. The results of the study revealed that project
type, price of house and length of residency has a significant influence on
housing satisfaction.
4. Salleh, Abdul Ghani. “Residential and Neighborhood Satisfaction in Private
Low-Cost Housing: A Case Study of Penang, Malaysia” Universiti Sains Malaysia
“Residential satisfaction is an important indicator of housing condition
which affects individuals’ quality of life. It determines the way they respond to
their residential neighborhood and environment. The factors which determine
their satisfaction are essential inputs in monitoring the success of housing
policies. This study investigates the factors, such as dwelling units, housing
services and neighborhood facilities and environment, which affect individuals’
satisfaction in private low-cost housing in a fast growing city of Penang in
Malaysia… findings of the study indicate that the levels of residential
satisfaction are generally higher with dwelling units and services provided by
the developers than neighborhood facilities and environment.”
5. Mohammad Abdul Mohit and Nurul Nazyddah. “Assessment of residential
satisfaction with low-cost housing provided by Selangor Zakat Board in
Malaysia”2008
“This paper, fill in the gap that currently exist in low-cost housing in
Malaysia through evaluating the private sector “SZB” housing programmes by
adopting the housing satisfaction approach which is currently used as a
customer satisfaction tool for public and private housing in many local
governments in the UK and USA.”
III. HYPOTHESES
1. There are notable differences in the factors affecting their
perception of functionality and level of satisfaction among residents
living in Public, Private and NGO initiated MRB Housing of their
residential units.
2. It is argued in this study, that culturally, Filipinos are not exposed to
vertical living and their acceptability of MRB housing will take time.
However, it is believed that residents living in MRB housing are
generally satisfied.
IV. METHODOLOGY
Research Design
These three sectors namely Private, Public and NGO that initiated MRB
Housing projects have been subjected to pre-survey investigations to have
obtained initial impressions and established a baseline data which had been
compared with the results from the survey proper, by administering FGD to
help construct the right questions then followed by survey proper, finally
conducted an in-depth interview to key informant using guided questions to
few housing professionals including real estate marketers.
The targets of the study based on the required criteria were Sunny Villa
of Private developers, Teachers’ BLISS of the Government and Family
Townhomes of NGO lead projects. This study basically aims to gather, identify,
define, present, interpret and analyze data in the context of MRB Housing . The
research design of this thesis can be best described from different views.
The research design is considered as descriptive since individuals were
asked to answer the questions on who, what, where, when or how much.
Information on the general features of MRB Housing had been obtained
through desk research method in books, journals and internet websites.
In terms of problem identification, it is formal research design. The
research problem is adequately established by clear and specific query, that is
to determine the dimensions of residents’ perception and satisfaction of living
in MRB Housing.
With respect to the time dimension, the research design is cross-
sectional considering that this study has been conducted at only one point in
time. Moreover, this study is also statistical since conclusions have been based
on quantitative data.
Ocular surveys of the target MRB housing sites have been done to
photograph, document and sketch aesthetical qualities and other physical
attributes.
Population and Sampling Plan
The sampling frame is the author’s initial summary report and
schedules, which contained the detailed information pertaining to the location
of the area of study, number of units, development type, unit address and etc.
The population was first stratified from economic class that belongs to
CD category type of development, then identified various sub-groups of the
population like Private, public and Non-governmental organization (NGO). The
technique of sampling used in this study was basically convenience sampling but
taking into account building unit location and the different types of
development. Convenience sampling has been chosen by the author in order to
obtain enough respondents from each of the different auspice types and other
MRB housing and demographic characteristics such as ownership status, length
of residency, age, income group and etc. This would have ensured that the
various subgroups in the population are represented. However, in the case of
the respondents, table shows the respective population distribution of
residents living in MRB housing in the three different development types.
Table 3 Population and Sample Frame
MRB Sectors Private Public NGO

(NHA) (HFHI,GK,C
HF)
Location Quezon Quezon Taguig City

City City
MRB study Sunny Teachers BLISS Family
area Villas Condo ll Townhomes
Population 116/Villas 92 96
Sample 30 30 30
Percentage 25% 34.88% 31.25%

(Sample/Pop)
Floor Area 30.31 sq.m 52-60 26.1 sq.m

sq.m
This study was personally conducted and supervised by the author and
his 3 assistants. It used a self-administered questionnaire to gather the relevant
data concerning housing satisfaction. Instructions were given personally and
clearly stated on the survey questionnaires. It was also complemented with
some informal interviews from few residents in the study areas. A total of 90
questionnaires were distributed to the residents with 30 from each various
auspices namely Public, Private and NGO development projects who either
owned, rented and rented to own.
Research Instrument
The research instruments used in this study were the following: FGD, Survey
Questionnaires, In-depth Interview of Key Informant.( see Table 4)
Table 4 Research Tactics

Tactics Activities Data Output
FGD Guided discussions Formulate Questionnaires
Participants helped construct
the right questions
Survey Survey proper Results on Level of Satisfaction

and perception on
Functionality Survey
Discussions, Tables and Graphs
Interview In-depth interviews of Building History
Key informants Area Study Profiles
HOA Officers
Informal interviews of
respondents
Observation/ Field notes Model/Tables

Desk Research Chronicles Interpretation
Journals/Books Quotes
Websites
1. Focus Group Discussion
Before the survey questionnaire has been formulated, FGD was conducted to
obtain the necessary information from people in the housing industry that helped
construct right questions. The FGD session was an hour and half discussion with
representative from the three different housing sectors namely; private, public and
NGO. The discussion focused on specific issues related to MRB Housing development.
Interestingly, FGD yielded relevant information that were identified and used to
formulate questions in the survey questionnaires. Below are the sample guide for FGD
used during the session.
FGD Guide for Housing Professionals involved in MRB Housing Development.
Title: Inside Out of Vertical Living: Dimensions of Residents’

Perception and Satisfaction of Living in MRB Housing.
Dates: 28 December 2010
Method: Focus Group Discussions
Participants: Private- Head, HOA Management Filinvest, Land

Incorporated
Public- Architect, NHA/PSSG/Commercial and Industrial

Estate
NGO- Chair, Construction Committee/HFHP
Principal Investigator: Lemuel Jim Alvaro
A. Introduction
Hello, my name is Jong Alvaro and I am a Master of Architecture
candidate student of the University of the Philippines , Diliman.
I am working on a thesis study of residents’ perception and satisfaction

of living in medium-rise building housing.
The purpose of this study is to look into the perception and satisfaction
characteristics of residents’ use of MRB housing among Private, Public
and NGO MRB housing developments. It aims to answer the question of
how residents of various MRB developments (Private, Public and NGO)
compare in terms of the dimensions of perception and satisfaction
characterizing their medium-rise living.
You have been invited to this Group Discussion because of your expertise
and experienced in this area of my study and the important roles you
play in MRB housing development. Your insights and inputs will help
construct right questions for the survey instrument which will be done
after. We will discuss ideas about your knowledge on MRB housing
development.
B. Objectives of this FGD

Identify the existing problems of the residents living in MRB related to
the following:
physical features inside the unit, common areas inside the building,
outside the building amenities and environment.
To draw insights regarding residents concerns, difficulties, issues on

housing aspects that affect residents’ satisfaction and perception of
residents in private, public and NGO housing development.
C. Process
Questions will be asked in general to the group and each will respond
whatever thoughts you may have in relation to the questions. No right or
wrong answers, your opinion will be highly valued and any differences of
outlook is respected. We assure you that this focus group discussion is
confidential and any information will be used only for positive purposes.
D. Respondents’ Introduction
Let us hear from you as my consultant. This will include your past and
present engagement in MRB housing development.
FGD Guide Questions:
1. MRB Housing- Your knowledge or ideas about it?
a) As a housing concept.
b) The building structure: its plan and designs, systems and economics
c) Management sustainability
2. What are the strengths of MRB Housing typology that you know of?
3. What are the weaknesses of MRB Housing typology that you know of?
4. Other Insights and thoughts pertaining to MRB Housing development?

Acknowledgements and Conclusions
In the course of our discussions, has there been a change of perception

about MRB Housing? If yes, would you mind sharing it with us.
To wrap up our session let me summarize some points of our discussion

for you to make your final comment and clarify misunderstanding if we
may have.
Thank you for participating in this Focus Group Discussion. All

proceedings will be documented and utilized for formulating the research
survey questionnaires.
Adjourned: (Refreshments)
2. The Survey Questionnaires
The survey questionnaire was self-constructed by the author based on
the Measuring Factors on Satisfaction and Perception table. The questionnaire
was divided into five parts.
The first part was on the respondents’ family and socio-economic profile
which included data on gender, marital status, age bracket, number of
household members, combined household income, education attainment, place
of origin, tenure and ownership, length of residency and building unit location.
The remaining four parts includes the questionnaire proper which the
respondents were asked to rate each of the statements using the five-point
Likert scale.
The second part of the research instrument was on the level of
satisfaction which include all in the dimension 1 (see Table) were asked to rate;
namely, 1 Extremely dissatisfied, 2 Slight dissatisfied, 3 Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied, 4 Slightly satisfied and 5 Extremely satisfied.
The third, fourth and fifth part of the research instrument was on the
perception of functionality which include all in the dimension 2, dimension 3
and dimension 4 (see table) were asked to rate; namely, 1 Extremely
dissatisfied, 2 Slight dissatisfied, 3 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 Slightly
satisfied and 5 Extremely satisfied.
The questionnaire proper included the final question on their overall
“perception in terms of feeling of satisfaction” on living in MRB Housing. The
respondents were asked to rate if it’s Excellent, Good, Fair and Poor.
Discussions on the Survey Questionnaire Variables
A. Demographic Aspect
These characteristic profiles refer to the demographic variables of the
respondents such as gender, age, occupation, no. of household members,
household income, educational attainment, origin, unit ownership status, length
of residency and building unit location. Previous research has shown that
demographic background does affect the level of housing satisfaction (cited in
Mastura Jaafar et.al, see for example, Francescato,et.al., 1987; Morshidi, et.al.,
1999; Tan & Hamzah, 1979; Varady & Carrozza, 2000; Varady & Preiser, 1998).
Gender
In this study, gender refers to the respondents who owns the unit and
was being asked to answers all survey questions. Past researchers, such as Tan
and Hamzah (1979), Varady and Carrozza (2000) and Varady and Preiser (1998)
have included gender as one of the predictors of housing satisfaction. With the
increasing purchasing power of women and their leading roles in making
household’s decision, gender is considered as one of the predictors of housing
satisfaction.(Mastura Jaafar et.al)
Age Bracket
This study included age bracket to see if the older respondents would be
inclined to respond affirmatively satisfied since previous study like Galster, 1987
(cited in Varady, et.al., 2001) found that the elderly are more likely to be
satisfied with their homes than are younger households, even when other
characteristics are held constant.
Combined Household Income/Occupation/Educational Attainment
Respondents ‘ socioeconomic status (income, educational attainment,
occupation) is also a contributory factor and has significance in terms of level
of satisfaction and perception on functionality. Previous research offers two
competing hypotheses about the impact on housing satisfaction (Varady, et.al.,
2001). The first was, one might assume that those with higher income might
have greater capacity to find a better home, in which case the status would be
correlated with housing satisfaction (Freeman, 1998; cited in Varady, et.al.,
2001). On the other hand, the more socially mobile householders might have
higher standards and aspirations that might lead them to be more dissatisfied.
In previous study (cited in Mastura Jaafar et.al), the first view was chosen and
considered, that is the higher the income the more satisfied would the resident
be with his/her home. However, their hypothesis has not been supported by
their results, which showed that household income did not influence housing
satisfaction. Their findings indicate that the more socially mobile the households
are the higher would be their standards and aspirations. Thus, there are no
difference with those from the lower income groups who have lower aspirations
and expectations. Both are therefore having the same level of satisfaction.
Number of Household Members
For the purpose of this study, the author wanted to consider if crowding
(residential unit density) the square meter of floor space per person in the unit
is significant. MRB Housing development comes in various floor area size with
amenities outside the building. The area is generally associated with the unit
price (but does not necessarily determine the price of a unit). Size and crowding
are both important aspects of satisfaction. Thus, we expect that there will be
significant differences in housing satisfaction with regards to the area of the
MRB housing and number of people in the household.
Duration / Length of Residency
Following a similar format based on the guideline of Varady and Preiser
(1998), respondents were grouped into those who have lived in their dwelling
for 6-9 years, 10 or more from those who have stayed for less than six years, 1-
5 years. These criteria, then, has been examined if there was a relationship
with housing satisfaction because previous research has found that tenure or
length of residency could affect satisfaction with a dwelling unit (Ogu, 2002).
According to Varady and Preiser (1998), long-term residents (six years or more)
will have stronger social ties to their area and this will make them more satisfied
with their homes.
Unit Ownership Status
It is also useful to note that majority of the residents of MRB housing
projects consist of the house owners who were the buyers of the property
except for NGO projects which had an arrangement of a rent to own unit, the
author categorized them as owner also. However, few group of the MRB
Housing residents were tenants that is, the individuals renting the unit. For the
purpose of this research, question of satisfaction had been addressed to both
groups of people as all of them form a part of the MRB Housing under study.
According to Ogu (2002) the type of housing ownership could affect satisfaction
with a dwelling unit. Given the same quality of house unit, owner-occupiers are
more likely to be more satisfied than renters.
B. MRB Housing Aspect
Prior research had stressed the importance of contextualizing information
on housing satisfaction by examining expected differences by development
type. This study had examined and analyzed differences of the perception of
different auspices in relation to their contribution towards feeling of
satisfaction.
The author expected the residents from each of the auspice
development , were satisfied with their residential unit because they generally
have met their basic needs as far as dwelling was concerned as compared to
those house and lot scheme which is expensive and those in high-rise scheme
which is very expensive. For the purpose of this study, MRB Housing type had
been centrally focused due to its practicality and affordability.
Safety, Security and Sense of Community
This study integrated safety, security and a sense of community as part
of the predictors on living in MRB housing satisfaction .
With recent calamity that tremendously struck the country, “Ondoy and
Pepeng”, people now wanted to stay on the higher ground which MRB Housing
satisfies this basic requirements of avoiding floods and storms. It was
confirmed by several respondents who opted to move in and chose vertical
living lifestyle. One suggestion from NHA designer is to leave the ground floor
open and serve as stilt during flooding and common use during ordinary days.
Floods are one of the most common hazards in the country nowadays either
due to climate change or man-made. It can destruct small neighborhood on a
low lying plains to city wide level due to sewerage stuck up and all paved
concrete leaving without water run-off. Though floods are not all alike, some
develop slowly and sometimes over a period of days. But the worst is,
flashfloods can develop quickly even without sign of heavy rain. It has
dangerous wall of roaring water with rocks and mud or other debris that
usually sweep everything on its way.
The world changes after the 9/11 as far as security is concerned. “An
increasingly large number of public housing tenants are living in fear in their
own homes, often as a result of being housed next to inappropriate neighbours.
This fear can come from direct harassment from the neighbours or simply from
hearing the sounds of aggressive behaviour drifting in from next door.
Particularly for vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the mentally ill or people
from a non-English speaking background this can lead to feelings of isolation
and to being trapped within one’s home”.11 Because of this and other similar
incidents, housing security is getting its importance in the design consideration
of either in private or public housing development. With good neighborhood,
residents will tend to stick on the mainstream community and participate
actively without reservation of fear.
Sense of community is a thesis of its own. But in this study, the author
limits only its definition of some previous study. Sense of community (or
11
http://clrdoutney.wordpress.com/campaigns/peace-and-security-for-public-housing-tenants/
psychological sense of community) is a concept in community psychology and
social psychology, as well as in several other research disciplines, such as urban
sociology, which focuses on the experience of community rather than its
structure, formation, setting, or other features. Sociologists, social
psychologists, anthropologists, and others have theorized about and carried out
empirical research on community, but the psychological approach asks
questions about the individual's perception, understanding, attitudes, feelings,
etc. about community and his or her relationship to it and to others'
participation—indeed to the complete, multifaceted community experience.
In his seminal 1974 book, psychologist Seymour B. Sarason proposed
that psychological sense of community become the conceptual center for the
psychology of community, asserting that it "is one of the major bases for self-
definition." By 1986 it was regarded as a central overarching concept for
community psychology (Sarason, 1986; Chavis & Pretty, 1999). Among theories
of sense of community proposed by psychologists, McMillan & Chavis's (1986) is
by far the most influential, and is the starting point for most of the recent
research in the field. So, given the merit of this concept, the author included this
as one of its indicator for the dimension of acceptability in social, economic,
emotional and environmental aspects of the MRB housing.
Comfort, Privacy, Quality and Prestige and Proximity to Workplace
These indicators to housing satisfaction, thermal comfort and air
quality, personal solitude for privacy, social status (such as image and taste) for
quality, emotional fulfillment for prestige .
On comfort, ”the implication of climate and indoor temperature on
health is receiving increased attention, in relation to global climate change and
an increasing number of heat waves or cold spells. Habitations provide shelter
from extreme weather events: excessive heat and intense solar radiation in
summer, and severe cold in winter. The technical term "thermal comfort"
means satisfaction with room temperature, humidity and indoor air circulation,
and an adequate balance between the perception of warm and cold, and dry
and damp indoor air. This subjective well-being in a dwelling is also determined
by our residential activities and type of clothing”.12
With regards to privacy, vertical living in MRB housing make it clear that
‘no man is an island’ when it comes to safeguarding privacy in the home. Having
only a 4” concrete hollow block as a partition wall. In every MRB lifestyle, a
degree of community organization and agreement on shared values was crucial
in ensuring individual household privacy. The evidence from our survey suggests
that noise transfer between adjoining units is the most common privacy
12
http://www.gesundheitsamt-bw.de/ML/EN/WHO-CC-for-
HousingHealth/WohnenGesundheit/Pages/Thermische-Behaglichkeit.aspx
problem within the MRB housing. The main issue was with noise passing
horizontally through partition walls where neighbors being subjected to noise
from next door and feeling at risk of being overheard sometimes.
Housing quality as a highly controversial concept transcends the
boundary of economic and technological empowerment but extends to the
precincts of cultural and racial differences (Magbogunje et al., 1978 cited in
Adebato, Aliu ). Although, the problem of housing quality has a more profound
meaning to the dwelling nature of people in the developing world, it is largely a
universal challenge. Even in the advanced economies there are still vestiges of
poor housing within the settlements that characterize the urban space. In
Africa, poor quality housing ramifies all human settlements, be it urban or rural
perhaps more profoundly established in the urban setting.(Adebayo, Aliu) Thus,
quality refers to the quality workmanship of the residential features conferred
on a residence by the property developers by virtue of the good surrounding
environment in which it is located. Housing quality must then be considered in
relation to good planning and design of its unit, building materials and other
physical settings.
With respect to prestige and proximity to workplace, the concept of
vertical living manifested in condominium is a western approach to private or
socialized public housing where every necessity is just within reach. It is defined
as orderliness of residential units, proximity to workplace near Commercial
Business District (CBD) and living high above the ground where you have a
panoramic view of the cities is somewhat a life fulfilling dream.
Affordability or Price of Housing Unit
We expect that residents from the private sector which have higher
square meter price per unit area will be more critical to the level of satisfaction
with their unit than those from Public and NGO sectors which has lower price.
Residents of the private sector were assumed to get a better housing
environment, both in terms of physical structure and social environment.
According to Andrews and Whitney (1976; cited in Ogu, 2002), residents’
perception of their environment defines the quality of their lives. Thus, for the
purpose of this study, we will differentiate the three sector projects which
belong to class C and D.
Maintenance and HOA management services.
Generally, all MRB Housing are managed either the developer’s
sponsored staffs or if it is turn over to the association then, it is homeowners’
association responsibility to maintain their buildings. Observation has shown
that some residents were not pleased with the services rendered by their
building management.
Living Spaces (unit features)
This refers to the respondents’ dwelling unit on where they actually live.
These include living area, dining area, kitchen area and bedrooms.
INSIDE SUNNY TEACHERS’ FAMILY

THE VILLAS BLISS TOWNHOMES
UNIT
LIVING No Picture
SPACES Available
Comparative snapshots of various common areas found in each of the
MRB Housing development. These indicators will be measured in relation to
residents’ perception on functionality of the features inside the building.
SUNNY VILLAS BLISS TEACHERS FAMILY

TOWNHOMES
HALLWAYS
STAIRS
LAUNDRY
COMMON
STORAGE
Figure 7
Comparative snapshots of various building amenities found in each of
the MRB Housing development. These indicators will be measured in relation to
residents’ perception on functionality of the features outside the building.
SUNNY BLISS FAMILY

VILLAS TEACHERS TOWNHOMES
Entrance/Exit
GREENSPACES No green spaces

allotted.
PARKING
PERIMETER
FENCE
MULTI-
FUNCTION
HALL
Figure 8
3. In-depth Interview to Key Informant
Aside from conducting FGD and administering Survey questionnaires,
other relevant information have been obtained through in-depth interview to
key informant from study area like the homeowner president and their officers
and compared results derived from Survey and FGD. Data pertains to the
history of their MRB housing were uncovered through memory recall by some
officers who were early residents in the community. This portion of the data
gathering was rather qualitative in nature where you only get information either
by recall or estimation. Please see sample guide questions for Key Informant at
Appendix 2.
V. PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Method of Analysis
Simple descriptive statistics were employed to present and compare the
characteristic profile of the respondents by type of MRB housing development
initiative. Chi square statistic, Independent Sample T- test and analysis of
variance were used to test whether the observed difference in the level of
satisfaction and perception of functionality were statistically significant.
Table 5 Results and Discussions of Objective 1
Table 5 presents the characteristic profile of the respondents by the type
of MRB housing development initiatives. Despite some limitations of getting local
data, the research process and assessment in this study went well. The accuracy of
the data collected were reliable except for some shortcomings during the initial
survey of the private initiated project where respondents seem not really
responsive and helpful. However, continuous efforts and patience paved way to
their cooperation. The author felt that this segment of study was not as
robust as the public and NGO, but still collected and presented useful data and
information. Dealing with private entity sometimes require good connection
from the inside to really go for depth and range. In addition, comparing results
from these three sectors together provided a current evaluation of them. While
the author assumed that this study is not comprehensive, it will provide a useful
and timely suggestion for interested parties.
Table 5: Characteristic Profiles of respondent by type of MRB

Housing development
Type of MRB Housing

development
initiatives
Background characteristics Private Public NGO Total
Sex of the respondent

Male 48.3 58.6 30.0 45.5
Female 51.7 41.4 70.0 54.5
Marital status of the respondent*

Married 48.3 72.4 93.3 71.6
Single 51.7 27.6 6.7 28.4
Occupation of the respondent*

Private/NGO 72.4 27.6 43.3 47.7
Government 20.7 44.8 23.3 29.5
Self employed 6.9 27.6 33.3 22.7
Age of respondent*
29 and below 44.8 24.1 6.9 25.3
30-39 31.0 24.1 20.7 25.3
40 and above 24.1 51.7 72.4 49.4
Number of household member

1-3 42.1 55.2 24.0 41.1
4-6 47.4 34.5 56.0 45.2
7-9 10.5 10.3 20.0 13.7
Mean* 3.9 3.6 5.0 4.2
Combined Income of the household

29,000 and below 62.1 64.3 89.7 72.1
30,000-39,000 24.1 17.9 6.9 16.3
40,000 and above 13.8 17.9 3.4 11.6
Education attainment of the respondent*
High school and below 6.9 17.2 36.7 20.5
College graduate 93.1 65.5 50.0 69.3
Post-graduate 0.0 17.2 13.3 10.2
Place of origin of the respondent*

Locally born 75.9 65.5 36.7 59.1
Migrant from the province 24.1 34.5 63.3 40.9
Respondent's order of occupancy*

First 86.2 58.6 96.7 80.7
Otherwise 13.8 41.4 3.3 19.3
Tenure status*
Own 72.4 35.7 34.5 47.7
Rental/caretaker 24.1 60.7 24.1 36.0
Rent to own 3.4 3.6 41.4 16.3
Duration living in MRB*

1-5 48.3 44.8 75.9 56.3
5-9 24.1 44.8 0.0 23.0
10 and above 27.6 10.3 24.1 20.7
Building unit location

Ground floor 24.1 20.7 40.0 28.4
Second floor 27.6 24.1 20.0 23.9
Third floor 27.6 24.1 40.0 30.7
Fourth floor 20.7 31.0 0.0 17.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N of Cases 29 29 30 88
Note: * Significant at p < 0.05
There are slightly more female (54%) than male (46%) respondents in the study.
Over all, there is no significant in gender distribution by type of housing development
initiatives.
In terms of marital status, a great majority of the respondents are married (72%)
and only 28 percent are single. Among the married, a greater proportion of them are living
in housing units developed by non-government organizations (93%) than those occupying
units developed by public or government housing agencies (72%) or private organizations
(48%). Among the single, living in privately-initiated housing (52%) seems to be norm as
evidenced by the higher proportion of them who opted for this type of housing compared
with the public (28%) and NGO (7%) initiated MRB housing units.
Close to half (48%) of the respondents in the study are working in private and non-
government organizations. Another 30 percent are government employee and the rest
(23%) are self-employed. The data suggests close association between the developer of the
housing that a person lives and the type of organization where he or she is currently
employed. For example, a significantly higher proportion of those working in private and
non-government employees (72%) are also living in MRB units developed by private
entities while among those working in government, a significantly higher percentage are
living MRB housing units developed by government housing agencies (45%). Among the
self-employed, living in an NGO-initiated housing unit is more common (33%).
Almost half of the respondents (49%) are 40 years old and above. The proportions
of respondents who are in the 30-39 and 29 and below age bracket are equally divided at
25 percent. Among the respondents in the youngest age-group (29 and below) significantly
higher proportion are living in privately-initiated (45%), compared with public (24%) and
NGO-initiated (7%) housing units. The same pattern can be said among the middle-age
group. There are more respondents whose housing units are developed by NGO (72%) than
public (52%) and private (24%) organizations among respondents in the oldest age-group
(40 and above).
Among the housing unit included in the study, the average household size is four
members. NGO-initiated MRB housing units have slightly more household members (5)
than units developed through private (3.9) and public (3.6) initiatives. About 7 in 10 of the
respondents have a total household income of 29, 000 and below. Only 16 percent and 12
percent have household income of 30,000 to 40,000 and 40,000 and above, respectively.
The total household income of the respondents does not significantly vary by the type of
MRB housing units they live in.
A great majority (69%) of the respondents are college educated. About 20 percent
received at least a high school education and another 10 percent obtained a post-graduate
degree. A higher proportion among those with at least high school education are living in
NGO initiated housing units (37%) compared with housing units developed by government
(17%) or private (7%) entities. The most common MRB housing units among the college
educated are those initiated by private organizations (93%) followed by the government
(66%) and non-government organizations (50%).
More than half (59%) of the respondents are native to the place where they live and
the rest (41%) are migrants from other provinces. A significantly higher proportion of the
locally born respondents are living in MRB units built by private organizations (76%)
compared with housing units developed by the government (66%) or by non-government
organizations (37%). Among migrants, the more popular housing units are those developed
by NGOs (63%) followed by government (34%) and privately (24%) initiated MRB units.
An overwhelming proportion of the respondents (81%) are the first occupant of
their housing units. Among first occupant respondents, significantly higher proportions are
living in housing units built through the initiatives of NGOs (97%) than those whose units
are built by the government (59%) or private companies (86%).
In terms of tenure status of the housing unit, close to half of the respondents (48%)
owns the MRB unit they live in. More than a third (36%) are renters and another 16
percent are on a rent-to-own basis. There are more respondents living in MRB units
developed by private organizations (72%) than those initiated by the government (36%) or
non-government organizations (34%) who said that they own their housing units. Living in
government funded housing units are more common occurrence among the renters.
Meanwhile, a significantly higher proportion among respondents who are enrolled in a
rent-to-own scheme are living in housing units built by NGOs (41%) compared with those
living in units initiated by the government (4%) or private companies (3%).
As to the length of their stay in their present housing unit more than half of the
respondents (56%) said that they have been occupying their unit for not more than five
years. Some 23 percent have been living in their housing unit for around 5 to 9 years while
another 21 percent have been occupying the unit for at least 10 years. There is a clear
pattern as to the type of MRB units being occupied by the respondents and the duration of
stay in the housing unit. Among those who are in short-term stay (1-5 years) a significantly
higher proportion are living in housing units initiated by NGO (76%) whereas among those
who are in medium term stay (5-9) higher percentage are in government initiated units and
finally, among those in a long-term stay a greater proportion are occupying privately
funded housing units.
About 28 percent of the respondents live in a unit in the ground floor. Another 24
percent occupy a unit in the second floor while close to a third (31%) have unit located in
the third floor. The rest (17%) have unit in the fourth floor. There is no significant
difference in the distribution of the respondents in terms of their building unit location and
the type of MRB unit they occupy.
Table 6 Results and Discussions of Objective 2
Table 6 presents the level of satisfaction of the respondents by the type MRB
housing development initiatives they occupy. There are 21 indicators on satisfaction
broadly grouped into four domains. The first domain measures the acceptability on social,
economic, emotional and environmental aspect of the building and is indexed by 11
indicators. The second domain reflects the adequacy in the residential unit features and is
measured by a single indicator. The third dimension, which is gauged by four indicators,
measures the functionality in terms of utilization of common areas in the building. Finally,
the fourth dimension assesses the degree of satisfaction in terms of the adaptability of
public amenities outside the building and is measured by five indicators. For each of these
21 indicators, the respondent is asked of his or her level of satisfaction ranging from 1
being extremely dissatisfied to 5 being extremely satisfied. By cross-tabulating these
individual indicators of satisfaction with the three type of MRB housing units initiatives we
will be able to assess which type of housing units best meet the level of satisfaction of its
residents and which specific areas needs more improvement.
For this study, safety is defined as to the vulnerability of the housing units in terms
of natural disaster like typhoons and earthquake. About 41 percent of the respondents are
slightly satisfied and 17 percent are extremely satisfied with their housing unit when safety
measure is concerned. About 1 in 10 of the respondents is extremely or slightly dissatisfied
with their housing unit as to the MRB unit’s safety features. Some 32 percent of the
respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied about the safety of their housing unit. The
respondent’s level of satisfaction when it comes to safety aspect does not significantly
differ across the three types of housing unit initiatives.
Level of satisfaction in terms of safety by type of

MRB housing development initiatives
70
60 Private Public
50
40
30
20
10
0
Extremely/slighltly Neither satisfied Slightly Satisfied Extremely
dissatisified nor dissatisfied Satisfied
Security indicates whether the housing unit is free from burglars and other
bad elements. About 38 percent and 15 percent of respondent are slightly and
extremely satisfied, respectively, when it comes to the security of the housing unit.
Some 16 percent of the respondent registered dissatisfaction over the security issues
of the housing unit while the rest (32%) displayed neither satisfaction nor
dissatisfaction on this same issue. There is no perceptible difference in the degree of
satisfaction of the respondents as to who initiated the housing units they currently
occupy.
Level of satisfaction in terms of security by type of

70.0
60.0 Private Public NGO
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
About 7 in 10 of the respondents are satisfied with the sense of community
or belongingness in the building. Around 10 percent of the respondents expressed
dissatisfaction on the sense of community around their community while the rest
(22%) remains nonchalant about it. The respondent’s satisfaction on the sense of
belongingness does not significantly differ whether their unit was initiated by the
government, private entities or non-government organizations.
Lemuel Jim P. Alvaro, M. Architecture, College of Architecture University of the Philippines Diliman. 2011
Level of satisfaction in terms of sense of
community by type of MRB housing development
initiatives
70
60 Private Public NGO
50
40
30
20
10
0
About 3 in 4 of the respondents expressed satisfaction when it comes to the
comfort of the MRB units. Comfort is measured by thermal and indoor air quality of
the medium rise buildings. Only 8 percent are dissatisfied with the level of comfort in
their housing units while 17 percent are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. More
respondents living in housing units initiated by the government (59%) and private
entities (52%) expressed slight satisfaction on the comfort of the unit compared with
those occupying NGO-initiated units (23%). However, significantly higher proportion
of those living in NGO-initiated units expressed extreme satisfaction (60%) on the
level of comfort of their housing unit compared with those initiated by private
entities (10%) or the government (21%).
Level of satisfaction in terms of comfort by type

of MRB housing development initiatives
70
Private Public NGO
50
30
10
-10 Extremely/slighltly Neither satisfied Slightly Satisfied Extremely
More than half (58%) of the respondents are satisfied when it comes to
privacy in their MRB housing units. Some 18 percent are dissatisfied with the level of
privacy in the building and another 24 percent expressed neither satisfaction nor
satisfaction in this matter. There is no perceptible difference in the respondent’s
feeling of satisfaction on the privacy level of the housing unit across the three types
of housing initiatives.
Level of satisfaction in terms of privacy by type of

70
60
Private Public NGO
50
40
30
20
10
0
In terms of monthly amortization or rental fee, a great majority of the
respondents (74%) said that they are satisfied with it. Less than five percent are not
satisfied with the affordability of the housing unit. The rest (22%) are neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied. More respondents living in government initiated MRB units
(55%) are slightly satisfied than those occupying a privately (52%) or NGO (17%)
initiated units. However, significantly higher proportion of respondents living in
NGO-initiated housing unit (57%) expressed extreme satisfaction on the affordability
of their unit compared with the initiatives of the government (21%) and private
companies (21%).
Level of satisfaction in terms of affordability by
type of MRB housing development initiatives
70
60
Private Public NGO
50
40
30
20
10
0
When it comes to the maintenance of the building and its surrounding only a
little half (53%) of the respondents said that they are satisfied with it. About 2 in 10
respondents are dissatisfied with how their unit and its surroundings are maintained.
A quarter feels neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction over this aspect. There is no
apparent difference in the respondents’ level of satisfaction on this measure across
the three main types of housing unit initiatives.
Level of satisfaction in terms of maintenance of the

building by type of MRB housing development
initiatives
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
As to the quality of features of the MRB housing units 58 percent said they
satisfied, 12 percent said they are dissatisfied and 30 percent are neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied. The respondents’ level of satisfaction on the quality of the building
features does not significantly vary regardless of whether they are living in a housing
unit developed by the government, private entities or non-government
organizations.
Level of satisfaction in terms of quality by type of

70
50
40
30
20
10
0
The feeling of prestige or self respect by living in MRB housing units is also
asked among the respondents. About 68 percent of the respondents are satisfied
and 7 percent are dissatisfied with the level of prestige in their housing unit. A
quarter are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with it. There is no significant difference
in the respondents’ level of satisfaction across the three main types of housing unit
initiatives when it comes to prestige level.
Level of satisfaction in terms of prestige by type of
70
60
Private Public NGO
50
40
30
20
10
0
When asked about their satisfaction on the Proximity of their MRB housing
units to their workplace a great majority (72%) said they are satisfied with it. Less
than five percent said they are dissatisfied. The rest (24%) are neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied. Just like prestige level, there is no significant difference in the
respondents’ level of satisfaction when it comes to the location of the MRB housing
unit when disaggregated by the type of housing unit initiatives.
Level of satisfaction in terms of the building's

proximity from respondents' workplace by type of
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
The respondents were also asked if they are satisfied with the services
offered by home owner’s association in the building. About 18 percent are extremely
satisfied, 44 percent are slightly satisfied, 11 percent are dissatisfied and 26 percent
are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. More respondents living in NGO-initiated
housing unit are slightly satisfied (50%) than those with government (41%) or
privately (41%) initiated units but there are more respondents from units built by
private entities (24%) and NGO (23%) than those funded by government (7%) who
expressed extreme satisfaction on the homeowner’s association management in the
building.
Level of satisfaction in terms of homeowner's

association management by type of MRB housing
development initiatives
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
Adequacy of the living spaces is the lone indicator used in the study to
measure the second dimension which is the adequacy in the residential unit
features. Results show that 27 percent of the respondents are extremely satisfied, 40
percent are slightly satisfied,10 percent are dissatisfied and the rest (23 %) are
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the living spaces of the building. There are
more respondents living in government initiated housing units who are slightly
satisfied with the living space of the building but there are more respondents from
NGO-initiated units who expressed extreme satisfaction on this aspect compared
with the other two types.
Level of satisfaction in terms of the building's living

spaces by type of MRB housing development
initiatives
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
The third dimension assesses the level of satisfaction of the respondents in
terms of the functionality of some common areas in the building like hallways, stairs,
laundry and storage.
About 62 percent of the respondents are satisfied with the hallways of the
building. Around 1 in 10 expressed dissatisfaction with the hallways and rest (27%)
are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. There is no apparent difference in the
respondents’ level of satisfaction across the three types of housing initiatives.
Level of satisfaction in terms of utilization of the

building's hallways by type of MRB housing
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
When it comes to the stairs of the building 20 percent are extremely
are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. More respondents occupying a housing unit
initiated by the government are slightly satisfied but there are more respondents
living in NGO-initiated housing units are extremely satisfied with the stairs relative
with the other two types of housing initiatives.

building's stairs by type of MRB housing
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
As to the laundry area only 43 percent are satisfied, 32 percent are
dissatisfied and a quarter are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. There is slightly higher
proportion of those living in privately initiated housing units (55%) who are satisfied
with the laundry area relative to those living in government (38%) or non-
government (37%) initiated housing units.
building's laundry area by type of MRB housing
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
As per the storage area only 11 percent are extremely satisfied, 27 percent
are slightly satisfied, 34 percent are dissatisfied and the rest (27%) are neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied. Significantly higher proportion among the those living in
privately initiated MRB units are slightly satisfied with the storage areas compared
with the other two types but there are more from the NGO-initiated housing units
are extremely satisfied with their storage area relative to their counterparts in other
housing types.
Level of satisfaction in terms of functionality of the

building's storage area by type of MRB housing
70
60
50 Privat
40 e
Public
30
20
10
0
The fourth and final dimension of satisfaction measures the adaptability of
public amenities outside the building like entrance/exit gates, green yard, parking,
fence and multi-function hall.
When it comes to the entrance/exit gates of the MRB units 24 percent of the
respondents are extremely satisfied, 47 percent are slightly satisfied, 8 percent are
dissatisfied and 22 percent are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Feeling of slight
satisfaction is significantly higher among those living in units initiated by private
entities compared with other types but higher level of extreme satisfaction is noted
among those occupying units initiated by non-government organizations relative to
other types.
Level of satisfaction in terms of the adaptability of

building's entrance/exit gates by type of MRB
housing development initiatives
70.0
60.0 Private Public NGO
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
About 22 percent of the respondents are extremely satisfied with the yard in
their building, around 35 percent are slightly satisfied, some 20 percent are
dissatisfied and the remaining 23 percent are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. As
with the entrance/ exit gates of the building, there are significantly higher
proportions among respondents living in units initiated by private entities who are
slightly satisfied and more respondents from units initiated by NGO are extremely
satisfied with their building yard compared with their counterparts in other housing
types.
Level of satisfaction in terms of adaptability of the

building's yard by type of MRB housing
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
As to adaptability of the building parking space 19 percent of the
respondents said they are extremely satisfied, 38 percent are slightly satisfied, 19
percent are dissatisfied and the rest (24%) are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. As
with the pattern observed in the entrance/exit and yard of the building, feeling of
slight satisfaction is higher among respondents living in housing units initiated by
private entities and extreme satisfaction is higher among respondents occupying
housing units initiated by NGO relative to residents in other types of MRB units.
Level of satisfaction in terms of adapatability of the
building's parking by type of MRB housing
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
In terms of the building fence 16 percent of the respondents are extremely
are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Consistent with the pattern observed in earlier
indicators slight satisfaction and extreme satisfaction are higher among residents of
units initiated by private entities and non-government organizations, respectively.
Level of satisfaction in terms of adaptability of the

buidling's perimeter fencing by type of MRB
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
Finally, when it comes to the multi-function hall, 10 percent of the
respondents are extremely satisfied, 34 percent slightly satisfied, 38 percent are
dissatisfied and 17 percent are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It is worth noting
that in all the five indicators for this dimension, the adaptability of the multi function
hall received the highest level of dissatisfaction among the respondents. A
significantly higher proportion among respondents living in units initiated by private
entities are slightly satisfied with the multi-function hall but significantly higher
proportion among those living in government initiated housing units expressed
extreme satisfaction in this aspect compared with other types of housing initiatives.
Level of saisfaction in terms of adaptability of the

building's multi-function areas by type of MRB
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Table 6 Level of satisfaction by type of MRB housing development
Type of MRB housing

DIMENSION 1 Private Public NGO Total
Acceptability on Social, Economic,

Emotional and Environmental Aspect of the
Building
Safety
Extremely/slightly dissatisfied 6.9 10.3 13.3 10.2
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 44.8 31.0 20.0 31.8
Slightly Satisfied 31.0 44.8 46.7 40.9
Extremely Satisfied 17.2 13.8 20.0 17.0
Security
Sense of Community
Extremely/slightly dissatisfied 0 17.2 13.3 10.2
Comfort*
Privacy
Affordability*
Maintenance
Quality
Prestige
Extremely/slightly dissatisfied 0 10.3 10 6.8
Location from workplace

Home owners association management*

DIMENSION 2
Adequacy in the Residential Unit Features
Living spaces*
DIMENSION 3
Utilization of Common Areas inside the

Building
Hallways
Stairs*
Type of MRB housing

DIMENSION 4 Private Public Total
NGO
Utilization of Common Areas inside the
Building
Laundry*
Storage Areas*
Adaptability of Public Amenities outside the
building
Entrance/Exit Gates*
Green space (Yard)*

Parking*
Perimeter Fencing*
Extremely/slightly dissatisfied 0 31.0 10 13.6
Slightly Satisfied 48.3 37.9 40 42.0
Function hall*
Total 100 100 100 100

Number of Cases 29 29 30 88
Results and Discussions of Objective 3
For tables 7 and 8, Constructed a single summary measure of satisfaction for
each of the four dimensions. Added the score of each indicator for the three
dimensions and calculated the average. The average satisfaction score is then cross-
tabulated with the types of housing unit initiatives (table 3) and by background
characteristics (table 4). Used independent sample T-test for variables with two
categories and ANOVA for variables with more than two categories to test whether
there is significant difference among respondents in terms of the overall satisfaction
score for each of the four dimensions.
Table 7 Discussions
Table 7 clearly shows that residents of MRB units initiated by private entities
have higher satisfaction score than those living in units initiated by the government
and non-government organizations in terms of utilization of the common areas
inside the building and adaptability of public amenities outside the building.
Meanwhile, residents in NGO initiated MRB units are more satisfied on the adequacy
of the residential unit features than residents of units initiated by the government or
private developers.
Table 7 Mean Satisfaction Scores on four Dimension of

Satisfaction by Type of MRB Housing Development
Dimensions of Satisfaction Type of MRB housing

Private Public NGO Ave.
Acceptability on Social, 41.9 38.9 42.2 41.0

Economic, Emotional and
Environmental Aspect
Adequacy in the Residential 3.7 3.5 4.2 3.8

Unit Features*
Utilization of Common 15.2 12.6 13.3 13.7

Areas inside the Building*
Adaptability of Public 18.8 15.3 17.8 17.3

Amenities outside the
building*
Number of cases 29 28 30
Note: *Significant at p <0.05
Table 8 Discussions
Table 8 indicates that there is no significant difference in the four dimensions
of satisfaction by characteristic profile of the respondents except for some few
indicators. Residents of rent-to-own housing unit have significantly higher
satisfaction score (4.6) in terms of adequacy in the residential unit features than
those who own (3.8) or renting (3.4) the housing units they live in. Length of stay in
the MRB units is also significantly associated with three dimensions of satisfaction.
Those living in their housing unit for not more than five years compared with those
who have been staying in their unit for longer years have significantly higher
satisfaction score in terms of acceptability on social, economic, emotional and
environmental aspect of the building; adequacy in the residential unit features and
adaptability of public amenities outside of the building.
Residents who are living in the ground floor have higher satisfaction score in
terms of adaptability of the public amenity outside the building compared with those
living in higher floors.
Table 8 Characteristic Profile of respondents by mean
satisfaction scores on four dimension of satisfaction
Dimensions of satisfaction
Acceptabilit
y on Social,
Economic,
Emotional Utilization
and Adequacy of Adaptabilit
Environmen in the Common y of Public
tal Aspects Residenti Areas Amenities
of the al Unit inside the outside the
Background characteristics Building Features Building building
Sex of the respondent
Male 40.9 3.7 13.7 16.9
Female 41.1 3.9 13.5 17.6
Marital status of the

respondent
Married 41.0 3.8 13.2 17.1
Single 41.0 3.9 14.5 17.8
Occupation of the
respondent
Private/NGO 40.8 3.8 13.8 17.6
Government 40.3 3.7 13.2 16.8
Self employed 42.3 4.1 13.8 17.2
Age of respondent
29 and below 40.6 3.8 14.4 17.7
30-39 41.2 3.8 13.8 18.4
40 and above 40.9 3.8 12.9 16.3
Number of household
member
1-3 40.2 3.8 13.8 16.8
4-6 39.9 3.6 12.8 16.6
7-9 40.6 3.8 13.4 17.6
Total household Income

29,000 and below 41.0 3.9 13.5 17.0
30,000-39,000 41.3 3.9 13.8 18.5
40,000 and above 42.4 3.2 13.6 17.0
Educational attainment of
the respondent
High school and below 40.8 3.9 13.7 16.4
College graduate 41.2 3.8 13.5 17.5
Post-graduate 40.0 3.4 13.7 17.3
Place of origin of the
respondent
Locally born 40.5 3.6 13.8 17.1
Migrant from the province 41.7 4.0 13.2 17.5
Order of occupancy
First 41.6 3.9 13.8 17.5
Otherwise 38.4 3.4 12.9 16.3
Tenure status *
Own 41.8 3.8 14.3 17.6
Rental/caretaker 38.8 3.4 13.2 16.6
Rent to own 42.9 4.6 12.0 17.3
Length of stay in MRB * * *

1-5 42.9 4.1 13.8 18.4
5-9 40.0 3.5 13.3 15.8
10 and above 36.4 3.3 13.2 15.8
Building unit location *

Ground floor 43.8 4.0 14.7 19.4
Second floor 40.8 3.6 13.5 17.2
Third floor 40.2 3.8 12.6 16.3
Fourth floor 38.1 3.7 13.8 15.6
Total 40.9 3.8 13.5 17.2

N of Cases 90.0 90.0 90.0 89.0
Table 9 Discussions
Table 9 is a cross-tabulation result of the final question found in the survey
questionnaires by asking the respondents their overall “Feeling of Satisfaction” and
by type of MRB initiated sectors. Results shows that there is no significant difference
across the three sectors but majority of the all respondents (65.6%) answered
GOOD on the four level belief question namely; Excellent, Good, Fair and Poor.
Overall perceptions in terms of feeling of satisfaction * Types Cross-tabulation
Types
Private public NGO Total
Overall perceptions in terms of Excellent Count 2 1 5 8
feeling of satisfaction % within Types 6.7% 3.3% 16.7% 8.9%
% of Total 2.2% 1.1% 5.6% 8.9%
Good Count 23 17 19 59
% within Types 76.7% 56.7% 63.3% 65.6%
% of Total 25.6% 18.9% 21.1% 65.6%
Fair Count 5 12 6 23
% within Types 16.7% 40.0% 20.0% 25.6%
% of Total 5.6% 13.3% 6.7% 25.6%
Total Count 30 30 30 90
% within Types 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.938a 4 .094
Likelihood Ratio 7.648 4 .105
Linear-by-Linear Association .208 1 .648
N of Valid Cases 90
a. 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.67.
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings and Recommendations
This study had compared the profile of residents in three types of
housing development initiatives and differentiated their level of satisfaction and
perception of functionality across the three types. Results show the
characteristics of the respondents are different across the three types of housing
development. For example, among the young, single, working in private
organization, locally born and college graduate, living in a privately-initiated
housing unit is more common than that of residing in housing initiated by the
government or non-government organizations. Planners have to consider new
emerging unit buyers- the singles.
Overall, the level of satisfaction in terms of safety, security, sense of
community, privacy, maintenance, quality, prestige, location from workplace
aspects of the MRB units do not significantly differ across the three sectors.
In terms of comfort to their unit, NGO-initiated units expressed
extreme satisfaction compared with those initiated by both private and public.
Developers belonging to this group have to evaluate the thermal and indoor air
quality of their MRB housing designs; physical feature evidence is something to
be confirmed on ground for further study because they all have the similar
ceiling heights and have window opening in their units.
Majority of the respondents said that they are satisfied with their monthly
amortization and /or rental fees. However, significantly higher proportion of
respondents living in NGO-initiated housing unit expressed extreme satisfaction
on the affordability of their unit compared with the initiatives of private and
public sectors. This is understandable since residents living in NGO-initiated
housing have taken part in the construction through “sweat equity”. Learning
from this experience, the author believes that developers from both private and
public can adopt this system where profits come only as second priority and
taking consideration the challenge of the UN call to have a “housing for all”, this
method of lowering down the cost is highly prescribed.
With regards to adequacy of living spaces, there are more respondents living
in public-initiated housing units who are slightly satisfied but there are more
respondents from NGO-initiated units who expressed extreme satisfaction on
this aspect compared with the other two types, considering that they have a
smaller area of their residential unit. I think this is something to think about, why
a smaller area of living spaces is perceived adequate? An interesting issue to be
studied further.
When it comes to vertical access to their unit by stairs, NGO-initiated
housing are extremely satisfied compared to private and public types. The
author observed that this may be due to an open planning type that resulted a
conducive, well ventilated and naturally lighted staircase.
Regarding to laundry, there is slightly higher proportion of those living in
privately-initiated housing units who are satisfied with their laundry area relative
to those living in public or NGO initiated housing. This is due to some residential
units that had been converted to commercial unit in the private-initiated housing
that offers laundry business, especially those units in the ground level areas.
For storage, NGO-initiated housing provided a common storage area
near to their building and this make sense that they are extremely satisfied
compare to private and public initiated housing that have limited common areas
inside their MRB housing compound.
For entrance and exit gates, green yard spaces and perimeter fencing,
public-initiated housing seem to have lower satisfaction rate. In their efforts to
provide housing to a wider masses of Filipinos the government thru National
Housing Authority has sacrificed some basic housing consideration such as the
three indicators mentioned in favor of the cost of housing. The author’s
interview with them said ”the cost of housing is the main and top priority of the
agency”13. Public housing policy will benefit from this findings and infer on how
to improve future MRB housing projects thereby making more public customer
satisfied.
13
Author’s Interview with NHA TSG personnel
Finally, multi-purpose area which is the last five indicators for the
dimension of adaptability has received the highest dissatisfaction among the
respondents. This result seems to refute what we often see in some brochures
made by developers claiming to have complete amenities in their housing
complex.
Conclusions:
Therefore, going back to my hypotheses
1. “There are notable differences in the factors affecting their perception of
functionality and level of satisfaction among residents living in Public,
Private and NGO initiated MRB Housing of their residential units.” More
than half of the indicators measured by this study supports the
hypothesis 1 statement.
2. Also, this study agrees to Hypothesis 2 statement that “Residents living
in MRB housing are generally satisfied.”
With these, it can be concluded , that the level of satisfaction varies in
terms of type of MRB housing sectors that a person lives in. Residents of MRB
units initiated by NGO have higher satisfaction in terms of comfort, living spaces,
homeowners’ association management, utilization of stairs inside the building
and adaptability of yard and fencing outside the building. Meanwhile, MRB
initiated by private developers have an edge when it comes to residents’
satisfaction in terms of utilization of the laundry and storage areas, and
adaptability of the entrance/exit gates, parking and multi-function hall.
Consistent to their thrust, affordability seems to be a selling point of public-
initiated MRB housing development.
Vll. REFERENCES:
1. Randolph, William…et al.(Editors) Refereed papers presented at the 4th

Australasian Housing Researchers Conference, Sydney,(2010)
2. Ogu, V.I (2002). Urban Residential Satisfaction and The Planning Implications in a
Developing World Context: The Example of Benin City, Nigeria, International
Planning Studies,(2002).
3. Potter, James …et al. Residents' Perceptions of Housing and the Quality of Life in
Schuyler, Nebraska. 1996.
4.Koebel, C Theodore…et al. Resident Satisfaction Survey - Roanoke Housing

Authority, 1998. Prepared by the Center for Housing Research Virginia Tech.1999.
5. Varady, D.P. and Preiser, W.F.E. (1998). Scattered-Site Public Housing and Housing
Satisfaction: Implications for the New Public Housing Program, Journal of American
Planning Association, 6(2): 189-207.
6. Jaafar, Mastura; Hasan, Noor Liza; Mohamad, Osman; Ramayah,T. “The

Determinants of Housing Satisfaction Level: A Study on Residential Develoment
Project by PENANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION “ Universiti Sains Malaysia
http://www.fppsm.utm.my/download/doc_view/73-the-determinants-of-housing-
satisfaction-level-a-study-on-residential-development-project-by-penang.html
7.Maureen E. Austin. Resident perspectives of the open space conservation

subdivision in Hamburg Township, Michigan,2000
http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2004/nc_2004_austin_001.pdf
8.Joongsub Kim and Kaplan Rachel. Physical and Psychological factors in Sense of
Community.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/physical-psychological-factors-sense-
community-new-urbanist-kentlands-nearby-orchard-village/
9. Habitat for Humanity Philippines.

http://www.habitat.org.ph/site/index.php?option=banner&mode=view&id=5
10. Jiboye, AD.The correlates of public housing satisfaction in Lagos, Nigeria.

2010
www.academicjournals.org/jgrp/PDF/pdf2010/Feb/Jiboye.pdf
11. Chandler, Robert…et at. Building Type basics for Housing/ Goody, Clancy and
Associates. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New Jersey. 2005.
12. Apolo, Jose T, Subdivision and Condominium laws and Issuances.NBS.

Mandaluyong City, Philippines. 2004.
13. Wang,David and Groat, Linda. Architectural Research Methods. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. Canada. 2002
14. Tannerfeldt, Goran and Ljung, Per. More Urban Less Poor, an introduction to
urban development and Management. Earthscan. UK and USA. 2008.
15. Building Issues. SIDA and LCHS. Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
VIII. APPENDICES
1. Sample Questionnaire
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
University of the Philippines SURVEY FORM
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE This questionnaire is for the study of Dimensions of Residents’ Perception and
Diliman, Quezon City Satisfaction of Living in MRB Housing. Please answer all the questions by putting a
check on the appropriate answer box and number according to your
corresponding choice on the blank line. The information you answered will be used
as a data for a thesis in Master of Architecture degree. In accordance with the
“ethics in research”, your answer will be treated very CONFIDENTIALLY.
A.RESPONDENT FAMILY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE:

Respondent’s Name: Optional
(Owner of the Unit)
1.Gender of the Respondent 2.Marital Status of the Respondent
Male Female Married Single

c c c c
o
3.Occupation o
of the Respondent 4.Ageo Bracket of Respondento
Private 60 and above
c c
Gov’t co 40-59
c
o
co NGO co 30-39
co Self-employment co 29 and below
o o
5. No. of household living
6.Combined Monthly Income 7. Educational Attainment of the Respondent
50,000 and above Graduate/Post-Graduate

c c
40,000-49,000 College Graduate
c
o c
o
30,000-39,000 Vocational/Trade
c co
o High School Graduate
c 29,000 and below
o
co
c Elementary
o
o
7. Place of Origin of the Respondent o
Locally born 8. If Respondent is the First Occupant/Tenant?
c Migrant from the Province Yes No
co Other country c c
co o o
o
10. Tenure Status
Own
c c Rental c Others please specify
o o o
11. Time in MRB housing 12. Building Unit Location of the Respondent
Ground Floor
c 15 years and above c
2nd Floor
c 10-14 years
o c
o
3rd Floor
co
c 5-9 years
o
c 4th Floor
o
c 1-5 years
o c
o
5th Floor & above
o o
B.SURVEY PROPER
MRB Housing Development Type: (please check one)
Private Public NGO
B.1. Aspect of the Building: Satisfaction in terms of the dimension of acceptability (“katanggap-
tanggap”)
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Slightly Neither Slightly Extremely
dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied nor satisfied satisfied
dissatisfied
_______1. Safety (Natural disaster)
_______2. Security (Burglars and other bad elements)
_______3. Sense of Community (Belonging or “Samahan”)
_______4. Comfort (Thermal and Indoor Air Quality)
_______5. Privacy (Noise consideration)
_______6. Affordability (Monthly amortization/Rental Fee)
_______7. Maintenance (Building and Surroundings)
_______8. Quality (Building features)
_______9. Prestige (Self-respect)
_______10. Location from workplace (Access to)
_______11. Home Owners Association Mgt (Services)
B.2 Functionality of Living Spaces: Perception in terms of the dimension of Adequacy (“sapat”)
1 2 3 4 5
dissatisfied
_______12. Living Spaces (unit) including Living, Dining, Kitchen and Sleeping areas
B.3 Common areas in the building: Perception in terms of the dimension of utilization (“gamit na
gamit”)
1 2 3 4 5
dissatisfied
_______13. Hallways
_______14. Entrance/Exit Gates
_______15. Stairs
_______16. Laundry area
_______17. Storage area
B.4 Outside amenities in the building: Functionality in terms of the dimension of adaptability
(Flexible)
1 2 3 4 5
dissatisfied
_______18. Green Yard Space
_______19. Parking
_______20. Perimeter Fencing
_______21. Multi-Function Area
What is your overall perception in terms of “ Feeling of Satisfaction” of living in MRB housing?
c Excellent c Good c
Fair
c
Poor
o M a r aom i n g S a l a m a t ! ! o o
2. Key Informant Guide Question
Guide Questions
Key Informant Interview: Representative from the Home Owner’s Association
1. When did this MRB built?

_______________________________________
2. Do you have homeowners association?
_______________________________________
3. If yes, How often do you hold your board meeting? general membership meeting?
_______________________________________
4. How long have you been a president?
_______________________________________
5. What successful programs have you implemented?
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
6. Are the members responsive to the programs?
_______________________________________
7. How much is your monthly dues?
_______________________________________
8. How many percent are the paying members?
_______________________________________
9. How many registered members?
_______________________________________
10. When is your maintenance schedule?
_______________________________________
11. What is the average unit floor area?
_______________________________________
12. Are your common areas in good condition?
______________________________________
13. Are your amenities been used well?
_______________________________________
14. What are the strengths of MRB housing?
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
15. What are the weaknesses of MRB housing?
_______________________________________
______________________________________

ALVARO MASTER ThesisBook PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

ALVARO MASTER ThesisBook PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALVARO MASTER ThesisBook PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

is apparently becoming widely considered since there is an increasing demand

public including non-governmental organization were geared towards the

benefits derived from constructing MRB housing development. In Metro Manila,

vertical living in a form of MRB housing are manifested in condominiums or

medium rise structure for condominiums due to economic reasons in

housing is far better in terms of practicality and complementary to the

A.1 The History of MRB in the Philippines

adopted by the government as early as 1953 according to NHA reckoning. It all

started with the construction of Bagong Barangay Housing Project (BBHP) or

showed images of the finished Mass Housing Projects, it focused on MRB

the government in collaboration with private developers. This program was

dedicated to make housing in crowded areas of Metro Manila.

1970s under the Marcos Administration. The then, Ministry of Human

Settlements started the construction of Bagong Lipunan Sites and Services

of low-salaried employees in urban areas. These BLISS medium-rise

been seen as a way to address the growing population in urban centers by

to land prices in the provinces.”2

is a list of completed projects namely; 1.) Bagong Barangay Housing Project or

Mariae Medium-Rise Housing, Malate, Manila; 11.) Maharlika Condominuim I, Upper

2, Malabon,MM; 18.) Camarin MRH Project, Camarin, Cal.,MM; 19.)Karangalan Site 2

Magsaysay Rd., Karangalan Village, Pasig,MM.3

understanding from residents’ MRB utilization by conducting interviews using

overall perception in terms of their feeling of satisfaction of living in MRB

conventional lot residential development that sprawls everywhere. MRB

housing, a typology of housing emphasizes the quality as well as the quantity of

a means for local government units to accommodate residential growth while

altered as sprawl spreads from urban centers. Regardless of what Filipinos’

perception on living in MRB housing, this concept in housing development is

This study would provide useful feedback to those developers and

planners seeking to implement this building type philosophy. Furthermore,

residents’ understanding of this concept may be the key to their active

involvement in preserving and managing effectively their homeowner

and lot development thereby resulting to urban sprawl.

Development at Lund University in Sweden and had been impressed of what he

minimize the impact of unmanaged urban physical growth and sprawl.

A.2 Profile of Study Areas

locations that were economically accessible and appropriately fit to the

Figure 1 Map of Metro Manila

Ave. Floor 30.31 sq.m 52-60 sq.m 26.1 sq.m

PRIVATE: Sunny Villas, East Fairview, Quezon City

along Commonwealth Avenue which is part of northern Quezon City, by walking

community of high quality and affordable Mediterranean-inspired condominium

units. It features a 5-storeybuilding that has been designed to provide a

condominium lifestyle of convenience, comfort, security, peace of mind and

privacy within Metro Manila.”4

Figure 2 Map of Barangay Fairview in Quezon City

Built in 2004, they have an organized Homeowners Association that runs

all administrative and maintenance support to their 814 registered tenant

members. The whole project was in collaboration with a Phinma Properties a

PUBLIC: Teachers’ Bliss Condo, Balonbato, Balintawak, Quezon City

The Teachers BLISS is a public housing project initiated by the National

Association was organized by the housing agency when it started to full

their close and solid relationship as community.

Figure 3 Map of Barangay Balonbato in Quezon City

NGO: Family Town Homes, FTI, Taguig City