西南交通大学学报

第 58 卷 第 2 期 Vol. 58 No. 2
JOURNAL OF SOUTHWEST JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY Apr. 2 0 2 3
2023 年4月

ISSN: 0258-2724 DOI：10.35741/issn.0258-2724.58.2.42

Research article

Social Sciences

RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION IN HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL

BUILDINGS: CASE STUDY OF MEDIUM COST HOUSING

高层住宅的居住满意度：中等造价住宅案例研究

Fatin Umaira Muhamad Azian a,*, Ernawati Mustafa Kamal b, Suhana Ismail c, Rosmiza Mohd Zainol a,
Farah Salwati Ibrahim b
a
Centre for Research in Development, Social and Environment, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Selangor, Malaysia, fatin.umаirа@ukm.еdu.my
b
School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Penang, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA
Selangor, Malaysia

Received: January 21, 2023 ▪ Reviewed: February 20, 2023

▪ Accepted: March 19, 2023 ▪ Published: April 28, 2023

This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Abstract
This paper aims to identify the residential satisfaction in medium-cost high-rise residential buildings.
Four items represent the residential satisfaction, including overall satisfaction, duration of stay, retention,
and recommendation. A survey was conducted to gather information from residents at medium-cost high-
rise residential buildings, which are most of the residents living in this housing type came from medium
and lower-income groups. The descriptive analysis is applied to identify whether the residents satisfy or
not with the housing condition. The findings indicate that the residents slightly agree in the residential
satisfaction of the housing area. The results provide a practical contribution in added knowledge on
resident‟s perspective of living in medium-cost housing for developers, government, housing
management, and residents in dealing with housing performance for the well-being of life in high-rise
residential buildings.

Keywords: Residential Satisfaction, Residential Buildings, High-Rise Medium-Cost Housing, Malaysia

摘要 本文旨在确定中造价高层住宅建筑的居住满意度。四个项目代表住宅满意度，包括总体满意
度、停留时间、保留率和推荐度。对居住在中等成本的高层住宅楼的居民进行了一项调查，这些
居民居住在这种住房类型中的大多数来自中低收入群体。描述性分析用于确定居民是否满意住房
条件。调查结果显示，居民对该住宅区的居住满意度略有认同。研究结果为开发商、政府、住房
管理部门和居民处理住房性能以提高高层住宅生活幸福感提供了更多知识，帮助他们了解居民对
Azian et al. Residential Satisfaction in High-Rise Residential Buildings: Case Study of Medium Cost Housing, Vol. 58 No. 2 Apr.
462
中等成本住房的看法。
关键词: 住宅满意度，住宅建筑，高层中等成本房屋，马来西亚
I. INTRODUCTION
Housing has become a significant concern for
all human beings around the world as it is a
reflection of the wellbeing and prosperity of a
country. Along with being the indicator of life‟s
wellbeing, housing offers protection as well as an
opportunity for the construction sector‟s growth,
creating employment and contributing to the
capital expansion. Housing demand are
expanding due to the urbanization phenomenon
[31]. Urbanization generally refers to the growing
number of people living in urban areas than in
rural areas that had contributed to the
development in terms of populations and the
cities [48]. This phenomenon also causes
increased land demand for residential, industrial,
transportation, and commercial transformations
[20].
In Malaysia, housing development started
from the establishment of New Economic
Policies (NEP) in 1970 to change the residential
pattern stereotype of ethnic groups in the country.
As mentioned before, the rapid rate of migration
from rural areas, especially by Malay citizens to
urban centres in the 80‟s has led to a rise in the
demand for affordable housing in most cities [41].
This urban expansion has also attracted a large
group of young people to move to urban centres
with the hope of being more secure in life [16],
[48].
Housing in Malaysia is being developed in
line with the goals of 2030 Agenda, which meant
to be achieved between 2020 and 2030 [52].
Therefore, the objective is a successful housing
development with the mission of sustainable
development to provide adequate shelter for
everyone and developing housing that improves
people‟s quality of life whilst protecting the
environment.
According to [47], residential satisfaction
reflects the degree to which the residents felt that
their housing assists them in meeting their goals.
Residential satisfaction also describes a resident‟s
assessment of their living environment based on
their desires, wishes, and accomplishments [2].
Previous studies mention that residential
satisfaction comprises three main perspectives,
which are purposive, aspiration-gap approach and
cognitive, affective and conative dimensions [4].
From these three perspectives, residential
satisfaction (RS) with cognitive, affective, and
2023
conative aspects are more comprehensive [14].
This statement is also supported by [55], [38],
and [10], suggesting residential satisfaction to
include these three components.
In the Malaysia context, there are many
studies focusing on residential satisfaction in
many aspects [7], [8], [12], [24], [27], [33], [35],
[42], but according to [51] and [55], numerous
previous studies on satisfaction have exclusively
concentrated on the cognitive component,
excluding the affective and conative components.
Besides, less attention has been paid to the
conative component in the perspective of
residential satisfaction (RS) [14]. Therefore, this
study fills the gap in determining residential
satisfaction by including cognitive, affective and
conative components, as suggested by [4], [13],
[21], and [37].
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Residential Satisfaction
Satisfaction compares what was received
against expectation [45]. Satisfaction may also be
described as the perceived gap between desire
and accomplishment, with feelings varying from
fulfillment to disappointment [11]. Besides,
residential satisfaction represents the extent to
which residents believe their housing assists them
in achieving their goals/objectives [1], [40]. In
other words, satisfaction is reached when the
current situation exceeds the users‟ expectations
or preferences. Additionally, as defined by [19],
residential satisfaction relates to people‟s
reactions to their living environment. The term
„environment‟ in this context refers not only to
the physical features of a residential setting, such
as homes, housing developments, and
neighborhoods, but also to its social, economic,
operational, and administrative dimensions.
Three main perspectives on residential
satisfaction include purposive, aspiration-gap
approach, cognitive, affective and conative
dimensions [4]. The purposive approach is under
a cognitive standpoint related to the measurement
of different facets and roles of environment
facilities in contributing to user satisfaction [25].
For instance, a household may choose to reside in
a sustainable home to create an enabling
environment and save money. If both goals are
accomplished, thus they may achieve a high

degree of housing satisfaction. However,
households appreciate not just in objective
relationships with their housing environment but
also in affective ones [23]. Therefore, the
aspiration-gap approach is comparing what
respondents already have to what they desire or
have already experienced [4], [14].
However, [21] and [54] established a more
comprehensive view of satisfaction, seeing it as
an attitude and a multidimensional construct with
cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions.
These researchers theorized satisfaction as
composed of cognitive, affective, and conative
components that people display in reaction to
some social objects [17].
A cognitive component is concerns beliefs
toward the physical condition of the
neighborhood, the housing complex, dwelling,
neighbors and proper neighbor behavior,
management policies, rules, and practices [21].
This component is also an evaluation of product
attribute performance [15]. The affective
component is emotional and evaluative and
comprises multiple reactions toward their
environment [15], [21]. This component
represents when the residents tend to show their
satisfaction/dissatisfaction attitudes toward their
socio-physical housing environment after
properly evaluating the performance [34].
Lastly, the conative component is about the
commitment toward the housing [15]. This
component explained when the residents tend to
express their behavior to make the physical
setting satisfactory, modify the housing
environment, or move out from the residential
area [34]. Thus, from previous studies, several
models used these three (3) components in
measuring residential satisfaction (RS).
B. Residential Satisfaction Items
According to [51], an RS index model
contains four basic questions that comprise one
(1) overall satisfaction question: “How satisfied
are you with living here?” and three (3) loyalty
behavior questions: “How long do you want to
live in this residence?”, “If you move again,
would you like to live in another place like this?”
and “Would you recommend this place to one of
your friends?”.
Also, the Household Satisfaction Index (HSI)
model, consisting of questions for investigating
residential satisfaction in the housing context,
was suggested in [52]. For this model, they
proposed one (1) question regarding overall
satisfaction and two (2) questions regarding
loyalty behavior that are purchasing the same
corporation‟s house when the customer wants to
463
buy a new one and recommending the
corporation to others.
Furthermore, [3] proposed relative satisfaction
(RSAT) index model to study students‟ housing
context. This RSAT model adapted the questions
from [54] RS index model with two (2) overall
satisfaction questions: “How satisfied are you
with living here in general?” and “How would
you rate your present bedroom for the activities
of sleeping, studying, entertaining friends and
relaxing” and one (1) question for the conative
component: “Do you intend to move to another
accommodation in the near future?”
Besides, the Student Residential Satisfaction
(SRS) model proposed by [37] also determines
residential satisfaction but from a student‟s
housing perspective. The SRS model has four
items proposed, which are one (1) the overall
housing satisfaction question: “How satisfied are
you with living here?” and three (3) loyalty
behaviors questions: “How long do you want to
live in this residence?”, “If you move again,
would you like to live in another place like this?”
and “Would you recommend this place to one of
your friends? On top of that, the other studies by
[13], [36], and [45] also use these items to
evaluate residential satisfaction.
Based on the analysis from various previous
studies, this current study adopted four (4) items
in evaluating residential satisfaction as an index
as there is still a lack of study regarding stratified
residential buildings. Even if the evaluations have
different genre names, the concepts and goals are
the same, i.e., determining the degree of
residential satisfaction in the research field.
Therefore, for this current study, the four (4)
items used from the satisfaction dimensions were
put forwarded based on [13], [37], [45], [50], and
[54].
1) Overall Satisfaction
This item represents the reaction of the
building‟s residents to the overall perception of
the housing performance. According to [12], this
item is a general emotional assessment grouped
under the affective dimension. This argument is
also supported by [9] and [54], stating that it is
about a sensation response in the affective
dimension.
2) Duration of Stay
The duration of stay for each dweller in their
individual residence can be used to forecast
residential satisfaction in the built environment
[6]. This situation shows that the longer a person
remains in their residence, the more pleasure they
derive from their home and surroundings.
According to [15], this item falls under the
cognitive dimension and affects the occupant‟s
Azian et al. Residential Satisfaction in High-Rise Residential Buildings: Case Study of Medium Cost Housing, Vol. 58 No. 2 Apr.
464
beliefs.
3) Retention
This item is categorized into a behavioral
(conative) dimension [17], [54]. This item
illustrates that happier people are more likely to
look for new houses close to those they already
reside before moving to a new location [43].
According to [53], regardless of the degree of
happiness, versatility is inevitable due to income
increases. If individuals are happy, they will
choose to buy the same products in the future
[51], eliminating the need to improve [10].
However, if a customer is satisfied with the house,
they may suggest it to others [43], [50].
4) Recommendation
According to [51], this item is classified under
the behavioral (conative) dimension. Reichheld
and Sandifer-Smallwood cited in [43], opined a
strong correlation between customers‟
satisfaction and the likelihood of recommending
the service provider to friends and family. In the
housing context, [43] and [50] also strengthen
their statement by mentioning that customers
who are happy with the house might recommend
it to others.
To this end, residential satisfaction in this
study will be based on four items in evaluating
residential satisfaction, which are overall
satisfaction, duration of stay, retention and
recommendation.
III. RESEARCH METHODS
A. Instrument Design
The survey method was adopted in this study,
and data were collected using a structured
questionnaire as it aimed to predict the residential
satisfaction in high-rise medium-cost housing.
There are ten items for background information
in Section A and four items in Section B
regarding residential satisfaction (RS). The
nominal scale was used for Section A regarding
respondent‟s profile and seven-point Likert scale
was used to measure residential satisfaction (RS).
B. Study Location and Sample Size
The unit of analysis for this study is the high-
rise residential buildings. The residents (owner or
renter) were lived at medium-cost housing in
high-rise residential projects in three state
capitals: Shah Alam, Selangor, Johor Bharu,
Johor, and Penang Island Pulau Pinang. This
population was chosen because they ranked as
the top 3 in the report for the total number of
high-rise residential buildings [39] and ranked
high in cased lodged in the Tribunal for Strata
Management for January until September 2019
2023
[28]. In terms of the participant‟s criteria, he or
she must be a resident (owner or renter) who is
living at medium -cost high rise housing for at
least six months, the residential unit‟s size must
be greater than 700 sqft but less than 1000 sqft
(suitable with characteristics for medium-cost
housing) [5], the selected housing scheme must
offer comparable services and facilities also
already established the Management Corporation
(MC).
Stratified random sampling is implemented,
and the sample size was determined using the
inverse square root method recommended by [26].
The recommended minimum sample size was
279 sample. The questionnaire was self-
administered because of the greater response rate
of self-administered questionnaires than internet
surveys [32]. The researcher circulated 540
surveys and obtained 434 usable replies. The
number of legitimate responses received above
the necessary 279, and, as such, was deemed
sufficient.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Respondent’s Profile
As a whole, the final useful sample consisted
of 434 respondents, with an 80.4% response rate.
The final sample response was collected from
Shah Alam, Penang, and Johor Bharu. Table 1
presents the respondent‟s demographic profile
details, showing that 49.3% were male and
50.7% female. In terms of race, most of the
respondents were Malay (68.4%), followed by
Chinese (20.5%) and Indian (11.1%).
Regarding the number of households, half of
the respondents are staying with 3-4 people in the
housing unit (49.8%), 27.6% of respondents are
with 5-6 people, and 4% have more than eight
people living in one housing unit. These results
showed that many respondents live in the
appropriate space with the number of people who
live in the housing ratio. Meanwhile, income
becomes an essential determinant of
homeownership [29], [30]. The result showed
37.1% of respondents were from the RM4000 to
RM5000 income bracket. Other than that, 36.2%
of the respondents are from the RM3001-
RM4000 household income bracket. This
indicates that many respondents are from the B40
group (B3 and B4) about to enter the medium -
income group based on new income group
classification by the Department of Statistics
Malaysia for 2020.
In terms of ownership, the percentage
between house owners and tenants is quite
similar, where the owners are 53.7% and tenants
 465

46.3%. Also, 36.9% of total respondents already (13.6%), more than 15 years (13.1%), and less
lived in the housing scheme between 1 to 5 years, than one year (6.9%).
followed by 6 to 10 years (29.5%), 11 to 15 years

Table 1.
The respondents‟ demographic profile
Attributes Categories Frequency Percentages (%)
1) Gender Male 214 49.3
Female 220 50.7
2) Race Malays 297 68.4
Chinese 89 20.5
Indian 48 11.1
Others 0 0
3) Age (years) 21-30 old 85 19.6
31-40 162 37.3
41- 50 115 26.5
51- 60 56 12.9
Above 61 16 3.7
4) Marital status Single 54 12.4
Married 361 83.2
Others 19 4.4
5) Number of households 1-2 people 75 17.3
3-4 people 216 49.8
5-6 people 120 27.6
7-8 people 19 4.4
More than 8 people 4 0.9
6) Education Qualifications Primary/secondary school 151 34.8
STPM /Certificate 107 24.7
Diploma 83 19.1
Bachelor Degree 71 16.4
Master Degree and above 22 5.1
7) Job Background Government sector 87 20.0
Private sector 200 46.1
Own business 146 33.6
Student 0 0
Unemployed 0 0
Others 1 0.2
8) Household income Less than RM3000 0 0
RM3001-RM4000 157 36.2
RM4001-RM5000 161 37.1
RM5001-RM6000 69 15.9
RM6001-RM7000 20 4.6
RM7001-RM8000 9 2.1
RM8001-RM9000 11 2.5
RM9001-RM10000 3 0.7
More than RM10000 4 0.9
9) Type of ownership Owner 233 53.7
Tenant 201 46.3
10) Length of residency (years) Less than 1 30 6.9
1-5 160 36.9
6-10 128 29.5
11-15 59 13.6
More than 15 57 13.1

B. Analysis of Residential Satisfaction residential satisfaction. Therefore, with the

For this section, the descriptive analysis was questions answered, the RS Index can be
applied to identify the mean and residential computed to illustrate the RS from residents‟
satisfaction index (RSI) for each item in Section perspectives toward medium-cost high-rise
C of the questionnaire survey. General RS can be residential buildings.
conceptualized by four (4) fundamental questions
in typical family housing based on [21], [53], and Table 2.
[54]. The items (overall satisfaction, duration of Results of residential satisfaction
stay, retention and recommendation) were Item Mean Standard Deviation
adopted and modified to suit the current study for Overall residential 5.24 1.340
Azian et al. Residential Satisfaction in High-Rise Residential Buildings: Case Study of Medium Cost Housing, Vol. 58 No. 2 Apr.
466
satisfaction
Duration of stay 5.16 1.478
Retention 4.63 1.684
Recommendation 4.77 1.514
Average Mean 4.95
The results in Table 2 obtained from
calculating the weighted mean indicate that the
average mean for the residential satisfaction
index is 4.95. By referring to [22], mean
calibrations, 4.95 suggest that the residents
„Slightly Agree‟ in residential satisfaction of
housing areas. In other words, the result indicates
the residents for medium-cost high-rise
residential buildings were satisfied with their
housing area. Additionally, this current study also
determined that 74.9% of the respondents
generally agreed they were pleased with their
housing performance. Besides, 73.7% of the
respondents agreed to reside longer in their
housing. Only 66.1% of the respondents agreed
to maintain the same house choice, and 68.1%
agreed to recommend the housing to relatives and
friends. Thus, these data supported the idea that
satisfaction is a multidimensional construct in
triple dimensions, which are affective, cognitive
and conative.
Conversely, in the residential housing study,
fewer studies are using the same context.
Therefore, this study compared the result with the
student housing and housing context study by [3],
[13], and [37]. In [3], the RSAT index is 2.70 of
5 satisfaction points and is categorized under the
„Poor‟ category, same as this study‟s „Slightly
Disagree‟ response value. Other than that, [37]
proposed that the SRS index is 2.96, also under
„Slightly Disagree‟ based on the response value
in this study. The study by [13] reported the
mean result of 3.58, which is under „Neither
Agree/Disagree‟ referring to the response value
of this study. Therefore, this study‟s average
mean result of 4.95 is under „Slightly Agree‟,
indicating that residents were more satisfied with
the housing area than previous studies.
These current study findings have
contradicted the findings of [3], [13], and [37]
regarding the residential satisfaction perspective.
The first reason for this contradiction is the
differences in housing type. Studies by [3], [4],
and [37], [38] were focused on student housing;
meanwhile, this present study was conducted on
medium-cost high-rise residential buildings. This
current study is also different from [13] research,
which was held at welfare facilities.
Additionally, the respondents in this present
study are from a different group than previous
studies. The respondents considered in this study
are residents (owner or tenant) who lives in
2023
medium-cost high-rise residential buildings had
established the Management Corporation (MC) in
three state capitals that are Shah Alam, Johor
Bharu, and Penang Island. Unlike the previous
studies, the chosen respondents were university
students [4], [37], [38], and single-mother
households [13]. Therefore, the dissimilar
respondent‟s socio background resulted in
various preferences that can influence residential
satisfaction.
V. CONCLUSION
On the residential satisfaction concept, this
study provides an insight into residential
satisfaction based on previous studies suggesting
the cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions
in measuring residential satisfaction. The study
results show that the residents are satisfied with
the housing area (medium-cost housing) and met
their expectations for staying longer, finding a
similar house in the future, and recommending it
to others.
Additionally, this study extended the
residential satisfaction index proposed by
previous studies to cover the residential
satisfaction index in this study, which is
conceptualized as four (4) items: overall
satisfaction, duration of stay, retention, and
recommendation. It has contributed to the
literature by validating the cognitive, affective,
and conative dimensions of residential
satisfaction in a residential housing scenario.
For the limitation of the study, this study
concentrates on residents living in medium-cost
residential buildings. Although the results could
be generalized to similar cities, testing the
research model on other areas in Malaysia will
gain a better understanding of the medium-cost
housing situation in the country. Moreover, this
study focuses exclusively on medium-cost high-
rise residential buildings. Future research should
focus more on alternative housing types such as
low-cost or landed housing to conduct a
comprehensive review on residential satisfaction.
All residents, regardless of their age group
and housing type, seek for comfort for them and
their family. Residents‟ delight, belief, and
satisfaction reduce the property‟s turnover. With
the revealed residential satisfaction score of
70.7% in this study, hopefully further actions
should be geared toward achieving a higher score,
perhaps 100%. This scenario promotes a positive
perception of medium-cost housing for future
target buyers and thus appreciates property prices.
The final outcome of every residential
construction project is the occupants. In a
nutshell, regardless of whether the residents live

in new or existing buildings, their satisfaction
must be prioritized in order for Malaysia to
accomplish effective housing development and
serve as a model for other nations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks for the permission and
cooperation of the public authorities and property
management who were directly involved in this
research.
REFERENCES
[1] ABIDIN, N. Z., ABDULLAH, M. I.,
BASRAH, N., and ALIAS, M. N. (2019)
Residential Satisfaction: Literature Review
and A Conceptual Framework. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
Science, 385(1), 012040
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/385/1/012040.
[2] AMERIGO, M., and ARAGONES, J. I.
(1997) A theoretical and methodological
approach to the study of residential
satisfaction. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 17(1), pp. 47–57.
[3] AMOLE, D. (2009). Residential
Satisfaction and Levels of Environment in
Students‟ Residences. Environment and
Behavior, 41(6), pp. 866–879.
[4] AMOLE, D. (2009). Residential
satisfaction in students‟ housing. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 29(1), pp. 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.006
[5] ANI, A. I. C., SAIRI, A., TAWIL, N. M.,
WAHAB, S. R. H. A., and RAZAK, M. Z. A.
(2016) Classification of basic facilities for
high-rise residential: A survey from 100
housing scheme in Kajang area. AIP
Conference Proceedings, 1761.
[6] ARIFF, N. R. M., and DAVIES, H.
(2011) Multi-owner low-cost housing
management in Malaysia: Effects of owner-
occupant characteristics and occupancy rates.
International Journal of Housing Markets
and Analysis, 4(3), pp. 268–289.
[7] AZIAN, F. U. M., KAMAL, E. M.,
YUSOF, N., SYARIFUDDIN, N., &
ISMAIL, S. (2022) The Challenges Of
Property Management Companies In
Managing Highrise Residential Buildings
During The Covid-19 Pandemic.
International Journal of Academic Research
467
in Economics and Management and Sciences,
11(1), pp. 143–156.
[8] AZIAN, F.U.M., KHAIR, N., YOONG,
T.C., ISMAIL, S. & TAMBI, N. (2023) The
relationship between service quality and
occupants‟ satisfaction: a mixed-use building.
Real Estate Management and Valuation,
31(2), pp. 78-87.
[9] BITNER, M. J. (1990) Evaluating Service
Encounters: The Effects of Physical
Surroundings and Employee Responses.
Journal of Marketing, 54(2), pp. 69–82.
[10] BITNER, M. J. (1995) Building service
relationships: It‟s all about promises. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science:
Official Publication of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 23(4), pp. 246–251.
[11] CAMPBELL, A., CONVERSE, P. E.,
and RODGERS, W. L. (1976) The Quality of
American Life. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
[12] CHE-ANI, A. I., JAMIL, M., ZAIN, M.
F. M., MOHD-NOR, M. F. I., & MOHD-
TAWIL, N. (2009) A satisfaction survey of
high-rise residential management in
Malaysia: Sustainable indicators. WIT
Transactions on Ecology and the
Environment, 120, pp. 643–652.
[13] CHO, M. (2020) Residential satisfaction
among low-income single-mother
households: the case of residential welfare
facilities in South Korea. Archnet-IJAR,
14(3), pp. 359–378.
[14] EMAMI, A., and SADEGHLOU, S.
(2021) Residential Satisfaction: A Narrative
Literature Review Towards Identification of
Core Determinants and Indicators. Housing,
Theory and Society, 38 (4), pp. 1–29.
[15] EVANSCHITZKY, H., and
WUNDERLICH, M. (2006) An examination
of moderator effects in the four-stage loyalty
model. Journal of Service Research, 8(4), pp.
330–345.
[16] FIELDING, A. J. (1992) Migration and
Social Mobility: South East England as an
Escalator Region. Regional Studies, 26(1), pp.
1–15.
[17] FISHBEIN, M., and AJZEN, I. (1975)
Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
[18] FRANCESCATO, G., WEIDERMANN,
Azian et al. Residential Satisfaction in High-Rise Residential Buildings: Case Study of Medium Cost Housing, Vol. 58 No. 2 Apr.
468
S., ANDERSON, J. R., and CHENOWETH,
R. (1979) Residents’ Satisfaction in HUD-
Assisted Housing: Design and Management
Factors. University of Illinois.
[19] FRANCESCATO, WEIDEMANN, S.,
and ANDERSON, J. R. (1986) Residential
satisfaction and residential quality: an
overview of recent applications. Proceedings
of the 21st International Congress of Applied
Psychology.
[20] FRANCO, S., MANDLA, V. R., and
RAM MOHAN RAO, K. (2017)
Urbanization, energy consumption and
emissions in the Indian context A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
71(December), pp. 898–907.
[21] FRANCESCATO, G., WEIDERMANN,
S., and ANDERSON, J. R. (1989) Evaluating
the Built Environment from the Users‟ Point
of View: An Attitudinal Model of Residential
Satisfaction. pp 181-198, In: PREISER,
W.F.E. (ed.) Building Evaluation. Springer,
Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4899-3722-3_14
[22] HASSANAIN, M. A. (2008) On the
performance evaluation of sustainable
student housing facilities. Journal of
Facilities Management, 6(3), pp. 212–225.
[23] HONG, T. T. (2013) Homeownership
schemes in Malaysia for first homebuyers.
International Conference on Innovation and
Sustainability, (5), pp. 1–10.
[24] ISMAIL, S., MANAF, A.M., HUSSAIN,
M.Y., BASRAH, N. & AZIAN, F.U.M.
(2021) Housing Preferences: An Analysis of
Malaysian Youths. Planning Malaysia, pp.
134-145.
[25] JANSEN, S. J. T. (2014) Why is
Housing Always Satisfactory? A Study into
the Impact of Cognitive Restructuring and
Future Perspectives on Housing Appreciation.
Social Indicators Research, 116(2), pp. 353–
371.
[26] KOCK, N., and HADAYA, P. (2018)
Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-
SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-
exponential methods. Information Systems
Journal, 28(1), pp. 227–261.
[27] KONG SIA, M., WONG CHIN YEW,
V., YONG LIM, Z., & DONGQING, Y.
(2017) Facilities and maintenance services
for sustainable high-rise living. Facilities,
2023
358(7), pp. 405–421.
[28] KPKT. (2019) Statistik terpilih KPKT.
In Ministry of Housing and Local
Government.
[29] LI, B., and CHEN, S. (2011) A study of
residential condition and satisfaction of the
elderly in China. Journal of Housing for the
Elderly, 25(1), pp. 72–88.
[30] LOGAN, J. R., FANG, Y., and ZHANG,
Z. (2010) The winners in China‟s urban
housing reform. Housing Studies, 25(1), pp.
101–117.
[31] MASRAM, H., and MISNAN, S. H.
(2019) Evolution of Policy for Affordable
Housing Programmes in Malaysia.
International Journal of Accounting, Finance
and Business (IJAFB), 4(17), pp. 86–98.
[32] MCGUIRK, P. M., and O‟NEILL, P.
(2016) Using Questionnaires in Qualitative
Human Geography. Qualitative Research
Methods in Human Geography, pp. 147–162.
[33] MOHD-TAWIL, N., RAMLY, A.,
CHE-ANI, A. I., USMAN, I. M. S., TAHIR,
M. M., ZAIN, M. F. M., & ZAHARIM, A.
(2009) Owners‟ Satisfaction Towards
Service Charge Collection of High-Rise
Residential In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Proceedings of the 4th IASME/WSEAS
International Conference on ENERGY &
ENVIRONMENT, 10(1), pp. 7–12.
[34] MOHIT, M. A., and ADEL MAHFOUD,
A. K. (2015) Appraisal of residential
satisfaction in double-storey terrace housing
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat
International, 49, pp. 286–293.
[35] MUHAMMAD, Z., ROSTAM, K. AND
MOHD.YUSOFF, Y. (2010) Residential
Satisfaction with Housing in the Malaysian
Context. The International Journal of
Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual
Review 5 (2), pp. 379-396.
[36] MRIDHA, M. (2020) The effect of age,
gender and marital status on residential
satisfaction. Local Environment, 25(8), pp.
540–558.
[37] NAJIB, N. U. M., YUSOF, N. A., and
ABIDIN, N. Z. (2011) Student residential
satisfaction in research universities. Journal
of Facilities Management, 9(3), pp. 200–212.
[38] NAJIB, N. U. M., YUSOF, N. A., and
OSMAN, Z. (2011) Measuring Satisfaction
with Student Housing Facilities. American J.

of Engineering and Applied Sciences 4(1), pp.
52–60.
[39] NAPIC. (2020) Property Stock Report
H1 2020. National Property Information
Center; https://napic.jpph.gov.my/
[40] NAWAWI, A. H., and KHALIL, N.
(2008) Post-occupancy evaluation correlated
with building occupants‟ satisfaction: An
approach to performance evaluation of
government and public buildings. Journal of
Building Appraisal, 4(2), pp. 59–69.
[41] OLANREWAJU, A. L., and TAN, S. Y.
(2018) An exploration into design criteria for
affordable housing in Malaysia. Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, 16(3),
pp. 360–384.
[42] ONUBI, H. O., CARPIO, M., AZIAN,
F.U.M. & BINWAI, P. (2023) Bridging The
Gap Between Health and Safety Performance
and Owner‟s Satisfaction in Construction
Projects Adopting Pro-Environmental
Construction Practices: Role of Economic
Performance. Environmental Science and
Pollution.
[43] OZAKI, R. (2003) Customer-focused
approaches to innovation in house building.
Construction Management and Economics,
21(6), pp. 557–564.
[44] PARASURAMAN, A., ZEITHAML, V.
A., and BERRY, L. L. (1985) A Conceptual
Model Service Its Quality and Implications
for Future Research. Research Paper, 49(4),
pp. 41–50.
[45] PARIS, D. E., and KANGARI, R.
(2005) Multifamily Affordable Housing:
Residential Satisfaction. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, 19(2),
pp. 138–145.
[46] PARKER, C., and MATHEWS, B. P.
(2001) Customer satisfaction: Contrasting
academic and consumers‟ interpretations.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(1), pp.
38–44.
[47] SESHADHRI, G., and PAUL, V. K.
(2017) User requirement related performance
attributes for government residential
buildings. Journal of Facilities Management,
15(4), pp. 409–422.
[48] SHANG, J., LI, P., LI, L., and CHEN, Y.
(2018) The relationship between population
growth and capital allocation in urbanization.
Technological Forecasting and Social
469
Change, 135, pp. 249–256.
[49] SIVAR, C., and KASIM, M. Y. (1997)
Urban development and urban poverty in
Malaysia. International Journal of Social
Economics, 24, pp. 1524–1535.
[50] SONG, Y., and YAN, Z. (2006)
Customer Satisfaction Theory Applied in the
Housing Industry: An Empirical Study of
Low-Priced Housing in Beijing. Tsinghua
Science and Technology, 11(6), pp. 667–674.
[51] STAUSS, B., and NEUHAUS, P. (1997)
The qualitative satisfaction model.
International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 8(3), pp. 236–249.
[52] UNITED NATIONS. (2020) SDG
Indicators - Global indicator framework for
the sustainable development goals and
targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. United Nations Statistics
Division (UNSD)
[53] WEIDEMANN, S. (1997) Environments
for Older Persons with Cognitive
Impairments. In MOORE, G.T., and
MARANS, R.W. Toward the Integration of
Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization,
(pp. 315-346). Springer New York,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4425-5
[54] WEIDERMANN, S., and ANDERSON,
J. R. (1985) A Conceptual Framework for
Residential Satisfaction. In Human Behavior
and Environment Advances in Theory and
Research (pp. 153–181).
[55] YU, Y.-T., and DEAN, A. (2001) The
contribution of emotional satisfaction to
consumer loyalty. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 12(3), pp.
234–250.
[56] ZAMZURI, N. H. A., MOHAMED, N.,
and HUSSEIN, R. (2008) Antecedents of
customer satisfaction in repurchase intention
in the electronic commerce environment.
Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Information Technology 2008, ITSim, 4.
参考文:
[1] ABIDIN, N. Z.、ABDULLAH, M. I.、
BASRAH, N. 和 ALIAS, M. N.（2019）住
宅满意度：文献回顾和概念框架。眼压会
议 系 列 ： 地 球 与 环 境 科 学 ， 385(1) ，
012040 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
Azian et al. Residential Satisfaction in High-Rise Residential Buildings: Case Study of Medium Cost Housing, Vol. 58 No. 2 Apr.
2023
470
1315/385/1/012040。 的居住满意度：以韩国的居住福利设施为
[2] AMERIGO, M. 和 ARAGONES, J. I. 例。始祖者，14(3)，第 359–378 页
(1997) 居住满意度研究的理论和方法论方 [14] EMAMI, A. 和 SADEGHLOU, S. （
法。环境心理学杂志，17(1)，第 47-57 页 2021）住宅满意度：关于确定核心决定因
[3] AMOLE, D. (2009) 学生宿舍的居住满 素和指标的叙事文献评论。住房、理论与
意度和环境水平。环境与行为，41(6)，第 社会，38 (4)，第 1-29 页。
866–879 页。 [15] EVANSCHITZKY, H. 和
[4] AMOLE, D. (2009) 学生宿舍的居住满 WUNDERLICH, M. (2006) 四阶段忠诚度
意度。环境心理学杂志，29(1)，第 76-85 模型中调节效应的检验。服务研究杂志，
页 。 8(4)，第 330–345 页。
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.006 [16] FIELDING, A. J. (1992) 移民和社会流
[5] ANI, A. I. C., SAIRI, A., TAWIL, N. M., 动：英格兰东南部作为自动扶梯地区。区
WAHAB, S. R. H. A., 和 RAZAK, M. Z. A. 域研究，26(1)，第 1-15 页。
(2016) 高层住宅基本设施经典：加影地区 [17] FISHBEIN, M. 和 AJZEN, I. (1975) 信
100 个住房计划的调查。AIP 会议论文集 念、态度、意图和行为：理论与研究导论
，1761。 。艾迪生卫斯理出版公司。
[6] ARIFF, N. R. M. 和 DAVIES, H. (2011) [18] FRANCESCATO, G. 、
马来西亚的多业主低成本住房管理：业主 WEIDERMANN, S.、ANDERSON, J. R. 和
居住特征和入住率的影响。国际住房市场 CHENOWETH, R. (1979) 居民对抬头显示
与分析杂志，4(3)，第 268-289 页。 器援助住房的满意度：设计和管理因素。
[7] AZIAN, F. U. M., KAMAL, E. M., 伊利诺伊大学。
YUSOF, N., SYARIFUDDIN, N., 和 [19] FRANCESCATO, WEIDEMANN, S.,
ISMAIL, S. (2022) 新冠肺炎大流行期间物 和 ANDERSON, J. R. (1986) 住宅满意度和
业管理公司在管理高层住宅建筑方面的挑 住宅质量：近期应用概述。第 21 届国际
战。国际经济、管理和科学学术研究杂志 应用心理学大会论文集。
，11(1)，第 143-156 页。 [20] FRANCO, S. 、 MANDLA, V. R. 和
[8] AZIAN, F.U.M., KHAIR, N., YOONG, RAM MOHAN RAO, K.（2017）印度背景
T.C., ISMAIL, S. 和 TAMBI, N. (2023) 服 下的城市化、能源消耗和排放回顾。可再
务质量与住户满意度之间的关系：混合用 生和可持续能源评论，71（十二月），第
途建筑。房地产管理与估价，31(2)，第 898-907 页。
78-87 页。 [21] FRANCESCATO, G., WEIDERMANN,
[9] BITNER, M. J. (1990) 评估服务遭遇： S. 和 ANDERSON, J. R. (1989) 从用户的角
物理环境和员工反应的影响。市场营销杂 度评估建筑环境：住宅满意度的态度模型
志，54(2)，第 69-82 页。 。 第 181-198 页 ， 载 于 ： PREISER ，
[10] BITNER, M. J. (1995) 建立服务关系： W.F.E. (编辑。) 建筑评估。 斯普林格，波
一切都与承诺有关。营销科学学院学报： 士 顿 ， 马 萨 诸 塞 州 。
营销科学学院官方出版物，23(4)，第 246- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3722-
251 页。 3_14
[11] CAMPBELL, A.、CONVERSE, P. E. [22] HASSANAIN, M. A. (2008) 关于可持
和 RODGERS, W. L. (1976) 美国生活质量 续学生住房设施的绩效评估。设施管理杂
。纽约：罗素圣人基金会。 志，6(3)，第 212-225 页。
[12] CHE-ANI, A. I., JAMIL, M., ZAIN, M. [23] HONG, T. T. (2013) 马来西亚首次购
F. M., MOHD-NOR, M. F. I., 和 MOHD- 房者的房屋所有权计划。创新与可持续性
TAWIL, N. (2009) 马来西亚高层住宅管理 国际会议，(5)，第 1-10 页。
满意度调查：可持续指标。机智生态与环 [24] ISMAIL, S., MANAF, A.M.,
境交易，120，第 643-652 页。 HUSSAIN, M.Y., BASRAH, N. 和 AZIAN,
[13] CHO, M. (2020) 低收入单身母亲家庭 F.U.M. (2021) 住房偏好：马来西亚青年分

析。马来西亚规划，第 134-145 页。
[25] JANSEN, S. J. T. (2014) 为什么住房总
是令人满意？认知重构和未来展望对住房
升值的影响研究。社会指标研究，116(2)
，第 353-371 页。
[26] KOCK, N. 和 HADAYA, P. (2018) 偏
光扫描电镜中的最小样本量估计：平方根
反比和伽马指数法。信息系统杂志，28(1)
，第 227-261 页。
[27] KONG SIA, M., WONG CHIN YEW,
V., YONG LIM, Z., 和 DONGQING, Y.
(2017) 可持续高层生活的设施和维护服务
。设施，358(7)，第 405-421 页。
[28] KPKT。(2019) 统计三联体 KPKT。在
住房和地方政府部。
[29] LI, B., 和 CHEN, S. (2011) 中国老年人
的居住条件和满意度研究。老年人住房杂
志，25(1)，第 72-88 页。
[30] LOGAN, J. R., FANG, Y., 和 ZHANG,
Z. (2010) 中国城市住房改革的赢家。住房
研究，25(1)，第 101-117 页。
[31] MASRAM, H. 和 MISNAN, S. H.
(2019) 马来西亚经济适用房计划政策的演
变。国际会计、金融和商业杂志(联合空
军基地)，4(17)，第 86-98 页。
[32] MCGUIRK, P. M., 和 O'NEILL, P.
(2016) 在定性人文地理学中使用问卷调查
。人文地理学的定性研究方法，第 147-
162 页。
[33] MOHD-TAWIL, N., RAMLY, A.,
CHE-ANI, A.I., USMAN, I.M.S., TAHIR,
M.M., ZAIN, M.F.M., 和 ZAHARIM, A.
(2009) 业主对马来西亚吉隆坡高层住宅收
取服务费的满意度。第四届机械工程师协
会/WSEAS 国际能源与环境会议论文集，
10(1)，第 7-12 页。
[34] MOHIT, M. A., 和 ADEL MAHFOUD,
A. K. (2015) 马来西亚吉隆坡双层排屋居
住满意度评估。人居国际，49，第 286-
293 页。
[35] MUHAMMAD, Z., ROSTAM, K. 和
MOHD.YUSOFF, Y. (2010) 马来西亚背景
下的住房居住满意度。国际跨学科社会科
学杂志：年度回顾 5 (2)，第 379-396 页。
[36] MRIDHA, M. (2020) 年龄、性别和婚
姻状况对居住满意度的影响。当地环境，
25(8)，第 540–558 页。
471
[37] NAJIB, N. U. M., YUSOF, N. A., 和
ABIDIN, N. Z. (2011) 研究型大学的学生住
宿满意度。设施管理杂志，9(3)，第 200-
212 页。
[38] NAJIB, N. U. M., YUSOF, N. A., 和
OSMAN, Z. (2011) 衡量学生住房设施的满
意度。美国工程与应用科学杂志 4(1)，第
52-60 页。
[39] NAPIC。(2020) 2020 年上半年房地产
存量报告。全国房地产信息中心；
https://napic.jpph.gov.my/
[40] NAWAWI, A. H., 和 KHALIL, N.
(2008) 与建筑住户满意度相关的入住后评
估：政府和公共建筑绩效评估的一种方法
。建筑评估杂志，4(2)，第 59-69 页。
[41] OLANREWAJU, A. L., 和 TAN, S. Y.
(2018) 马来西亚经济适用房设计标准的探
索。工程、设计和技术杂志，16(3)，第
360–384 页。
[42] ONUBI, H. O., CARPIO, M., AZIAN,
F.U.M., 和 BINWAI, P. (2023) 在采用环保
施工实践的施工项目中缩小健康和安全绩
效与业主满意度之间的差距：经济绩效的
作用。环境科学与污染。
[43] OZAKI, R. (2003) 以客户为中心的房
屋建筑创新方法。施工管理与经济学，
21(6)，第 557-564 页。
[44] PARASURAMAN, A. 、 ZEITHAML,
V. A., 和 BERRY, L. L. (1985) 概念模型服
务其质量和对未来研究的影响。研究论文
，49(4)，第 41-50 页。
[45] PARIS, D. E., 和 KANGARI, R. (2005)
多户经济适用房：居住满意度。建筑设施
性能杂志，19(2)，第 138-145 页。
[46] PARKER, C. 和 MATHEWS, B. P.
(2001) 客户满意度：对比学术和消费者的
解释。营销情报与规划，19(1)，第 38–44
页。
[47] SESHADHRI, G. 和 PAUL, V. K.
(2017) 政府住宅建筑的用户需求相关性能
属性。设施管理杂志，15(4)，第 409-422
页。
[48] SHANG, J., LI, P., LI, L., 和 CHEN, Y.
(2018) 城市化中人口增长与资本配置的关
系。技术预测和社会变革，135，第 249-
256 页。
[49] SIVAR, C. 和 KASIM, M. Y. (1997) 马
Azian et al. Residential Satisfaction in High-Rise Residential Buildings: Case Study of Medium Cost Housing, Vol. 58 No. 2 Apr.
2023
472
来西亚的城市发展和城市贫困。国际社会
经济学杂志，24，第 1524-1535 页。
[50] SONG, Y., 和 YAN, Z. (2006) 顾客满
意理论在住宅产业中的应用：北京市廉租
房实证研究。清华科技, 11(6), 第 667–674
页
[51] STAUSS, B. 和 NEUHAUS, P. (1997)
定性满意度模型。国际服务业管理杂志，
8(3)，第 236-249 页。
[52] 联合国。(2020) 可持续发展目标指标-
可持续发展目标和 2030 年可持续发展议
程具体目标的全球指标框架。联合国统计
司(联合国统计司)
[53] WEIDEMANN, S. (1997) 有认知障碍
的 老 年 人 的 环 境 。 在 MOORE, G.T. 和
MARANS, R.W. 走向理论、方法、研究和
利用的整合，（第 315-346 页）。施普林
格 纽 约 ， https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4757-4425-5
[54] WEIDERMANN, S. 和 ANDERSON, J.
R. (1985) 住宅满意度的概念框架。在人类
行为和环境理论与研究进展中（第 153-
181 页）。
[55] YU, Y.-T. 和 DEAN, A. (2001) 情感满
意度对消费者忠诚度的贡献。国际服务业
管理杂志，12(3)，第 234-250 页。
[56] ZAMZURI, N. H. A., MOHAMED, N.,
和 HUSSEIN, R. (2008) 电子商务环境下顾
客满意再购买意愿的前因。2008 年信息技
术国际研讨会论文集，2008 年信息技术国
际研讨会论文集，ITSim，4。