This Guide’s Approach: High-density Residential Satisfaction

This guide focuses on specific liveability features relating to residential satisfaction in inner-urban high-density dwelling locations.

Residential satisfaction studies have indicated that liveability is linked to specific features of the home and building such as dwelling age, size, structure and aesthetic feelings [19] [10], as well as features of the broader neighbourhood including access to facilities, noise, pollution, safety risks, neighbourhood reputation and social features [20] [10] [11].

Only a handful of studies have analysed the association between residential density and liveability. These studies have highlighted how liveability in high-density locations is not necessarily related to residential density per se, but to other factors, which may or may not be unique to dense locations, such as environmental quality, traffic and pollution, noise, lack of social cohesion and community involvement, lack of services and limited choice of residence [11] [10].

Understanding the factors that influence residents’ perceptions of liveability in high-density locations can assist with the planning, management and design of high-density residential complexes and locations to create supportive and sustainable cities. Research has indicated that cities will not be truly sustainable unless they are considered as high-quality places where people want to live. [21]

This High-density Liveability Guide therefore, provides a guide for Residents, Building Managers, Designers, Developers and Local Authorities to assess the ‘liveability’ of an existing or proposed Dwelling and Building as well as the liveability of the Surrounding Community.


References:

  1. Lu, M., Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs regression models'. Growth and Change, 1999. 30: p. 264-287.

  2. Sirgy, M.J. and T. Cornwell, How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 2002. 59: p. 79-114.

  3. Bishop, B.J. and G.J. Syme, The social costs and benefits of urban consolidation: a time budget/contingent valuation approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1995. 16: p. 223-245.

  4. Howley, P., M. Scott, and D. Redmond, Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2009. 52(6): p. 847-864.

  5. Jenks, M., K. Williams, and E. Burton, Urban consolidation and the benefits of intensification, in Compact cities and sustainable urban development: a critical assessment of policies and plans from an International perspective., Roo. G.D. and D. Miller, Editors. 2000, Ashgate: Aldershot. p. 17-30.