Page 67 - JCAU-5-4

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Housing satisfaction with apartments in Henan

Table 4. Residential characteristics of the investigated (SD = 1.09). In contrast, the items “Natural lighting” and
apartments (N=594) “Air quality (ventilation)” achieved the highest satisfaction
ratings, each with an average of 3.68 points.
Category Frequency (n[%])
House size (m 2) When delving into the specific items associated with
<60 29 (4.9) each factor, we find a range of satisfaction levels among
residents. In the realm of “Interior facilities,” “Lighting
60 – 89 129 (21.7) facilities” received notably high satisfaction scores
90 – 119 230 (38.7) (M = 3.61). However, satisfaction with “Interior conditions”
120 – 149 167 (28.1) was relatively lower (M = 3.52). In terms of “Interior
150 – 179 32 (5.4) structure,” residents reported high satisfaction (M = 3.61)
180 – 209 6 (1.0) regarding the “Number of living floors,” yet the satisfaction
≥210 1 (0.2) with “Storage space” was relatively lower (M = 3.36). The
Residence period (years) “Indoor environment” factor showcased high satisfaction
levels in the areas of “Air quality (ventilation)” and
<5 204 (34.3) “Natural lighting,” both receiving impressive average scores
5 – 9 220 (37.0) (M = 3.68). In contrast, satisfaction with “External noise”
10 – 14 87 (14.6) was relatively lower (M = 3.21). When exploring “Complex
≥15 83 (14.0) characteristic,” it was evident that “Neighborhood
Residence area relationship” received high satisfaction ratings (M = 3.59).
New town 297 (50.0) However, satisfaction with the use of “Parking lots” was the
lowest (M = 3.04). In terms of “Location characteristics,”
Old town 297 (50.0)
residents expressed high satisfaction with “Accessibility
Number of floors to public transportation” (M = 3.62) and “Accessibility
Maximum 34 to amenities” (M = 3.59). However, satisfaction with
Minimum 1 “Entertainment and cultural facilities” was relatively lower
Median 6 (M = 3.35). “Management characteristics” displayed varying
Average 9.2 levels of satisfaction among residents. Satisfaction with
Standard deviation 7.72 “Security of crime prevention” was notably high (M = 3.34).
In contrast, satisfaction with “Elevator management
(operational and safe condition)” was lower (M = 3.11).
To commence, the average housing satisfaction Finally, within the domain of “Economic characteristics,”
reported by residents for their apartments as a whole was satisfaction with “Management level compared to
notably above the mean score, registering at 3.47 points management costs” (M = 3.03) and “Administration cost”
(SD = 0.88). Upon examining the average values of housing (M = 3.10) was relatively low. However, it is noteworthy
satisfaction by factors, it becomes evident that “Interior that satisfaction with the “Future investment value” was
facilities” (mean [M] = 3.56, SD = 0.76) achieved the not low (M = 3.27). Upon closer examination, it becomes
highest rating. The remaining factors, including “Location evident that the items with relatively low satisfaction scores
characteristics” (M = 3.50, SD = 0.79), “Indoor environment” were “Management level compared to management cost,”
(M = 3.47, SD = 0.78), “Interior structure” (M = 3.47, “Parking lot,” and “Administration cost,” indicating lower
SD = 0.75), “Complex characteristics” (M = 3.34, SD = 0.80), levels of satisfaction among residents in these particular
“Management characteristics” (M = 3.27, SD = 0.88), areas.
and “Economic characteristics” (M = 3.16, SD = 0.86),
all exceeded the average of 3.0 points. Among these 7 4.4. Differences in housing satisfaction according to
factors, the “Management characteristics” and “Economic resident characteristics
characteristics” factors displayed relatively lower average Independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were
ratings. conducted to verify significant differences in the main

Examining the housing satisfaction of apartment residents variables of this study according to the socio-demographic
at the item levels (Table 5) reveals that all items scored above and housing characteristics. These characteristics
3 points. The lowest satisfaction rating was recorded for encompass residents’ general characteristics (Figure 1).
“Management level compared to management costs,” with an Subsequently, significant results from the ANOVA analysis
average score of 3.03 points (SD = 1.04). Similarly, “Parking were validated using Duncan’s post-analysis of variables.
lot” received a relatively low average rating of 3.04 points The analysis results are detailed in (Tables 6 and 7).

Volume 5 Issue 4 (2023) 7 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.1079