Page 72 - JCAU-5-4

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

Table 8. Structural equation modeling analysis on “Housing Table 8. (Continued)
Satisfaction Factors‑Overall Satisfaction‑Movement
Behavior” The route Estimate S.E. C.R. p‑value AVE CR
B β
The route Estimate S.E. C.R. p‑value AVE CR S6_3←S6 1.040 0.904 0.031 34.030 ***
B β
S6_4←S6 0.982 0.896 0.029 33.307 ***
S1→S 0.215 0.177 0.072 2.999 ** - -
S6_5←S6 1.015 0.901 0.030 33.698 ***
S2→S 0.163 0.144 0.088 1.853 * S6_6←S6 0.918 0.735 0.041 22.589 ***
S3→S −0.071 −0.057 0.127 −0.557 0.578
S7_1←S7 1 0.895 0.753 0.924
S4→S 0.215 0.177 0.103 2.081 *
S7_2←S7 1.031 0.889 0.032 31.789 ***
S5→S 0.062 0.049 0.054 1.138 0.255
S7_3←S7 0.855 0.839 0.030 28.191 ***
S6→S 0.132 0.130 0.067 1.965 *
S7_4←S7 0.806 0.797 0.032 25.526 ***
S7→S 0.291 0.297 0.060 4.867 ***
S1→M 0.189 0.210 0.089 2.128 *** - -
S1_1←S1 1 0.825 0.782 0.947
S2→M −0.211 −0.227 0.097 −2.175 ***
S1_2←S1 1.045 0.871 0.040 26.282 ***
S3→M 0.041 0.035 0.078 0.523 0.325
S1_3←S1 1.041 0.878 0.039 26.631 ***
S4→M −0.006 −0.005 0.150 −0.037 0.971
S1_4←S1 1.021 0.860 0.040 25.764 ***
S5→M 0.181 0.159 0.184 0.985 0.601
S1_5←S1 1 0.828 0.041 24.299 ***
S6→M −0.467 −0.448 0.129 −3.622 *
S2_1←S2 1 0.828 0.695 0.931 S7→M 0.270 0.242 0.105 2.575 *
S2_2←S2 1.017 0.836 0.041 24.860 ***
S→M −0.134 −0.146 0.062 −2.168 * - -
S2_3←S2 1.052 0.869 0.040 26.463 ***
Notes: AVE: Average variance extracted; B: Regression weight
S2_4←S2 0.999 0.829 0.041 24.532 *** (coefficient); ß: Standardized regression weight (coefficient);
S2_5←S2 1.016 0.843 0.040 25.192 *** CR: Construct reliability; C.R.: Critical ratio; S.E.: Standard error;
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
S2_6←S2 0.781 0.656 0.044 17.648 ***
S3_1←S3 1 0.756 0.612 0.904
translate into actual residential move behavior, especially
S3_2←S3 0.967 0.768 0.050 19.459 *** when vulnerable populations face constraints related to
S3_3←S3 1.135 0.790 0.056 20.096 *** housing market conditions. Rather, in such cases, they may
S3_4←S3 1.081 0.729 0.059 18.312 *** lower their expectations for the residential environment
S3_5←S3 1.087 0.793 0.054 20.193 *** and conform to reality. In this study, asserting a definitive
S3_6←S3 1.047 0.788 0.052 20.026 *** negative impact on housing satisfaction and housing
S4_1←S4 1 0.808 0.666 0.933 movement solely based on willingness to move becomes
S4_2←S4 1.215 0.854 0.049 24.717 *** a complex task, particularly in situations where residents
report high levels of satisfaction with internal facilities or
S4_3←S4 1.207 0.842 0.050 24.214 *** cost-related economic characteristics. Moreover, this study
S4_4←S4 1.194 0.791 0.054 22.152 *** does not include a separate analysis for the low-income
S4_5←S4 1.013 0.778 0.047 21.646 *** demographic. Therefore, when determining the relationship
S4_6←S4 1.037 0.803 0.046 22.628 *** between housing satisfaction and housing movement
S4_7←S4 0.808 0.729 0.041 19.816 *** behavior, a cautious approach is necessary, accounting for
S5_1←S5 1 0.782 0.752 0.955 economic conditions. On the other hand, given that housing
satisfaction in this study surpasses the average, one might
S5_2←S5 1.134 0.859 0.048 23.682 ***
S5_3←S5 1.156 0.849 0.050 23.338 *** question whether maintaining the current status of housing
satisfaction or further elevating satisfaction levels would
S5_4←S5 1.131 0.871 0.047 24.141 *** stimulate a substantial demand for housing movement.
S5_5←S5 1.055 0.851 0.045 23.410 *** Under such circumstances, the housing market could
S5_6←S5 1.125 0.844 0.049 23.138 *** experience a stabilization, subject to various economic and
S5_7←S5 1.149 0.850 0.049 23.348 *** social factors.
S6_1←S6 1 0.890 0.763 0.950 To enhance residents’ housing satisfaction, it is evident
S6_2←S6 1.025 0.909 0.030 34.441 *** that considerable efforts should be directed toward
(Contd...) economic characteristics, management characteristics

Volume 5 Issue 4 (2023) 12 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.1079