Untitled - Malaysian Institute of Planners

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Norainah Abdul Rahman, Dasimah Omar & Abdul Ghani SallehDeterminant Factors of Neighbourhood Qualitytransportation and from crime and facilities in the community. Lee et al. (2006)and Ogu (2002) measure the environmental factors in the neighbourhoodquality namely neighbourhood condition, access road, storm-water drains,maintenance of environmental facilities, collection of refuse and street lighting.H. Hashim (2005), Omar (2008), Westaway (2006) and Yang et al. (2002),consider the adequacy of public facilities and community facilities to persuadethe neighbourhood quality in physical attributes. Chau et al.(2006) and Lee,Ellis, Kweon and Hong (2008) assess the landscaping element provided as agood quality environment of the housing and neighbourhood area in physicalissues. Generally, multivariable features are used for the physical factors inevaluating and assessing the neighbourhood quality in most previous research.Based on previous research, the physical factors can be divided into fourcategories which are facilities and services, dwelling, surrounding environmentand accessibility. The facilities and services involve the adequacy andmaintenance of social, recreational and educational facilities such as sports,recreational and spare-time facilities; parks, play grounds, green areas, andelementary schools, greenery, naturalness and openness, trash collection andstreet lighting etc. The dwelling features are room size, bathroom size, kitchensize, total usable area of the dwelling etc. The surrounding environment wouldbe noise, crowd, air pollution, safety etc. Lastly, accessibility is the convenienceto the city centre, work place, health service and availability of shoppingfacilities and municipal services etc.SSocial factors that influence neighbourhood quality are the residents’demographic backgrounds, community interaction and place attachment. Manyresearchers use the socio-demographic variable to evaluate the residents’satisfaction perception on their housing and neighbourhood area. Differentsocio-demographic will give different individual data in the housing andneighbourhood area (Apparicio, et al., 2008). The socio-demographicbackgrounds used by Aiello et al. (2010) and Erkip (2010) are gender, age,income, tenure, length of residence. Aiello et al. (2010) utilise sociodemographicindicators that involve persons living together, families composedof one member, families composed of four members or more, widows orwidowers. Lovejoy et al. (2010) exercise the level of education as part of sociodemographicbackgrounds. Lee ( 2008) uses variables such as age, education,health, and marriage status in the residents’ satisfaction perception. Rogers andSukolratanametee (2009) use socio-demographic factors like gender, age,number of children, household size, level of education and race. Tu and Lin(2008) use personal characteristics such as age and gender that are effective© 2012 by MIP 6
PLANNING MALAYSIAJournal of the Malaysia Institute of Planners (2012)‘predictors’ of residential satisfaction. Barton (2009) uses other sociodemographicvariables namely culture and ethnicity.Community interaction in housing and neighbourhood area is one of thesocial factors influencing the residents’ satisfaction in neighbourhood quality.Aiello et al. (2010) use community interaction variables that are related tosocial relation features and context features. Social relation features involvepsychology aspects. On the other hand, context features involve environmentaspects. Mohit et al. (2010) use the relationship of the residents and theenvironment in their housing and neighbourhood area for the communityinteraction. Bonaiuto et al. (1999), Bonaiuto et al. (2003, 2006) and Fornara etal. (2010) use variables like social relational features and pace of life for thecommunity interaction. Rogers and Sukolratanametee (2009) use the length ofresidency and expected years to live in a neighbourhood to evaluate thecommunity interaction in the housing and neighbourhood area. Zhao (2009)uses the social interaction in evaluating the human aspects that influence theneighbourhood quality. Gbakeji and Magnus (2007) include social relationshipvariables related to the nearness to friends and relations, suitability ofneighbourhood for raising children, compatibility of neighbours, level of crimeand other social vices to represent the social dimension of the residentialenvironment. Ge and Hokao (2004, 2006) and Ge, et al. (2006) incorporatesocial with the convenience of daily life and community. Yang, et al. (2002)integrate social factors as participating in activities together and feeling happywith the neighbourhood. The final social factor influencing the neighbourhoodquality is place attachment. Not many researchers evaluate place attachment intheir studies. Zhao (2009) uses place attachment as a residential attachment. Theresidential attachment variables used in evaluating the neighbourhood qualityare being away, fascination extend and compatibility. Bonaiuto et al. (1999),Bonaiuto et al. (2003, 2006) and Fornara et al. (2010) use variable such asneighbourhood attachment in measuring the neighbourhood quality.The economic factors involved in the provision of neighbourhood quality areresidents’ socio-economic backgrounds and economic value in theneighbourhood. Socio-economic includes income and homeownership (Erkip,2010). The socio-economic aspect also involves the residents’ employment,dependence index and old age index (Aiello et al., 2010). The aspect alsoincludes the annual household income and household size (Lovejoy, et al.,2010). It’s also taking into consideration the individual characteristics such ashealth, migration, labour situation, income, and household characteristics which7© 2012 by MIP
Page 2 and 3: PLANNING MALAYSIAAdvisorProfessor D
Page 4 and 5: CON N Sournal of the Malaysian Inst
Page 6: MESSAGE F OM T E P ESI ENTearea ers
Page 10 and 11: Norainah Abdul Rahman, Dasimah Omar
Page 15 and 16: PLANNING MALAYSIAJournal of the Mal
Page 23 and 24: PLANNING MALAYSIAM y I PLA I NS IP
Page 47 and 48: PLANNING MALAYSIAM y I PANALYSIS A
Page 63 and 64:
PLANNING MALAYSIAJournal of the Mal
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
PLANNING MALAYSIAM y I PP N IAL AN
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
PLANNING MALAYSIAM y I PI N SS P IS
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
PLANNING MALAYSIAM y I PNS I N AN M
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
PLANNING MALAYSIAM y I PAS AL MANAG
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161:
show all

Untitled - Malaysian Institute of Planners

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?