literature review

Engvdapi

1-Assessment_of_Saudi_families_inDammamHousingComplex.pdf

Home >Architecture and Design homework help >literature review

ASSESSMENT OF SAUDI FAMILIES’ LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

TOWARD LIVING IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX:

THE DAMMAM HOUSING COMPLEX

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor o f Philosophy in the Graduate School

o f Texas Southern University

Yazeed Alshammari, B.S., M.S.

Texas Southern University

2015

Approved By

Chairperson, Dissertation Committee

Dean, The Graduate School

ProQuest Number: 10125741

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10125741

ProQuestQue

Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright o f the Dissertation is held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Approved By

Dr. Lalita Sen

Chairperson, Dissertation Committee Date

Dr. Oixhertp Pan

Committee Member

Dr. Rafael Pizarro

Committee Member

Dr. Sarmistha Maiumdar

Committee Member

Date

/<C?T / / 6

Date

Yazeed M. Alshammari

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1................................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1

Background of the Study........................................................................................................... 3

Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................................... 5

Purpose of the Study.................................................................................................................. 7

Theoretical Framework............................................................................................................. 8 Research Questions.................................................................................................................. 11

Nature of the Study.................................................................................................................. 12

Definition of Key Terms.......................................................................................................... 15

Summary................................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 16 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................... 16

Literature Search Strategy...................................................................................................... 16

Resident Satisfaction................................................................................................................ 17

Multifamily Housing................................................................................................................ 43

CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 66

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 66

Research Method and Design................................................................................................. 66

Research Questions.................................................................................................................. 67

Population................................................................................................................................. 68

Sample....................................................................................................................................... 69

Materials/Instruments............................................................................................................. 71

Operational Definition of Variables....................................................................................... 73

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis............................................................................. 74

Limitations and Assumptions................................................................................................. 82

Preliminary Results and Discussion....................................................................................... 83

Implications for Research....................................................................................................... 85

Ethical Assurances................................................................................................................... 87

Summary................................................................................................................................... 90

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 92

iii

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS.......................................................................................... 92 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 92

Quantitative Portion................................................................................................................ 93

Qualitative Portion................................................................................................................. 132

Description of the Sample for the Qualitative Analysis...................................................... 132

Research Design for the Qualitative Analysis..................................................................... 137

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................164

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 164

Discussion................................................................................................................................166

Analysis of the Quantitative Data......................................................................................... 166

Analysis of the Qualitative Data........................................................................................... 167

Insights Derived from the Overlap of the Two Phases....................................................... 171

Implications.............................................................................................................................173

Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 175

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................177

APPENDIX................................................................................................................................. 178

A: Level of Satisfaction Survey - English................................................................................. 178

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................187

List o f Tables

Table 1. Factors and variables o f satisfaction (Lara & Bekker, 2012)........................................................27

Table 2. Components and variables for measuring resident satisfaction (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2009)....33

Table 3. 7 step modified van Kaam method o f analysis (Moustakas, 1994)............................................ 81

Table 4. Q uantitative portion contains the result o f the survey based on different elements................. 97

Table 5. Phsycal elements.............................................................................................................................. 103

Table 6. Environmental elements...................................................................................................................109

Table 7. Functional elements..........................................................................................................................114

Table 8. Behavioural elements.......................................................................................................................118

Table 9. Economical Elements.......................................................................................................................123

Table 10. Timing elements.............................................................................................................................. 126

Table 11. Members overall satisfaction.......................................................................................................... 128

Table 12. Demographic information............................................................................................................... 133

Table 13. Van Kaam method........................................................................................................................... 138

Table 14. Thematic label 1............................................................................................................................... 140

Table 15. Thematic label 2 ............................................................................................................................... 143

Table 16. Thematic Label 3............................................................................................................................. 147

Table 17. Thematic label 4 ............................................................................................................................... 151

List o f Figures

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework.........................................................................................................................10

Figure 2: Dammam Housing Complex................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 3: Mixed methodology model.................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 4 : Conceptual Model for Resident Satisfaction (Lara & Bekker. 2012.3681................................... 26

Figure 5: Conceptual Model for Resident Satisfaction (Mohit & Nazvddah. 2009)...................................... 36

List o f Charts & Maps

Map 1: Saudi Arabia m ap............................................................................................................................... 1

Chart 1: Saudi Arabia population growth rate................................................................................................ 2

Chart 2.1: Gender o f participants..................................................................................................................... 93

Chart 2.2: Age o f Participants.......................................................................................................................... 94

Chart 2.3: Employment Status.......................................................................................................................... 94

Chart 2.4: Number o f adults in household....................................................................................................... 95

Chart 2.5: Number o f adult children in the household.................................................................................... 95

Chart 2.6: Monthly income................................................................................................................................96

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Because o f the help, guidance, support, and encouragements o f the committee members,

family, friends and the Saudi Arabian government, I have completed this dissertation.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor Dr. Lalita Sen for the

constant support during my Ph.D. studies. She has been very helpful with her patience,

motivation, and knowledge. She helped me from the beginning o f the doctorate program

until the completion o f the dissertation. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to the

committee members: Dr. Qisheng Pan, Rafael Pizarro, and Dr. Sarmistha Majumdar, for

their excellent care, helpful comments and continuous encouragements.

1 would also like to thank my dear brother Omar Alshammari, who helped me in

conducting the survey, and my friend Dr. Ghaithan Muntasheri, who helped in finalizing

the power point presentation for my dissertation defense. I am grateful to all my friends,

who were there when I needed them, and special thanks to Dr. Bader Arrfudi and

Mohammed Al-Judea for the inspiring consultations and grateful encouragement in the

past years. I would like to acknowledge the immense contribution and support o f my wife

and the inspiration o f my two daughters Mezun and Haifa. Special thanks to my parents,

who kept me in their prayers, and sisters for supporting me spiritually throughout my life

in general. I gratefully acknowledge the opportunity o f the scholarship that made my

Ph.D. work possible. Thanks to the Ministry o f Higher Education and to the Saudi

Arabian Cultural Mission based in Washington DC for the sponsorship, consultation,

supervision and support.

Last but not the least; it is my honor to dedicate the completion o f the Ph.D. degree to my

father Sheik Mazyad Al-Abbas Al-Shammari and to the Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia is the largest country in the Arabian Peninsula in

terms of geographic area, with vast natural resources fit to accommodate a large

population (Salam, 2013). However, even

the vast space and natural resources o f the

country have been subjected to increasing

pressures, generating concerns as to the

sustainability o f the country’s current

social and political context. In a study that

analyzed population growth and

demographics from 1974 until 2010, Salam (2013) noted that there has been an

undoubtable increase in the growth, and in the growth rate o f the Saudi Arabian

population, due to various factors such as pro-natal policies, and declarations regarding

birth control being contrary to the Islam faith.

Salam (2013) also noted that the Saudi Arabian population grows along two segments.

First, the researcher noted that the population o f native Saudi Arabians has grown

significantly in the 36 years between 1974 and 2010. Similarly, Saudi Arabia and its

resources have also drawn attention from immigrants. Hence, between 1974 and 2010,

the immigrant population in Saudi Arabia has also grown significantly, contributing to

the number o f resources required for the sustenance o f the Kingdom. As noted by Salam,

the increase in pressure over the resources o f the Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia has also been

manifested with respect to specific locales. According to research and statistics, the past

three decades have been marked by a significant increase in the transfer o f Saudi

Arabians from more rural residences to urban domiciles, making the demand for space

and housing in cities and urban areas greater.

According to Asharaf and Mouselhy (2012), the increase in the population and in the rate

o f population growth in Saudi Arabia can be attributed to the general development of

various sectors in the Kingdom. The researchers noted that the past decades witnessed

significant developments in public service and utilities with respect to health, housing,

and education, decreasing mortality rates, and enticing more people to live in Saudi

Arabia. However, according to Salam (2013), these developments in utilities and the

public services sectors must be constantly compared with the needs o f an increasing

population. One o f these important needs is manifested in the mounting pressure of

providing suitable housing to the growing number o f residents in various areas o f Saudi

Arabia. And one o f the solutions proffered has been the development o f multifamily

housing systems.

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5,000 ______

, a U 1950 1960

■ ± rate % O 29.50%

□ Pop. In 1000 3,121 4.041

□ Pop. In lOOO ■ 1 rate %

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012

42.80% 69.80% 64.70% 24.20% 36.90% 6.40%

5,772 9.801 16,139 20,045 27,448 29,195

Chart 1: Saudi Arabia Population Growth Rate

Background of the Study

Housing is more than just a structure that provides shelter to people. According to

Rapoport (1969), the phenomenon o f housing is a structure or space wherein individuals

can convey various meanings. What began as a place to shelter individuals from the

elements is now a symbol that can indicate the owner’s identity, value, and status

(Ulusoy, Erdogan, Yildiz, & Erdogan, 2012). Essentially, a house must meet the human

needs o f comfort, safety, privacy, and personalization of space (Deasy, 1985). However,

perceptions regarding these goals can vary. As such, housing can be very complex to

understand, given that its meanings are rooted in specific places and tend to differ from

culture to culture (Ulusoy et al., 2012).

In today’s world, the vast changes in terms o f culture and technology have

provided individuals with more options in terms o f housing. As societies become more

modem and industrialized, the houses become more modem and increase in comfort for

the user (Agus, Doling, & Lee, 2002). Different kinds o f houses and housing settings now

exist: small, self-contained apartments, gate-guarded neighborhoods, council housing,

owner-occupied homes, college residence halls, high-rises, and multifamily housing are

just some examples (Potter, Chicoine, & Speicher, 2001).

It was found that multifamily housing situations are now much more common and

is seen as a viable alternative to the traditional single-family housing situation (Al-Jamea,

2014). This popularity has been influenced by recent economic and social changes in the

nation. According to Al-Jamea (2014), a large proportion o f Saudi Arabian residents now

live in houses that are far removed from the traditional forms o f homes in Saudi Arabia.

The researcher noted that based on earlier studies, the rapid economic development of

Saudi Arabia has led to the introduction o f new concepts o f dwelling that were previously

foreign to the country. Furthermore, a common thread among all these kinds o f housing is

the goal o f satisfying the residents and taking care o f their mental and physical health

(Ulusoy et al., 2012). A housing situation cannot be deemed successful if its residents are

not satisfied.

Against this backdrop o f resident satisfaction, modem housing systems can be

evaluated, especially in regions where the pressure for better housing conditions has

begun to increase, such as Saudi Arabia. In this country, the increase in population, and

the increase in the population’s growth rate, coupled with factors o f immigration, and

relocation o f families from rural to urban areas have necessitated newer forms o f housing

systems such as multifamily housing that need to be studied and investigated with respect

to their capacity for satisfying residents’ needs (Salam, 2013). While Al-Jamea (2014)

argued that the newer forms o f housing such as multifamily housing limits social

interactions among neighbors and the community, residents tend to be more satisfied in

these newer forms o f housing as a consequence o f rapid population growth brought by

economic development.

Statement o f the Problem

Asharaf and Mouselhy (2012) noted that the Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia has

successfully developed various aspects o f its government and public services and utilities.

The researchers noted definite improvements in the health, education, and housing

services provided to the citizens of Saudi Arabia. These developments have resulted in

increases not just in the general population of Saudi Arabia, but also in the increase o f the

growth rate o f this population.

Salam (2013) noted that this increase in the population and its growth rate is

accompanied by an increase in the demand on certain resources. These include pressures

on space and housing for different Saudi Arabian families. According to the researcher,

the increase in the population of Saudi Arabia requires an examination o f the different

public utilities experiencing increased pressures such as housing.

One o f the constructs necessary for determining the success o f housing systems is

resident satisfaction. According to Ulusoy et al. (2012), resident satisfaction is based on

the concept o f a home as serving the needs o f the individuals or families that inhabit

them. Generally, resident satisfaction refers to the capacity o f a dwelling place to fulfill

the physical and mental needs o f inhabitants, thereby contributing to their overall well

being.

With respect to Salam’s (2013) assertions that the housing systems in Saudi

Arabia needs to be assessed in order to further develop the services provided to the

increasing population. The researcher noted that the increase in the population in Saudi

Arabia along with the increase in growth rate influence the development o f different

lifestyles and different needs and requirements on public utilities such as housing.

Hence, there is a need to examine how these demands are satisfied by current housing

systems in Saudi Arabia. Salam noted that these new lifestyles and new pressures on

public utilities must be investigated in order to influence the quality o f public services

provided the Saudi Arabian citizens. Hence, the current study shall investigate one o f the

newer systems o f housing in the Saudi Arabia that has accompanied the population

growth o f the country - multifamily housing. Otherwise, without such an examination,

the capacity o f current housing services in the Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia to satisfy the

needs of residents will remain unexamined. Hence, if in truth they fail to contribute to

the physical and mental well-being o f residents, then such a concern would remain

unexamined to the detriment o f the Saudi Arabians currently living in multifamily

housing systems. Without such an examination, residents might suffer from physical or

mental concerns that are directly caused by inappropriate or substandard living

conditions.

Purpose o f the Study

The purpose o f this proposed study is to explore resident satisfaction among Saudi

residents in multifamily housing complexes in Saudi Arabia. A number o f social and

economic changes have led to the increase in popularity o f multifamily housing in this

country as an alternative to traditional single-family housing. The stated goal o f all forms

o f housing situations is to satisfy its residents and take care o f their physical and mental

well-being (Ulusoy et al., 2012).

In order to do this, a study must be conducted on multifamily housing residents in

Saudi Arabia, as resident satisfaction has been contended by a number o f scholars to be

rooted in subjective considerations, such as culture. No studies have yet been conducted

in Saudi Arabia regarding this phenomenon. By revealing the perceptions o f residents

regarding their housing situation in a multifamily housing complex in Saudi Arabia, more

information will be had on how best to keep these residents satisfied. The research

questions that will be used for this study were formulated by the author with the goal of

revealing the perceptions o f Saudi residents regarding their satisfaction on their

multifamily housing living situation, their perceptions on what could be improved, and

their perceptions on its benefits that may be specific to Saudi culture. Hence, the findings

o f the current study can positively contribute to the different sectors o f Saudi Arabian

society.

Theoretical Framework

Kahraman (2013) conducted a literature review examining the history and

different findings o f the concept o f resident satisfaction, which is sometimes also referred

to as “housing satisfaction”. According to the researcher, resident satisfaction, because

of its scope, and the number o f disciplines involved, is difficult to define. However, it

also eludes definition because o f how its nature changes from resident to resident. The

researcher noted that earlier studies have shown that resident satisfaction refers to

different facets o f life with respect to different kinds o f inhabitants. Hence, one group or

type o f resident might require particular elements for their needs and satisfaction, that

other groups might not require. For example, older residents may need certain services in

order that they may be satisfied with their houses, that younger residents may not need or

consider at all.

Kharaman (2013) noted that this concept requires examinations from researchers

from various disciplines because the satisfaction o f residents with their housing depends

on different factors. Kahraman outlined these factors o f the construct to include physical,

environmental, aesthetic, economic, community, and services-related satisfaction.

Kahraman (2013) stated that various other researchers conducted studies regarding the

physical satisfaction drawn by residents from their housing. These researchers noted that

physical satisfaction from housing refers not to the physical health o f residents, but to the

physical structure o f the home, its layout, and how these facilitate different aspects of

resident’s lives. According to past researchers, the physical layout o f houses can

contribute to residents’ well-being. The manner in which these spaces allow for

interactions and privacy can influence whether or not individuals experience higher or

lower levels of well-being.

Another facet o f resident satisfaction, according to Kahraman (2013) is economic

satisfaction. The researcher noted that various studies before have established that the

overall satisfaction residents have with respect to their houses is influenced by its

economic value. When houses are more economically valuable, residents tend to be

more satisfied with them. On the other hand, when the value o f residences decrease, then

their inhabitants may experience lower levels o f satisfaction.

Resident satisfaction, according to Kahraman (2013), also includes community

and social satisfaction. This means that previous studies have established a strong

correlation between satisfaction with housing, and satisfaction with the community

surrounding the said house. When residents are more deeply connected with their

neighbors and their communities, and when they have more positive social interactions

with the individuals who inhabit spaces close to theirs, then they tend to be more satisfied

with their residences as well.

Finally, Kahraman (2013) emphasized that resident satisfaction is also closely

linked with the satisfaction individuals derive from their access to and the quality of

services available to them. These services may include public transportation terminals,

schools, hospitals, and marketplaces, among others. According to earlier studies,

conducted in various settings, when residents are more satisfied with the quality of

services available to them by virtue o f the location o f their home, then they are also more

likely to be satisfied with their houses. Similarly, when they are satisfied with how much

access they have to these services, their satisfaction with their houses also tends to

become elevated.

Together, these different facets contribute to resident satisfaction. In turn,

resident satisfaction can contribute the overall well-being and the life satisfaction of

residents (Kahraman, 2013). According to Kahraman, earlier studies have noted that

resident satisfaction, because o f its overall contribution to the physical and mental well

being o f individuals, also influences the quality of life of residents. Hence, when

individuals who are more satisfied with their houses, usually have higher levels o f quality

of life. Furthermore, Amerigo and Aragones (1990) noted that resident satisfaction tends

to influence the behaviors o f residents, apart from referring to their perceptions of

residential quality. This means that while other researchers have emphasized the factors

that affect resident satisfaction, the concept can also be viewed as a predictor o f behavior

in itself. The amount o f satisfaction residents derive from their homes can be viewed as

contributing to how these residents behave with respect to their physical surroundings,

their community, and the individuals they interact with within and around their residents

and domiciles.

R e s i d e n t

S a t i s f a c t i o n

Figure I : Theoretical Framework

Research Questions

The current study will investigate the satisfaction o f Saudi Arabians living in

multifamily housing arrangements. In order to achieve the objectives o f this study,

appropriate research questions must be posed. Without proper questions, the study would

lose focus and direction. Hence, the current study will be limited to the following

research questions that shall guide the data collection and analyses to be conducted:

RQ1: What are the perceptions o f Saudi Arabian residents living in multifamily

housing facilities in Saudi Arabia?

RQ2: Based on the perception o f residents, how do multifamily housing

facilities benefit Saudi Arabian residents?

RQ3: How does the concept o f multifamily housing facilities coexist with the

tenets o f Saudi Arabian culture?

w i r

Figure 2: Dammam Housing Complex

Nature o f the Study

The current study makes use o f a mixed methods design (Caruth, 2013).

According to Caruth, mixed methods research refers to a design that makes use o f both

qualitative and quantitative methods in order to answer particular research questions. In

such a research design, the strengths and weaknesses o f quantitative and qualitative

methods are used to complement one another. Hence, this research design allows

researchers to quantify and measure concepts and constructs, along with describing in

detail the rich experiences and perceptions o f participants with respect to such concepts

and constructs. This research design is thus appropriate for the present study that aims to

measure the current levels o f resident satisfaction among Saudi Arabian multifamily

housing residents, as well as describe the experiences and perceptions o f these residents

in their homes.

Given the design o f the present study, the researcher made use o f quantitative

methods, such as a survey questionnaire in order to ascertain and measure the level of

Figure 3: Mixed Methodolgy Model

Mi xe d M e t h o d o l o g y

Quantitative Data I ..... ■ ivyiiFynOTivfv

•A t _ „ _ . » . ■' beyond Overall Satisfaction ftrtnivfmnrritrit vfrm

resident satisfaction Saudi Arabians have with respect to multifamily housing. This

method affords a general, statistically sound description o f the construct o f resident

satisfaction among Saudi Arabians in multifamily housing. On the other hand, the

qualitative method o f the present study used, interviews over the phone, allowed the

researcher to gather information on the experiences and perceptions o f residents living in

multifamily housing systems in Saudi Arabia. The information gathered from the

qualitative methods o f the study allowed the researcher to illustrate in detail the general

trends established using the quantitative survey questionnaire.

Significance of the Study

The current study has important implications for both the government and

citizenry o f the Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia. With respect to the government, the findings

o f this study could give information regarding the problems being faced by residents

currently residing in multifamily housing systems. According to Salam (2013), the

increase in the population o f Saudi Arabia, along with the increase in the growth rate of

the country has given rise to new demands for more housing, and new demands from

different forms o f lifestyle needs. However, without examining whether or not present

multifamily housing conditions contribute positively or negatively to the well-being of

Saudi Arabians, then the government may lack in information regarding how to further

develop and improve public services and utilities with respect to the housing o f its

citizens.

With respect to Saudi Arabian citizens, the findings o f the current study can

contribute to their improved conditions o f living, and their improved well-being.

Because the study investigates the amount o f satisfaction residents derive from their

housing, the findings can shed light on the problems faced by such residents. These

findings can then influence policies that may help improve their present housing systems.

Furthermore, the current study can shed light on which parts o f present multifamily

housing contribute positively to the lives of residents. Such information can then be

applied to future multifamily housing projects for the growing population o f the Kingdom

o f Saudi Arabia.

Definition o f Key Terms

Multi-family housing. Multi-family housing, according to Follain (1994), refers to

a system o f housing, where one structure or building supports more than one family

group within its premises, usually all under the supervision o f a landlord, who treats each

family as a tenant, who must pay rent in order to continue living in the building.

Resident satisfaction. Resident satisfaction is a combination o f different factors

important to a particular kind o f inhabitant o f a home that contribute to the general

perceptions o f how suitably a house contributes to the achievement o f the particular

needs o f the inhabitants (Kharaman, 2013).

Residents. Residents refer to the individuals who consider a particular structure or

physical space their domicile or home, and can refer to groups or individuals, living

together or alone (Follain, 1994).

Conative. Conative aspects o f resident satisfaction refer to the striving

components o f housing perception and selection (Anderson & Weidemann, 1997).

Summary

The current study investigates the levels o f resident satisfaction among Saudi

Arabians living in multifamily housing systems. Moreover, the present study examines

the different perceptions, experiences, and behaviors o f these residents regarding their

living conditions. In order to achieve these goals, the current study employs a mixed

methods research design, that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods in

order to gather data and generate analyses. The quantitative method used in the present

study is the survey questionnaire while the qualitative method used is interview via

telephone calls. Together, these methods aimed to produce findings that can contribute

information regarding the conditions that must be improved or maintained in order to

contribute to the well-being of residents in Saudi Arabian multifamily housing systems.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The current study aims to quantify the levels o f resident satisfaction among Saudi

Arabian residents living in multifamily housing systems. Furthermore, it aims to

understand the different perceptions, experiences, and behaviors o f such residents in

order that the findings from the study may contribute information regarding the

improvement o f living conditions o f Saudi Arabian citizens. In order to conduct the

study, however, it is important to understand earlier findings that are relevant to the

current research objectives.

This chapter is a review of the relevant literature regarding the current study.

Hence, the chapter begins with a discussion on the housing conditions pervading Saudi

Arabia. The chapter then continues with a discussion on earlier findings from researchers

regarding resident satisfaction. The section on resident satisfaction covers how the

concept had been defined and studied in various earlier research endeavors. The next

section after this covers findings from earlier studies regarding multifamily housing.

This section discusses the definition o f multifamily housing, as well as the different

nuances related to such a housing system.

Literature Search Strategy

This chapter’s discussion o f literature relevant to the present study was facilitated

with the use o f online resources. First, the researcher made use o f search engines such as

Google and Google scholar in order to find resources relevant to the present study.

1 6

Second, the researcher made use o f online academic databases such as EBSCO and

JSTOR in order to find academic resources that may be used for the current review o f

relevant literature. For these searches, the following keywords were used to find the most

relevant materials: housing satisfaction, multifamily housing, Saudi Arabia housing,

Saudi Arabia multifamily housing, Saudi Arabia population, Saudi Arabia residents, and

resident satisfaction. Combinations o f these keywords were also used to facilitate the

online searches.

Resident Satisfaction

The study o f satisfaction can be traced back to the 1940s and this term is used by

a number o f different disciplines, such as marketing and healthcare (Potter et al., 2001). It

is primarily used in fields that include producers or suppliers and end-users or consumers

in the overall process. In such contexts, satisfaction was regarded generally to measure

how clients and end-users felt about the products or services that they availed of. Hence,

in these early contexts, satisfaction was a concept used by producers and suppliers to

understand how to improve their products and services to meet their clients’ needs and

demands.

Eventually, however, the concept o f satisfaction has been applied with respect to

housing and residential research. Thus, the concept o f resident satisfaction was created to

address the concerns o f residents and inhabitants o f houses and domiciles. In the field of

empirically understanding resident satisfaction, Amerigo and Aragones (1990) contended

that there were two main approaches: one was to view residential satisfaction in light of

its correlation with residential quality, as in Weidemann and Anderson (1982), and the

other was to view residential satisfaction as a factor that can predict resident behavior, as

in Newman and Duncan (1979). In the first approach, Weiderman and Anderson noted

that resident satisfaction was a function of residential quality, wherein the amount of

contentment residents felt regarding their houses and dwelling places were influenced by

the quality o f their physical environments. Hence, the different aspects o f a dwelling are

analyzed in order to understand and predict the satisfaction individuals derive from their

houses. In the second approach, however, Newman and Duncan highlighted behavioral

aspect o f the concept o f resident satisfaction. In this view, the researchers noted that

resident satisfaction can influence the way by which residents interact with their

environments and the individuals therein.

Facets o f resident satisfaction. These two approaches were combined by

Weidemann and Anderson (1985) based on the model of reasoned actions by Fishbein

and Ajzen (1975), where it was claimed that attitudes reflect both beliefs, evaluations,

and, consequently, behaviors. In other words, an individual’s attitude reflects what the

individual thinks and believes, which, in turn, can influence the way they behave. Simply

put, “attitudes lead to actions” (Obrinsky & Stein, 2007, p 3). This insight was later

integrated into a model that can serve as a new way of conceptualizing resident

satisfaction, one that includes cognitive, emotional, and conative aspects (Anderson &

Weidemann, 1997). In such a model, resident satisfaction was no longer limited to either

the approach o f considering the concept as a perception of the qualities of a house, or to

the approach o f considering the concept as an influence for behavior in, around, and by

virtue o f the house o f an individual. Instead, resident satisfaction began to be understood

as a combination o f the perceptions on the quality o f a home that led to behaviors in,

around, and because o f such cognitions.

The model o f Anderson and Weidemann (1997) that combined earlier approaches

to conceiving resident satisfaction was based on three facets: cognitive, emotional, and

conative. According to the researchers, the cognitive aspects o f resident satisfaction refer

to the rational considerations that residents have regarding their perceptions o f their

housing situation, such as financial concerns. An example for this is that some

individuals can afford to live in certain kinds o f housing, while others cannot, despite

emotionally wanting to. Anderson and Weidemann described the emotional or affective

aspects of resident satisfaction as referring to the residents’ subjective feelings, such as

their personal priorities in choosing a home or deeming it suitable for habitation. For

example, some individuals might prioritize safety and choose to live in gated

communities at a greater expense, while others may not, despite having the means to do

so. The individual feelings and preferences o f home-owners thus play an important role

in the selection and perception o f housing. Finally, Anderson and Weidemann noted that

the conative aspects o f resident satisfaction refer to the striving components o f housing

perception and selection. This facet o f resident satisfaction refers to the desire to acquire

a better housing system or not. It is purposeful but not necessarily rational. An example

would be if a resident would choose to live in the same kind of housing if given the

choice.

V ariance in resident satisfaction. These aspects are not always found together

in every individual. Some groups based on age or culture may differ in terms o f what

aspects they emphasize as most important. The results from one study conducted by

Mohit, Ibrahim, and Rashid (2012) showed that the perceptions and selection strategies of

a specific group cannot be generalized to other groups or populations, given the variety in

values that specific groups place on such aspects. Some groups may focus more on one

aspect o f resident satisfaction than others. For example, an older family with more

economic means might prioritize safety over costs, whereas a young couple not as

established financially might determine cost to be the main driver o f satisfaction with

their housing situation. The residents’ subjective feelings of comfort and their social,

cultural, or religious needs must be acknowledged as it affects their psychosocial feelings

regarding their quality o f life and thus their overall resident satisfaction (Mohit, Ibrahim,

& Rashid, 2010).

As noted, the factors that contribute toward resident satisfaction vary among

groups. For instance, in a quantitative study conducted by Hwang and Ziebarth (2006) on

Korean-American elders, a self-administered questionnaire was utilized to measure their

resident satisfaction, as well as to determine the aspects o f their housing they deemed

most important, and from which they derived most pleasure and contentment. The

authors found that Korean-American elders placed more value on the psychological

benefits that they derived from their residence— that is, the feeling that they belong in

their neighborhood. They also placed great importance on the social value that they

derived from their dwellings. They found the neighborhood social environment and the

services provided in their communities to be significant contributors to the overall

satisfaction that they felt and the overall perceptions that they had towards their houses.

On the other hand, the researchers found that when these two previous aspects o f their

residences were compared to the physical aspect, the latter was found not to be

significantly related to this group’s resident satisfaction (Hwang & Ziebarth, 2006). This

means that for the specific group o f Korean-American elders, the physical structure o f the

home itself, and its physical state, were less influential on their overall satisfaction

compared to the psychological and social state o f the space.

This can be contrasted to the work conducted by Heywood, Oldman, and Means

(2002), who found that it is possible for low-income homeowners to be satisfied with

their poor housing conditions while remaining utterly aware o f the poor condition o f their

housing situations. For this group, again, the physical state or even the community in

which the house belongs, may not be o f importance with respect to the overall

satisfaction derived from the home. It may be surmised that other values are derived

from such homes by their homeowners, such as the capacity to be sheltered from the

elements, and to be afforded a sense of protection, safety, and privacy. This is indicative

o f the numerous factors at work in considering resident satisfaction.

Definitions and models o f resident satisfaction. Given the multifaceted nature

of resident satisfaction, it was suggested that resident satisfaction could be used not just

to evaluate the quality o f the residence the users have, but can also be used to describe or

predict a variation of resident behaviors (Weidemann & Anderson, 1985). The study

conducted by Francescato, Weidemann, and Anderson (1989) was made with the goal of

capturing this multifaceted feature o f resident satisfaction and its effects on residents’

behaviors. They claimed that a single question would be insufficient to include all these

aspects regarding resident satisfaction. Hence, the researchers, Francescato, Weidemann,

and Anderson (1986) suggested four questions that reflected the cognitive, emotional,

and conative aspects o f resident satisfaction in terms o f housing, in conducting their

investigations: (1) How satisfied are you with living here? (2) How long do you want to

live in this housing development? (3) If you move again, would you like to live in

another place like this? and (4) Would you recommend this place to one o f your friends if

he or she were looking for a new place to live?

Additionally, they also included a six-domain taxonomy o f variables that can

predict resident satisfaction. These are: objective environmental attributes, individual

characteristics, behavioral and normative beliefs, perceptions, emotions, and behavioral

intentions (Francescato et al., 1986). According to Potter et al. (2001), these variables

best capture the complex nature o f housing, and includes considerations o f management,

community, and health with the basic consideration o f physical environment: “they

contribute to and comprise attributes toward residential satisfaction” (p. 76).

The model developed by Francescato et al. (1986) thus succeeded in two things.

First, it developed tests in the form o f four questions that help determine the existence or

the levels o f resident satisfaction among residents. Second, the researchers were able to

enumerate and categorize the various variables that could contribute to the perceptions of

resident satisfaction. Hence, this model did not presuppose any values that would be

important to a particular group o f residents, as it respected the different perceptions and

beliefs o f different groups o f people whose resident satisfaction might be studied.

Instead, the model presented mechanisms by which resident satisfaction could be

determined and measured.

In light of all these information, however, a clear definition for resident

satisfaction continues to be difficult to obtain, even in recent times. A number of

definitions, however, have been provided by scholars from the 1990s to the 2010s in

attempts to make the concept even more operationalized and measurable. These

definitions then resulted in different models o f resident satisfaction, with varying degrees

o f success among academics and practitioners.

Resident satisfaction as a function o f resident expectation. Wiesenfeld (1992)

used resident satisfaction to refer to the related factors between an individual’s current

housing conditions and the initial expectations. In this definition of resident satisfaction,

the overall contentment experienced by an individual is a function of the relationship

between the actual state o f the house, and the individual’s initial expectations regarding

the house. Hence, when the expectations o f the individual did not match the actual

condition o f the dwelling place, then resident satisfaction could not be expected to be

high (Wiesenfeld, 1992).

Resident satisfaction as perspective on perceptions. Ogu (2002) defined resident

satisfaction as a concept that can be used to determine the perceptions or feelings of

individuals regarding their house and the surrounding environment. Hence, whereas

Wiesenfeld (1992) viewed resident satisfaction as the result o f certain factors, Ogu

viewed the concept as a perspective on the dwelling home and the immediate

surroundings. In the latter’s view, resident satisfaction is something that colors the

perceptions o f individuals, with residents who are more satisfied with their homes, likely

also feeling more satisfied with their surroundings and neighboring areas. On the other

hand, individuals with less resident satisfaction were less likely to feel contentment from

their homes and the environment surrounding it.

Mandic and Cirman (2012) contended that resident satisfaction simply referred to

how residents feel about their place o f residence, highlighting the affective aspect o f

resident satisfaction, and minimizing all other aspects or facets previously mentioned by

other researchers. On the other hand, Kellekci and Berkoz (2006) stated that resident

satisfaction was based more on perceptions on what they expected and needed at a certain

point in time. This view mimicked the definition given by Wiesenfeld (1992) regarding

resident satisfaction being a function o f the state o f the house and the expectations o f the

residents. However, Kellekci and Berkoz further delimited the definition by grounding

the expectations o f homeowners to particular points in time. These variation in emphasis

with their respective definitions does not necessarily mean that they contradict each

other. Rather, as in the point made by other scholars (Francescato et al., 1986, 1989;

Weidermann & Anderson, 1985), these aspects must be taken together to provide a more

holistic picture o f resident satisfaction.

H olistic m odels o f resident satisfaction. An example o f how resident satisfaction

can be conceptualized holistically can be found in the study conducted by Lara and

Bekker (2012). The researchers focused their investigation on the resident satisfaction

experienced by residents o f the Nova Vida housing project in Angola. Using their

experience as professional civil engineers and through consultations with construction

company representatives, the authors developed a conceptual model that incorporated

four resident satisfaction factors— house design, house functionality, accessibility, and

environment with three influencing parameters: expectations, socio-economic dynamics,

and demographics (Lara & Bekker, 2012).

Hence, in the model contemplated by Lara and Bekker (2012), resident

satisfaction was a function not just o f the internal factors experienced by the residents

such as their own expectations, but also o f external factors beyond their control such as

socio-economic forces, and demographic variables. Furthermore, in this model, resident

satisfaction is hinged not solely on the cognitions, perceptions, and experiences o f the

residents, but also on the factors inherent in the dwelling place. The researchers noted

that apart from the expectations, socio-economic forces, and expectations o f the residents,

resident satisfaction could also be influenced by the design o f the house and the functions

it lent itself to with respect to the needs o f the residents. Furthermore, the environment in

which the home was situated as well as its accessibility to other services necessary for a

high quality o f life were also considered as influences on resident satisfaction. Overall,

the model contemplated by Lara and Bekker showed how various factors, ranging from

the personal, to the economic, to the physical could interact with one another in order to

produce different levels o f residential satisfaction. With a favorable mixture of these

variables, resident satisfaction could be expected to be high. However, with an

unfavorable mixture, such as when the house is inaccessible, too economically onerous,

and fails to meet the needs and expectations o f the residents therein, then the overall

resident satisfaction o f said residents can be expected to be low.

Their model for measuring resident satisfaction is shown below, in Figure 3. The

factors and variables the authors used are shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the

facets o f the home are influenced by external factors, and factors inherent in the residents

to produce resident satisfaction. Based on the nature o f the interactions o f variables, the

absence o f one o f the factors, does not render the entire model incapable o f predicting

resident satisfaction, as there are still other variables and factors on which to base

predictions on.

(I) House

Design

Residential Satisfaction Demographics Socio-economic

(RS)

Environment

Figure 4: Conceptual Model for Resident Satisfaction (Lara & Bekker, 2012, 368)

Factor I - H D : House design and architecture

Degree o f satisfaction with respect to the physical attributes o f the house or apartment:

1.1 Architecture Divisions, size, architectural design, housing proximity, house in general, garden space, privacy, parking space.

1.2 Design External fafade, adequacy o f ventilation and lighting, number o f divisions in the house, floor height.

1.3 Space layout Living room, kitchen, toilets, bedrooms, garden, storage room and pantry.

Factor II - HC: House construction and functionality

Degree o f satisfaction with respect to the quality o f the different house or apartment components and functionalities.

2.1 Water retention Windows, doors, ceiling, roof, external walls, floor slab, external drainage

2.2 Finishes & materials Painting, floor and wall tiles, smoothness o f wall plaster finishes, doors, windows, ceiling.

2.3 infrastructure Water supply, water heating, sewerage and waste disposal, storm water drainage, power supply.

2.4 maintenance in apartment block

Lift, entrance lobby, stairs, playground, security.

Factor III - AC: Accessibility

Degree o f satisfaction with respect to access to the following destinations:

3.1 Education facilities Creche, primary school, secondary school, university. 3.2 Recreational and commercial

Shopping center, supermarket, parks, running area, sport area.

3.3 Health Clinic, hospital. 3.4 Public transport Taxi, bus, work, city center, church.

Factor I V - N E : Neighborhood, environment and community

Degree o f satisfaction in terms o f the living environment:

4.1 Operation o f technical services

Phone service, internet, television, water, sewer, power, refuse collection, public lighting.

4.2 Safety / security Traffic accidents, fire, crime, police accessibility, safety for children, general sense o f security at Nova Vida and house.

4.3 Maintenance and cleanliness

Road and walkways.

4.4 Social Life Relationship with neighbors, privacy, neighborhood friendliness.

4.5 quality o f existing facilities

Quality o f shops, schools, clinic and hospitals.

4.6 Traffic Density, parking availability, traffic signs, noise, access roads.

4.7 Environmental features

Social activities, scenario, pollution, quietness, quantity o f green spaces.

Table 1: Factors and Variables o f Satisfaction (Lara & Bekker, 2012, pp. 368-369).

As shown in Table 1, the factors referring to the satisfaction derived from the

house itself can be further divided into several other labels per factor. First, the factor o f

house design or architecture is defined as the degree of satisfaction derived from the

different physical characteristics o f the dwelling home. This factor is further subdivided

into architecture, design, and space layout. The model developed by Lara and Bekker

(2012) defines architecture with respect to resident satisfaction as the spaces and division

of spaces found within the house. Next, Lara and Bekker defined design as the external

physical attributes o f the house, including its capacity to provide proper lighting and

ventilation to the residents o f the space. Finally, the researchers defined space layout in

terms o f the different kinds o f rooms that should be available in a home, such as kitchens,

bedrooms, living rooms, garages, and storage rooms, among others.

The second factor o f resident satisfaction, according to Lara and Bekker (2012)

refers to the construction and functionality o f the residence, defined as ho satisfied

residents are with the functions o f the different spaces found within the dwelling place.

This factor has been further subdivided by the researchers into four variables: water

retention, finishes and materials, infrastructure, and maintenance. The first variable,

water retention refers to the satisfactory condition o f doors, windows, floors, and external

drainage systems. The more satisfied participants are with these, the more they are likely

to have high scores on the construction and functionality factor o f resident satisfaction.

The second variable o f finishes and materials refers to the final presentation o f different

parts o f the home, such as how they were painted or tiled, whether or not doors or

windows were properly placed. Satisfaction with these circumstances contribute to

satisfaction with respect to the larger factor o f construction and functionality. The third

2 9

variable o f infrastructure refers to the capacity of the residence to provide for certain

needs expected o f a house, such as an adequate water, heat, or light supply. Homes with

satisfactory capacities to provide these essentials o f daily living may be expected to

render higher levels o f satisfaction to their residents. Finally, Lara and Bekker noted that

the fourth component of construction and functionality is maintenance, whereby it is

meant that the residence should have access to utilities such as a proper lift, entrance, or

security services. Without such utilities and services accessible to the home, then the

resident satisfaction o f its inhabitants cannot be expected to be very high.

The third factor of resident satisfaction, according to Lara and Bekker (2012) is

accessibility, which has been defined as how much satisfaction residents derive from

their dwelling’s access to several particular destinations. The researchers noted four

particular destinations that are o f import to residents in choosing and being satisfied with

a residence or place o f dwelling. These include schools, recreational facilities like malls

and cinemas, clinics and hospitals, and public works like bus stops, train stops, churches,

or city centers.

The final factor in Lara and Bekker’s (2012) model is the environment that

surrounds the house, including the neighborhood and the community that resides therein.

This factor is described as the amount o f satisfaction that residents have with the

surroundings o f their dwelling places. Hence, when residents feel less satisfied with their

surroundings, then they may feel lower levels o f resident satisfaction overall. On the

other hand, when they feel more satisfied with the surroundings o f their homes, then they

may feel higher levels o f resident satisfaction. According to Lara and Bekker’s model,

this factor can be further divided and defined through seven smaller factors and

predictors. These include the operation of technical services, safety and security,

cleanliness and maintenance, social life, quality o f existing facilities, traffic, and

environmental features.

The first variable o f environment and community, the operation o f technical

services, refers to the house’s access to vital services for daily life, including a connection

to telephone services, to the internet, as well as access to the collection and disposal of

refuse (Lara & Bekker, 2012). The adequacy o f access to these services can influence the

amount o f satisfaction individuals have with respect to their environments. This

environmental satisfaction, in turn, can translate to higher levels of resident satisfaction.

According to Lara and Bekker (2012), the second variable o f safety and security,

refers to the satisfaction derived by residents from their general sense o f security from the

place where their house is located. This may be enhanced by the presence o f law

enforcers and other agents tasked with keeping the peace and maintaining order. Without

such elements, residents may feel more vulnerable, and less satisfied with their general

surroundings, therefore making the amount o f resident satisfaction they feel much less

than it would be had they felt more secure.

The third variable o f environmental and community satisfaction, cleanliness and

maintenance, refers to a particular form o f orderliness. In the contemplation o f Lara and

Bekker’s (2012) model, cleanliness and maintenance in the fourth factor of

environmental satisfaction refers to the orderliness o f public roads and highways. Should

the roads and streets surrounding houses be poorly maintained or littered with garbage,

then homeowners and residents may feel a lesser sense o f satisfaction with their

environment, and with their residences in general.

The fourth element o f social life refers to the residents’ satisfaction with the

relationships they are able to maintain with the people who surround their houses.

However, this satisfaction is not merely based on relationships and interactions in Lara

and Bekker’s (2012) model. Just as important for the researchers is the amount o f

privacy afforded to residents. Thus, the element o f social life is a balance between the

access residents have to their neighbors, and their ability to secure themselves in privacy

should they so desire. When residents feel that they have a good balance between these

different aspects o f social life, then they may feel more satisfied with the social

environmental aspects o f their residence. Hence, their resident satisfaction may be

stronger or more robust as well.

The fifth variable o f environmental satisfaction is the quality of public services

and facilities available to the residents (Lara & Bekker, 2012). While public services and

facilities affect the other factors o f resident satisfaction, under community satisfaction, it

is their quality that is o f import. Hence, when houses are located to schools, hospitals,

and other public facilities o f a better quality may translate to higher levels of

environmental and resident satisfaction.

The sixth variable o f traffic considered in the resident satisfaction o f model by

Lara and Bekker (2012) refers to all aspects o f automobile transportation, from the

adequacy of signs and roads, to the density o f cars in the area surrounding homes. The

adequacy or inadequacy o f the presence of these variables can contribute to the

environmental and resident satisfaction o f the inhabitants o f houses. Better conditions of

traffic and travel can result in better levels of environmental satisfaction, and resident

satisfaction in general. On the other hand, poorer conditions o f traffic, such as a heavy

density o f cars, with poor signages and poor road conditions, can contribute to lower

levels o f satisfaction with the environment surrounding the homes o f residents. This, in

turn, can translate to lower levels of resident satisfaction due to factors uncontrollable by

the builders or inhabitants of a house.

The final variable considered in Lara and Bekker’s (2012) model refers to the

different environmental features that might attend the surroundings o f a residence or

house. According to the researchers, the environmental features o f the surroundings o f a

home can include the kinds o f social activities available to residents in that area, the

amount o f pollution to which residents are exposed, the amount o f quiet available to

residents, and even the number o f open green spaces from which residents can derive

pleasure. Without such features, the satisfaction individuals feel regarding the

surroundings and the community where their houses are situated, may be lessened. In

turn, this might contribute to the overall decrease in the resident satisfaction o f these

inhabitants.

This can be contrasted to the components and variables used by Mohit and

Nazyddah (2011) in their study on resident satisfaction in Malaysia. These are provided

in Table 2, below.

H o n in g nnit features

(Component - 1)

H oasiag H it support services

(Couspoaeut - 2)

PabVc Facilities

(Component - 3)

Social CBviraaascat

(Coaspeaeat-4)

Neighborhood fhcWties

(C oaqioaeat-5)

Living, dining, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, toilet and (clothes) drying areas (power) socket points, including ventilation o f the house

Corridors, staircase, drainage, garbage, collection, lifts and firefighting system

Open space.

Play area, parking, prayer and multi-purpose halls, perimeter roads, pedestrian walkways, public phone, local shops

Noise, crime, accidents, and community relation

Distances to town center, school, polks station, hospital, matkct. shopping centers, public litan y . mosque, LRT, bus and taxi stations

Table 2: Components and variables for measuring resident satisfaction (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2009).

The model created by Mohit and Nazyddahddah (2009) has five components.

These include housing unit features, housing unit support services, public facilities, social

environment, and neighborhood facilities. The first component o f resident satisfaction in

this model refers to the different parts that comprise the physical space o f the home.

These are seen through the presence and quality of the rooms, walls, ceilings, doors, and

other fixtures such as socket points and ventilation spaces. When these are absent, or

when they are o f poor quality, residents may not derive much satisfaction from them, thus

affecting their overall resident satisfaction with respect to their dwelling place.

The second component o f the model contemplated by Mohit and Nazyddah

(2009) refers to the supporting structure that provide accessibility and other services to

the inhabitants o f the physical space o f the house. According to the researchers, these

include elevators and corridors within the building, stairs to their dwelling spaces, and

even garbage collection services, and water drainage systems. Without such structures

and services supporting the home, the quality o f life and thus, the resident satisfaction of

inhabitants may be severely jeopardized.

The third component o f resident satisfaction, according to the model

contemplated by Mohit and Nazyddah (2009), refers to the public utilities available to the

inhabitants o f dwelling places, and supporting their everyday lives. According to the

researchers, these public services and utilities include open spaces and playgrounds,

along with roads and streets that provide a thoroughfare for residents to travel to

whichever destinations they might fancy visiting. The presence or the quality o f these

public utilities and services are contemplated as having significant effects on the resident

satisfaction o f inhabitants. When these services and utilities are absent, or are made of

poor quality, they can contribute to the decrease o f the resident satisfaction felt by the

inhabitants of houses and dwelling places.

The fourth factor identified by Mohit and Nazyddah (2009) is the social

environment surrounding the houses of individuals and families. Like the social

environment contemplated by Lara and Bekker (2012), refers to the relations that

residents may have with their neighbors and the other members o f their community.

However, in the model created by Mohit and Nazyddah, the social environment also

includes the preponderance o f crime and criminal activities that attend the area where the

house is located. Furthermore, the researchers noted that this component of resident

satisfaction also includes the amount o f noise that pervades the surroundings. High levels

o f noise and crime, along with poor social relations with neighbors and different

community members may contribute to a lower level of resident satisfaction among

inhabitants of such spaces.

Finally, Mohit and Nazyddah (2009), identified neighborhood facilities as

significant components for the overall resident satisfaction o f inhabitants. In the model

created by the researchers, these facilities include markets, schools, police stations, and

hospitals, among many others. Much like the other components, the presence and good

quality o f these facilities can contribute significantly to the overall resident satisfaction of

people living in such neighborhoods.

3 6

The authors also used their own conceptual model, shown in Figure 5, below.

O bjective a ttrib u te s o f housing environm ent

I Swing aree, dbming space, bedroom spaces, toflet, bathroom , etc.

se ndee* - corridor. i r t r n w .i t , deanSness of drains, s tre e t Sghting, garbage w fc c tloiv ste .

euhUdKtt-os/ ploy area, porting, prayer M i perim eter roads, pedestrian wefltweys, etc.

o S-S -S * social c m n m n K m

noise, accident, safety, security co n tro l community relation*.

■ »■ « ■« IIL 1 M II eenwi »— »

- dhtancc* to t own cen ter, worbpiace, s d w jh o s d td shopping center, bus stations, etc.

Subjective a ttrib u te s of housing enviro nm ent

I Satisfaction /

tiweMag oak feeiores (measured by HUFMea)

Sadsracdoa/

Satisfaction/ ^ssatisfattiun oritii poMk f a d W n ( w m e r t by PFSbntex)

Hoasinf cbaricterhths - Satisfaction/ age, education. famdy tissatis faction wdtii sodol she, income, teagtii of eevkoamem (measured stay, etc. bySCSMen)

Hosing satisfaction In each catagoryof hosing (measured by OCHSI, OIHSI A OTHSI)

Sathfaetioa / dbsatisfactioawitii adgMorfcood fadM es (measured by NFSMex)

Figure 5: Conceptual Model for Resident Satisfaction (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2009).

Based on the conceptual model created by Mohit and Nazyddah (2009), resident

satisfaction follows an intricate process o f different variables influencing one another.

First, the model describes that in order to predict the amount o f resident satisfaction

inhabitants will have in their home, a researcher or interested party must first identify and

investigate the objective attributes o f the home. These refer to the five components o f

resident satisfaction outlined by the researchers, namely housing unit features, housing

unit support, public facilities, social environment, and neighborhood facilities already

discussed previously in this section. These components must be studied according to

their particular characteristics with respect to the house under scrutiny.

After identifying the presence and the quality o f these components o f resident

satisfaction, Mohit and Nazyddah (2009), in their conceptual model o f resident

satisfaction recommended the examination o f the residents’ perceptions and attitudes

regarding these objective realities of their dwelling place. According to the researchers,

these perceptions and attitudes are influenced by three things. These are the five

objective components o f the house, the values and norms o f the residents based on their

culture and belief, and the characteristics o f the household. The second and third

influences on the perceptions o f residents as conceptualized by Mohit and Nazyddah

point to the model’s flexibility with respect to different kinds o f residents belonging to

different segments o f the population who may have particular needs and beliefs absent

among other groups o f residents.

According to Mohit and Nazyddah (2009), the combination of these influences

then affect the satisfaction that residents have with respect to each o f the five components

o f resident satisfaction. Hence, the model explains that the demographic characteristics

o f the residents, such as their age, gender, and level o f education will influence the

amount o f satisfaction or dissatisfaction said residents would have regarding the physical

aspects o f their residence, its social environment, and the supporting structures and public

utilities that service it. Furthermore, the norms and values o f the individuals living in a

particular residence will have important implications on how satisfied or dissatisfied they

will be with respect to different aspects o f their house. Through this process o f influence

and mediating variables, the objective components o f resident satisfaction are converted

into subjective perceptions and attitudes that then exert different levels o f influence on

the overall resident satisfaction felt with respect to a particular home.

According to Mohit and Nazyddah (2009), the final stage o f the process of

determining resident satisfaction involves identifying the individual influences o f the

respondents’ perceptions regarding the objective components o f the concept. This means

that anyone attempting to measure or predict resident satisfaction must consider the

different levels o f satisfaction or dissatisfaction residents have with respect to each

objective component o f resident satisfaction. Taking them all together, the investigator

must then calculate the cumulative effects the different levels o f satisfaction would have

on overall resident satisfaction. The model created by Mohit and Nazyddah (2009)

makes each subjective component and independent influence on the overall resident

satisfaction. Hence, the influence o f one must be given proper significance with respect

to independent effects on the overall result o f resident satisfaction.

R esident satisfaction in multifamily housing. What can be seen in these two

conceptual models for visualizing resident satisfaction is that, despite the presence of

common factors, specific factors can be seen to have more value in other cultures.

Determining the resident satisfaction in a given time and place involves cultural

considerations. A study on resident satisfaction conducted in one country may yield

different results from a study conducted in another place. Hence, various studies have

been conducted in order to ascertain the different sources and effects o f resident

satisfaction in differing contexts. These findings show the importance o f constant

evaluation and re-evaluation o f the concept in new contexts in order that resident

satisfaction for particular groups may be fully understood with respect to specific

challenges and goals that each group may have for their housing needs and resident

satisfaction. One o f these new contexts that has been studied by researchers is the system

o f multifamily housing. In such cases, families or individuals live in the same building or

structure, but usually in separate spaces therein, as lessees or renters o f a landlord who

owns or controls the building (Follain, 1994).

For instance, James (2007) conducted a study that examined the long-term impact

o f structural features and physical amenities on resident satisfaction by analyzing 7,206

rented multifamily units in the 2005 American Housing Survey. He found that the

structural features and physical amenities that provided a separate space were associated

with significantly higher resident satisfaction, even when holding the total unit area

constant (James, 2007). Such features included additional rooms, bathrooms, garages or

carports, and balconies or patios (James, 2007). It was also found that instances where

this separate space was intruded on by noises or disturbances that may come through

walls, floors, or ceilings “created dramatically negative effects” in terms o f resident

satisfaction (James, 2007, p. 472). Other amenities were found by James (2007) to have

no statistically significant impact, such as the presence o f a fireplace, disposal, or

dishwasher.

The findings of James (2007) relates to the particular needs o f residents living in

multifamily housing conditions. In such situations, residents may have different needs

and expectations from their living conditions because of the relatively close proximity

that they have with respect to their neighbors and to other families. Hence, as shown by

the data collected by James, there was a great emphasis placed on the creation o f separate

spaces, and on the maintenance o f peaceful and quiet surroundings. In such a context of

close proximity to other families, the maintenance o f privacy and o f individual spaces is

important for the satisfaction o f residents. When residents feel that the other families are

beginning to intrude on their private spaces and even their private affairs, then resident

satisfaction can be expected to diminish.

In another study conducted by Potter and Cantarero (2006), they investigated the

quality o f life in Crete, Nebraska. The goal o f the study was to determine the factors that

could be used to predict resident satisfaction, as in James (2007). A survey was used and

focus groups were also utilized in order to reveal key issues that could be used to align

their survey questionnaire. Potter and Cantarero (2006) achieved different results from

the study by James (2007), and found that stressors and sociocultural issues are the most

significant factors in determining the resident satisfaction in that community.

Stressors include “employment, income level, ability to communicate, isolation,

discrimination, tension with neighbors, crime, social and cultural differences, and lack o f

transportation”, while sociocultural factors include “cooperation among neighbors, cross-

cultural understanding, and the sense o f community” (Potter & Cantarero, 2006, p. 617).

In their study, Potter and Cantarero (2006) found that the stressors on residents’ lives

derived from the residence negatively influenced resident satisfaction and quality o f life.

Hence, it is in the best interest o f residents that such stressors be lessened and decreased

in order to derive greater levels o f satisfaction and contentment from the dwelling place.

On the other hand, the sociocultural factors were found to be positively related with

resident satisfaction, and predicted higher levels o f contentment. Hence, in instances

where there was more cooperation and understanding between neighbors and members of

a particular community, the resident satisfaction o f individuals and families living therein

could be expected to be higher compared to situations of misunderstanding and distrust

among neighbors and community members. The same emphasis on community and the

attachments that form within it as factors in resident satisfaction can also be found in the

study conducted by Oakley, Ruel, and Reid (2012). Here, the researchers also found that

one o f the most important predictors of resident satisfaction lay in the understanding and

cooperation between members o f a particular community.

Potter and Cantarero (2006) also noted the possible importance o f length of

residence in a particular area. According to the researchers, their results may have been

influenced by the fact that a number o f the participants in their study were long-term

residents, and have lived in Crete for 15 years or more. Based on their findings, these

residents were more likely to place an emphasis on the importance o f community and

social aspects o f their residence. On the other hand, the researchers found that residents

who have just arrived in the community o f Crete valued physical issues the most in their

perceptions o f resident satisfaction— such as the “adequacy o f public services, overall

attractiveness o f the neighborhood and visibility o f trailer parks, air quality, the quality of

the street and parking, and accessibility” (Potter & Cantarero, 2006, p. 618). For newer

residents, the social and community aspects o f living in the area were not o f great import

yet in terms o f determining how much satisfaction they derived from their homes.

Compared to them, the long-term residents also valued the lack o f stressors most in their

perceptions o f resident satisfaction, and it was hypothesized that this may be due to long

term residents being less able to adjust to fast changes in the community that leads them

to feel misunderstood and out o f place (Potter & Cantarero, 2006).

Hence, it could be said that the length o f stay within a particular residential area

could be a predictor o f the kinds o f influences that would be significant in determining

resident satisfaction. As shown by Potter and Cantarero (2006), when individuals have

newly acquired their living space, they are more likely to pay attention to the physical

aspects o f the residence in deriving satisfaction and contentment. On the other hand,

residents who have lived in their houses for a longer period o f time may place a greater

importance on the community that surrounds them, and on the stability afforded to them

by their surroundings, when deciding whether or not they feel satisfaction and

contentment with respect to their residence.

This difference in results indicates that the factors that contribute toward resident

satisfaction may differ from place to place. Another factor that needs to be considered is

whether these factors will remain the same when analyzing kinds o f housing other than

the traditional single-family house. A discussion will follow regarding the emergence o f

multifamily housing as an alternative to single-family housing and the literature on their

differences and similarities.

M ultifamily Housing

The choices o f individuals regarding their housing situation are based on two

aspects: residents choose their tenure form (either purchasing or renting) and the structure

type (either single-family or multifamily) (Goodman, 1999). Despite the volumes o f

literature on the residents’ choice o f tenure form, their choice o f choosing to live in a

single-family or multifamily housing situation is often ignored. According to Goodman

(1999), “the choice between multifamily or single-family housing is no less important

that the split between owning and renting”, yet “very little systematic analysis” has been

done regarding the “choice o f structure type and even less examination o f the combined

choice of structure and tenure” (pp. 31-32).

Multifamily housing is defined by Follain (1994) as “particular type o f rental

housing that tends to provide less privacy and involve the sharing o f common space; it

probably serves a higher proportion o f low-income tenants than single-family housing

does, at least in urban areas” (p. 538-9). It is often cheaper than single-family housing

and provides benefits that differ from other kinds o f housing. Such benefits may be

unique to this kind o f housing.

Multifamily housing is often directed by a manager, who provides services to the

tenants. The traditional management tasks include “rent collection, tenant selection,

personnel duties, property maintenance, paperwork, meetings, and budgeting” and,

sometimes, they are faced with nontraditional tasks as well, such as “arranging tenants’

services, counseling, personally providing transportation, providing companionship,

intervening with family issues, intervening in crises, advocating for tenants, helping

tenants with daily-living tasks, supervising behavior..., handling crime/drug problems,

and supervising recreational activities” (Prosper, 2004, p. 104). These nontraditional

tasks can be seen, for instance, in the study conducted by Larco, Steiner, Stockard, and

West (2012) on a suburban multifamily housing development in a medium-sized city.

They found that a relationship existed between the built environment o f a multifamily

housing complex and its residents’ physical activity (Larco et al., 2012).

According to Follain (1994), scholarly literature on multifamily housing is

lacking. Some o f the reasons Follain (1994) gave for this included the notion that housing

multiple families is often taken to be a characteristic of housing, rather than an essential

definition; the increased sharing o f public space and decrease in privacy compared to

typical single-family housing; and the opinion that the “size, location, and quality o f the

housing unit” are more important in understanding housing (p. 534).

Traditionally, policymakers have ignored multifamily housing and focused on

single-family housing and, by extension, the nuclear family (Follain, 1994). In recent

years, however, changes in the demographics o f societies have contributed toward the

increasing popularity o f multifamily housing. It has been noted that certain demographics

have preferences commensurate with the benefits offered by this housing situation, such

as unmarried couples (DeLisle, 2001) and o f people 60 or older (Prosper, 2004). These

demographics may prefer to live in multifamily housing for more than just financial

reasons, such as the absence of responsibility for maintenance costs and repair time and

the convenient locations o f most multifamily complexes (Zietz, 2003).

In the United States, for instance, it was found in 2002 that one in four households

live in multifamily housing (National Association o f Home Builders, 2002, as cited in

Zietz, 2003), and it has been claimed that the demand for multifamily housing will

increase in popularity until sustainable levels are attained by 2015 or 2016 (National

Association o f Home Builders, 2014). As a result, studying multifamily housing may

prove essential in the coming years.

One large reason for the popularity o f multifamily housing is based on economic

considerations. For example, the rise o f multifamily housing in the United States can be

attributed, in part, to the decrease in economic opportunities available for its citizens. As

the country has moved toward a knowledge-based economy, jobs for workers with lesser

education has decreased rapidly in the last decade, with roughly 33 percent of

manufacturing jobs having been lost (Atkins et al., 2011). As more and more people are

unable to afford single-family housing, multifamily housing has become more popular.

In light o f this development, the construction o f multifamily housing complexes

has been contentious in some areas. A complication that arises with the increasing

popularity o f multifamily housing is resistance from “planning or zoning officials, local

politicians, civic leaders in communities in which the housing is to be located, proximate

neighbors who live or work near the apartment buildings, and other members o f the

general public” (Obrinsky & Stein, 2006, p. 4). This is a difficult situation given that

more and more citizens o f highly industrialized nations either prefer or need to rent and

live in a multifamily housing complex.

For instance, in the United States, a reason that is often used by those who oppose

the construction of such buildings in their neighborhood is their perceptions of

undesirable effects that may come from the people who live under such conditions, such

as lowered property values (Obrinsky & Stein, 2006). Prakash (2013) noted that this may

just be a “race-neutral means o f racially motivated segregation” (p. 1443). Other reasons

4 6

such opponents o f multifamily housing use include the claims that multifamily

apartments lower the property value o f other single-family homes in the neighborhood,

that the residents o f such housing complexes are typically less desirable and are more

likely to engage in anti-social behaviors, that such housing complexes overburden

government resources, and that the higher density such housing creates will lead to traffic

and parking problems (Obrinsky & Stein, 2006).

Thus, families who choose to live in multifamily housing may face additional

challenges compared to other families, in light o f this resistance from other stakeholders.

Such arguments continue to proliferate among opponents o f multifamily housing despite

research that has shown these concerns to be largely overstated, if not outright false

(Obrinsky & Stein, 2006).

As noted earlier, housing studies operate under the tenet that the goal o f housing

is to satisfying the residents and taking care o f their mental and physical health (Ulusoy

et al., 2012). By determining what factors contribute toward resident satisfaction in

multifamily housing, a clearer idea may be gained by policymakers and developers who

seek to offer services that cater to the increased demand for multifamily housing.

A variety o f factors provide complexity when analyzing multifamily housing. As

it is, there are a number o f living arrangements possible in a residence. According to

Glick, Bean, and van Hook (1997), there are two kinds o f family extensions possible:

vertical and horizontal. Vertically extended families involve at least two generations of

full-grown adults (Glick et al., 1997). These may include grandparents, parents, and

grandchildren, all living in the same house. Horizontally extended families involve

relatives who all belong to one generation (Glick et al., 1997). For example, siblings

living in the same house with their respective families.

These factors make studying even single-family housing complex. However, in

multifamily housing, these possibilities in living arrangements are multiplied by the

number o f families who are its residents. Combined with the shared public areas and the

lack o f private space, multifamily housing can be seen as a distinct kind of housing, one

that requires its own studies, as results gained from studies of single-family housing can

be inappropriate there.

Research on multifamily housing has so far been non-existent in Saudi Arabia. In

light o f recent economic and social changes in the country, it has followed other highly

industrialized nations and has started to find multifamily housing as a viable alternative

to traditional single-family housing. However, despite the studies that have been

conducted on this phenomenon on other countries, the results obtained may not be

generalizable, given the existence o f subjective and cultural factors that may be unique to

Saudi Arabia.

A need exists to fill this gap, given the increasing popularity o f multifamily

housing in Saudi Arabia and the goal o f housing, which is to provide families with

satisfying its residents and taking care o f their physical and mental welfare (Ulusoy et al.,

2012). By revealing the perceptions o f the residents regarding their housing situation in a

multifamily housing complex in Saudi Arabia, a clearer idea may be gained on their

levels o f resident satisfaction. A possible implication o f this is that policymakers and

housing developers may be made aware o f these needs and be able to meet them.

Saudi Arabian Housing

Al-Jamea (2014) noted that Saudi Arabia has become one of the most rapidly

developing nations in the world. This development was brought about by the discover of

oil in the country in the 1930s. Prior to this, the researcher noted that Saudi Arabians

lived relatively simple lifestyles that were bound in their communities. However, after

the oil industry began an economic boom in the country, many o f its traditional ways of

life were changed.

One o f the most important changes faced by Saudi Arabia due to its rapid

economic development is the increased demand on housing. According to Al-Jamea

(2014) and Salam (2013), because o f the relative prosperity o f the country, the population

of Saudi Arabia has grown significantly over the past decades. In Salam’s study, the

population o f Saudi Arabia grew significantly in the period of 36 years between 1974 and

2010. By Al-Jamea’s estimates, the population o f Saudi Arabia reached 30 million

citizens in 2013, and is expected to climb to 59.683 million by the year 2050. According

to Al-James and Salam, the significant increase in the population and in the growth rate

of the population has translated to certain pressures on different aspects o f Saudi Arabian

resources, including housing.

Because o f the rapid growth o f the population, more houses are needed to satisfy

the needs o f Saudi Arabians. The study of Al-Jamea (2014) is an essential part of

literature that examined the connection o f economic growth and its connection to the

adaption o f new forms o f housing. According to Al-Jamea (2014), by the end o f 2015,

1.5 million new houses will be needed to house Saudi Arabia’s growing population.

Furthermore, Salam (2013) noted that many o f these new houses will be demanded in

urban areas where many citizens are relocating in order to access better opportunities for

work and for public utilities and services.

In a similar analysis with slightly different statistical data, Sidawi (2009)

identified several trends in the population and housing conditions o f Saudi Arabia that

point to increased pressures exerted upon the Kingdom’s housing market. According to

the researcher, by the year 2020, the population o f Saudi Arabia will reach 33.44 million.

By that time, 2.32 million new homes must be built in order to accommodate the needs of

the growing population. Per year, this figure translates to around 145,000 houses that

must be built annually in the 15 years between 2005 and 2020. According to Sidawi,

more conservative estimates actually estimated the housing demand in Saudi Arabia to be

at 2.62 million houses by 2020, thus requiring 163,750 houses to be built every year

between 2005 and 2020.

Sidawi (2009) also elucidated on the pressures on housing as a function o f the

purchasing power o f citizens and o f the costs o f construction. According to Sidawi, the

cost for constructing houses increases at a rate o f 50%. On the other hand, the purchasing

power of the market increases only at a rate o f 25% to 30%. Hence, the increase in the

capacity o f Saudi Arabians to buy homes cannot match the increase in the costs of

building or buying houses. Sidawi added that for a house to be considered affordable by

a family, the household must spend no more than 30% o f its gross income on the cost of

acquiring the residence. In light o f the current rates o f increase in the cost of building

houses, the limitation o f expenditures to 30% o f the gross family income may not be

plausible. Thus, more Saudi Arabians now opt for lower-priced houses, or opt to not

acquire their own homes.

Al-Jamea (2014) noted that Saudi Arabian housing conditions have not been able

to meet the demands o f the growing population. According to the researcher, there exists

a shortage o f houses and housing opportunities for a significant portion o f the Saudi

Arabian population, specifically the middle income and low income groups. This means

that while the higher income segment o f the Saudi Arabian population faces no shortage

o f houses and living spaces, the rest o f the country’s citizens are challenged with a lack

o f housing that would fulfill their needs and that o f their families. Furthermore, Al-

Jamea noted that the shortage o f houses in Saudi Arabia has been worsened by a change

in the cultural sustainability o f current housing systems. According to the researcher,

with the economic development o f Saudi Arabia, new forms o f housing have been

established that do not necessarily contribute to or improve the quality o f life o f Saudi

Arabians because they are inherently contradictory to traditional Saudi Arabian values

and customs. Hence, studies need to be conducted to ensure that the houses and housing

options available to Saudi Arabians meet the needs and fulfill the lifestyle demands of

different segments o f the Saudi Arabian population.

Similarly, Salam (2013) noted that because o f the pressures exerted by the

growing population on Saudi Arabian housing, new alternative systems o f residence have

been developed in the country. The researcher noted that many Saudi Arabians now

make use o f living arrangements that were not as popular or prevalent in previous years,

such as multifamily housing where several families reside in one building or structure as

lessees o f the owner thereof. However, Salam, like Al-Jamea, cautioned that these new

developments in the housing system of Saudi Arabia need to be investigated with respect

to their capacity for fulfilling the needs o f their inhabitants and contributing to their

quality o f life. Otherwise, challenges regarding the current housing situations o f Saudi

Arabia may remain unnoticed and unresolved, to the jeopardy o f the citizens residing in

problematic homes.

W elfare organizations. According to Sidawi (2009), a source o f housing for

Saudi Arabians in need o f residence is the welfare sector. The researcher noted that at

the time his research was conducted, welfare organizations were responsible for the

construction o f around 35,000 homes in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, private entities

engage in small scale charitable efforts, building several hundred homes for the benefit o f

Saudi Arabians. Based on these numbers alone, these institutions cannot single-handedly

alleviate the pressure exerted by the growing Saudi Arabian population on the housing

market.

C ultural lim itations. According to Sidawi (2009), apart from the limitations of

the different institutions attempting to fund housing constructions and purchase for the

Saudi Arabian public, there exist limitations inherent in the culture o f Saudi Arabia that

prevent its citizens from taking advantage o f available methods o f house construction and

purchase. According to Sidawi, banking experts have suggested that Saudi Arabian

culture is naturally averse to the concept o f borrowing or making loans. According to

these experts, most Saudi Arabians fail to comprehend the concept o f loans, along with

its benefits, because o f cultural beliefs regarding the unacceptable nature of acquiring

loans from strangers, or business institutions. Hence, while there exist in Saudi Arabia

certain institutions willing to extend loans to individuals who wish to buy or construct

their homes, these individuals may not be prepared to engage in such loan agreements.

Banking professionals have also noted that Saudi Arabians tend to consider banks

to be in a superior position o f power in situations when they engage in loan agreements

(Sidawi, 2009). According to Sidawi (2009), it is also a common experience among

bankers that a significant proportion o f Saudi Arabian clients fail to comprehend the

concept o f interests on loans. According to bankers, clients often feel that the amount o f

loans and interest should decrease over time. And when banks explain that instead of

decreasing, interests and costs to be paid can increase, Saudi Arabian clients often feel

cheated, and prefer to avoid loans in the future.

According to Sidawi (2009), instead o f relying on business institutions or third

parties, Saudi Arabians prefer to acquire help from their families and relatives. Hence, it

is not a natural response for Saudi Arabians in need o f loans to finance their homes to

approach banks, or even government agencies offering similar services for funding

residential constructions. The instinct among Saudi Arabians is to approach close

relatives, in order to ask for help in financial matters. Should this prove futile, there is

still a hesitation to approach business organizations, owed partially to conflicts between

business practices and Islamic laws, along with a lack of understanding o f business

practices and business agreements. Hence, according to Sidawi, if government agencies,

business institutions, or even banks, are to become more involved in the financing of

residential constructions in Saudi Arabia, the public must be better educated regarding

the options available to them, and the consequences o f taking advantage o f such

opportunities.

Based on the findings o f Sidawi (2009) and those o f previous researchers, certain

recommendations for the benefit o f Saudi Arabians were made. First, Sidawi noted that

the government must create a secure environment for banks to operate in, in order to

entice banks to engage in the financing o f residential construction for their clients.

Furthermore, banks, together with the government must undertake to educate the public

regarding the different processes and functions involved with acquiring loans from banks.

This basic education o f the public would result in less confusion among the public, and in

more security among the banking sector.

Sidawi (2009) also recommended future steps that must be taken by the different

institutions currently attempting to alleviate the housing demand problems o f Saudi

Arabia. According to the researcher, the government must initiate the creation o f long

term plans and goals that would incorporate the steps being taken by the banking sector,

the REDF, and by charitable institutions in solving the housing demand problem. These

institutions together must consider the best ways that may be employed in order that the

problems o f Saudi Arabia with respect to housing may be resolved.

Sidawi (2009) also recommended future studies regarding the relationships

between Saudi Arabians and the different institutions attempting contribute solutions to

the Saudi Arabian housing problem. According to the researcher, future studies must be

conducted to understand whether the relationship between Saudi Arabians and these

institutions is sufficient to facilitate the proper funding o f housing construction and

purchase. Furthermore, future studies must evaluate the effectiveness o f these

institutions in responding to the particular needs o f the Saudi Arabian public in need of

residences.

Housing preferences. According to the models o f resident satisfaction discussed

previously in this chapter, different individuals and families have different values and

criteria regarding what they believe to be necessary for the enjoyment of resident

satisfaction. Hence, in their study, Opoku and Abdul-Muhmin (2010) conducted a study

regarding the preferences o f homeowners regarding the factors that contribute to their

contentment with their residences. The researchers in this study acknowledged the fact

that the growth o f the population o f the Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia has translated to a

growth in the demand for housing in the country. However, the researchers also noted

that with the increase in demand for housing, was a decrease in the buying power o f

Saudi Arabian citizens. Furthermore, the researchers added that the cost for housing has

significantly increased in the years preceding their study. All these circumstances

combined have generated specific pressures on the housing market o f the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia (Opoku & Abdul-Muhmin, 2010).

In their study, Opoku and Abdul-Muhmin (2010) attempted to understand the

preferences o f low-income buyers o f houses in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the

researchers wanted to understand how this segment o f the housing market arrives at their

decision o f selecting houses. To facilitate the study, the researchers made use o f a survey

method for data collection.

The results o f the data collection and factor analysis gave rise to findings

regarding the housing preferences o f Saudi Arabians who have lower incomes. First, the

researchers found that a significant portion o f their participants preferred stand-alone

houses as opposed to apartments or duplexes. This means that there is still a greater

demand for traditional houses in the Saudi Arabian market, compared to apartments and

duplexes.

Second, the researchers also found that Saudi Arabian buyers prefer buying

houses compared to renting from landlords (Opoku & Abdul-Muhmin, 2010).

Significantly, the researchers generated this finding from their participants who were

from the low-income segment o f the Saudi Arabian population. Hence, despite the

relatively lower financial capacity o f the participants in their study, the researchers were

still able to establish a preference for buying residences as opposed to renting. An

implication o f this finding is that Saudi Arabians place value on the ownership o f homes

that belong solely to them compared to saving money by renting places that they cannot

own, and that may be situated in the same structure where other families or individuals

may be residing.

Third, the researchers were able to establish a relationship between the length of

time participants desire to stay at a residence, and the type o f residence that they select

(Opoku & Abdul-Muhmin, 2010). According to the researchers, when participants were

aiming to live permanently in a particular dwelling, they tended to purchase a stand-alone

house or a duplex. On the other hand, the researchers found that when participants were

looking to reside temporarily in a given locale, they preferred to rent an apartment

located within a building as opposed to renting other forms o f dwelling places (Opoku &

Abdul-Muhmin, 2010).

Opoku and Abdul-Muhmin (2010) also ranked the importance o f different factors

for housing selection by using a factor analysis. According to the researchers, the three

most important variables for housing selection were financial considerations, privacy, and

the aesthetics o f the residence. Based on these findings, it can be inferred that low-

income buyers o f homes in Saudi Arabia are governed mostly by their financial

constraints. Hence, they will select homes primarily based on the price o f the house

being purchased. This means that more expensive houses were less likely to be bought,

5 6

while more affordable housing options were more likely to be purchased by the

participants. Second to this, the most important factor for selecting homes, according to

the findings o f Opoku and Abdul-Muhmin was the privacy that the house affords the

participants. This is parallel to their other findings o f participants preferring stand-alone

home where they need not share their space with other individuals or families. Hence, it

can be inferred that privacy among Saudi Arabian housing buyers is o f particular

importance. Finally, the third most important factor for selecting homes is aesthetic

value o f houses. This means that despite the relatively lower financial capacity o f the

participants, they still place a great importance on how houses look.

Opoku and Abdul-Muhmin (2010) also ranked the three least important factors

for the selection of houses among low-income Saudi Arabian house buyers. According to

the researchers, these include exterior space, street location, and proximity to relatives.

Based on this finding, the researchers noted that despite the state of the immediate

surroundings o f a particular home, the same may not significantly affect the decision of

house buyers with respect to the house that they will purchase. The researchers noted

that this was a peculiar finding because Saudi Arabian society places significance on

familial relations, hence, the finding that proximity to relatives is the least important

factor for selecting homes may be indicative o f either new developments in Saudi

Arabian culture, or infirmities in the methodology o f the researchers that must

investigated. Nevertheless, future studies are required to inquire into this discovery of

the study o f Opoku and Abdul-Muhmin.

Opoku and Abdul-Muhmin’s (2010) finding regarding Saudi Arabians placing

very little importance on proximity to relatives may be indicative o f changing attitudes

and cultures with respect to the housing systems and living arrangements in the Kingdom.

This sentiment was echoed by Al-Jamea’s (2014) study. According to Al-Jamea’s review

o f pertinent literature, a large proportion o f Saudi Arabian residents now live in houses

that are far removed from the traditional forms o f homes in Saudi Arabia. The researcher

noted that based on earlier studies, the rapid economic development o f Saudi Arabia has

led to the introduction o f new concepts o f dwelling that were previously foreign to the

country.

Al-Jamea (2014) noted that new houses built in Saudi Arabia now fail to

incorporate the use o f materials that are more suitable for the hot desert weather

experienced in the country. The researcher noted that with trade from other countries and

regions o f the globe, new Saudi Arabian houses have been built using materials that fail

to stave off the heat o f the desert sun. In such cases, influences from other countries and

from foreign ideas of aesthetics have been adapted to the detriment o f the residents of

these new houses, who must now exert additional efforts to keep themselves cool in the

desert heat.

Al-Jamea (2014) also noted that earlier researchers have lamented the loss of the

traditional courtyard in Saudi Arabian homes. According to these researchers, traditional

Saudi Arabian homes relied on courtyards as open spaces that facilitated the interactions

between household members and their neighbors, as well as other members o f their

community. Furthermore, they provided a relatively private space where women could

interact and socialize with one another, thereby strengthening community and social ties.

Due to the rapid economic development o f Saudi Arabia, however, foreign designs of

homes have been adopted by citizens, setting aside the courtyards altogether and

replacing these with gardens in front o f the home. According to researchers, these

gardens are hardly enough space to allow for proper socialization among the members of

the community. Furthermore, these gardens are usually open to views from all sides,

minimizing the privacy o f people who may wish to interact or socialize in such a space.

According to Al-Jamea (2014), one o f the biggest concerns with the use of

gardens is the lack o f privacy it offers the household. Past researchers noted how open

gardens leave most household work open to the view o f the public or o f anyone who

happens to pass by in front o f a home. Thus, the members o f Saudi Arabian households

are forced to conduct all their activities within the most innermost portions of their

homes, far from public view. However, such seclusion has the negative effect of

lessening contact with neighbors and friends from the community, thus weakening ties to

people who, traditionally, have been considered as trusted friends by household members

in Saudi Arabia. In general, according to Al-Jamea, most o f the modem housing styles

developed in Saudi Arabia need to be investigated further because o f their apparent lack

o f consistency with traditional Saudi Arabian customs and values. Researchers have

recommended these studies for fear o f newer forms o f housing being unsustainable and

eventually causing damage to their residents.

Saudi A rabian principles of housing. In a review o f previous research

regarding Saudi Arabian housing, Al-Jamea (2014) uncovered nine essential principles

that must be followed in order to build homes that respond to the particular cultural needs

of Saudi Arabians. According to Al-Jamea, following these principles will ensure that

homes built for Saudi Arabians will be sustainable in the Saudi Arabian context, and will

contribute to their overall quality o f life. These principles include: privacy, social needs,

cultural values, quality o f life, adaptability, safety, security, accessibility, and

participation.

Privacy. The principle o f privacy, according to Al-James (2014) has both internal

and external components. The internal component o f privacy in Saudi Arabian housing

refers to the need to create separate spaces within a home for its three main users - the

family, its guests, and its servants. This means that houses designed and built for a Saudi

Arabian context must afford privacy to these three users o f the residence by designating

spaces where each can conduct his or her business and where each can expect a certain

reasonable level o f privacy.

The external aspect o f privacy in Saudi Arabian homes refers to visibility from

people outside o f the house. According to Al-Jamea (2014), Saudi Arabian homes must

refrain from having windows or openings facing streets or facing neighbors as these

would allow an easy view into the private affairs within the home, which tends to offend

Saudi Arabian sensibilities. Hence minimal windows and similar fixtures must be used

especially when facing areas accessible to the public. Furthermore, the use of courtyards

must be encouraged as an alternative to gardens as courtyards provide a private space for

interactions with neighbors and members of the community, which gardens fail to do (Al-

Jamea, 2014).

Social needs. Al-Jamea (2014) emphasized the important role that the residence

plays in strengthening the family that resides therein. According to the researcher, the

spaces found within a house must be organized and developed in such a manner as to

afford each member o f the family the opportunity to conduct his or her business

accordingly. Thus, children must have spaces where they can play and enjoy their

6 0

childhood. And parents must have spaces where they can work or relax. The spaces

within a home must be sufficient to satisfy the needs and demands o f each member o f the

family residing there. However, apart from satisfying the individual needs of each family

member, the house must also be organized in such a manner that would facilitate positive

interactions among the members o f the family. Hence spaces must be devoted for the

conduction o f communal activities such as eating meals and bonding through games or

through other leisurely activities.

C ultural values. According to Al-Jamea (2014), it is important that the house

exude a sense o f belongingness to the Saudi Arabian Kingdom. Hence, the external

fa9ade o f a Saudi Arabian home must incorporate traditional cultural designs and motifs.

Doing so would exhibit a sense o f harmony between the homeowners and the community

to which they belong - something which is o f great importance to Saudi Arabians (Al-

Jamea, 2014).

Q uality o f life. Apart from responding to the social and personal needs o f the

residents o f a home, a house in Saudi Arabia must also contribute to the general health

and well-being o f the individuals who reside therein (Al-Jamea, 2014). According to Al-

Jamea (2014), Saudi Arabian homes must consider the environment and the weather

conditions o f the country, and thus must not use materials that fail to stave off heat, or to

insulate against the cold. Furthermore, the designs o f houses must allow for proper

ventilation and lighting, thus requiring a proper amount of windows and similar fixtures,

with respect to limitations by reason o f the need for privacy.

Al-Jamea (2014) also emphasized that Saudi Arabian homes must be constructed

in a manner that minimizes the costs incurred by the homeowners. Structures built must

6 1

be constructed in such a manner as to help the residents conserve important resources

such as water and electricity. Such utilities and their costs must be considered in

determining whether the design o f a Saudi Arabian home contributes to the quality o f life

o f its residents.

Adaptability. The needs o f the residents o f a particular house are not static, but

rather change over time. Hence, according to Al-Jamea (2014), Saudi Arabian houses

must be adaptable to future needs and future uses. Houses must be constructed in such a

way that changing the functions or the organization o f certain rooms or spaces can be

carried out easily. Furthermore, houses should be designed and constructed in such a

way that should future constructions or renovations be necessary, these can be done in the

easiest possible manner. Thus, no unnecessary hindrances to the future changes o f the

home must be incorporated into its original design.

Safety. Homes in Saudi Arabia may be prone to certain risks such as fires.

Hence, the way Saudi Arabian residences are designed must be in accordance with the

demands o f the presence o f this risk. Al-Jamea (2014) noted that homes must be

organized in such a way that clear fire exits are available and are easily accessible should

emergencies occur. Furthermore, if possible, homes should include fire and smoke alarm

systems that would facilitate the safety o f the family from the perils o f fires that might

raze their home.

Security. According to Al-Jamea (2014), the design o f homes must be made in

such a way as to protect its inhabitants from the possibility o f being subjected to crimes

or criminal intentions. Hence, outer spaces surrounding the house, which are most

susceptible to entry from unwanted parties, must be secured using high fences and gates

6 2

that effectively manage the flow of individuals into the premises o f the residence. The

walls surrounding the perimeter o f the home must be sufficient to prevent unwanted

individuals from penetrating the inner sanctum o f the home where the family would be

residing, and would be at their most vulnerable.

Al-Jamea (2014) also noted that the design of the house must give the residents

therein maximum visibility over vulnerable areas o f the home. Hence, the house must be

laid out in such a way as to provide a view o f the outer surroundings o f the house from

the inside, where the homeowners can inspect the goings-on in their immediate vicinity.

Furthermore, Al-Jamea noted that there is wisdom in providing high visibility to areas

devoted to vulnerable members of the household. For example, spaces where children

might be playing should be highly visible in order that they may be easily supervised, and

children may be kept from harm cause by third parties, or even from harm that they might

accidentally and inadvertently inflict upon themselves. The same principle applies with

respect to areas o f the house prone to accidents such as the kitchen.

Accessibility. According to Al-Jamea (2014), the different portions o f the house

must be designed in such a manner that is considerate o f the needs and capacities o f the

different members o f the household. For example, the layout o f the house should not be

designed in such a way that individuals who have difficulty climbing stairs such as

children and the elderly find their rooms situated above the ground floor. Furthermore,

passageways between rooms, and into areas necessary for individual needs such as the

kitchen and the bathroom, must be easily navigable by all the members o f the household.

There must be no obstructions that might make the travel from one part o f the house to

the other dangerous for certain members o f the household.

6 3

Participation. The participation o f the family in the design o f their house is

necessary in the creation o f a house that contributes to the quality o f life o f its inhabitants

(Al-Jamea, 2014). According to Al-Jamea (2014), the residents o f a house should be

included in the process o f designing and organizing the spaces within their own homes

because their needs are the needs that must be met by the physical space. Hence, the

peculiarities o f the individual members o f the household, and their particular lifestyle

must be taken into consideration in the design and construction of the home. Without

such attention to the individual needs o f the members o f the household, the residents run

the risk o f building a home that does not suit their individual and collective needs.

According to Al-Jamea (2014), the architect, designer, and engineer o f the house

must take into consideration the opinions o f the future inhabitants therein. Failing to do

so would ignore one o f the foremost functions o f the home, which is to contribute to the

quality o f life o f its inhabitants, and to satisfy their needs. Similarly, the residents must

involve themselves in the process and must not take a passive approach to the design of

their dwelling place. Otherwise, the negative consequences o f a design that fails to

consider their needs would be borne by them for a long period o f time, considering that

they buy and occupy the home permanently.

6 4

Summary

The current study is an examination o f the resident satisfaction of Saudi Arabians

living in multifamily housing systems. Hence, this chapter contained discussions

reflecting the pertinent bodies o f knowledge established in literature regarding resident

satisfaction, multifamily housing, and Saudi Arabian housing. The discussions in this

chapter were taken from academic sources gathered from online databases and

repositories.

With respect to resident satisfaction, various researchers have noted the difficulty

which surrounds the creation o f a singular definition for the concept (Anderson &

Weidemann, 1997). Furthermore, according to Mohit, Ibrahim, and Rashid (2012), the

concept o f resident satisfaction has different meanings for different groups o f people,

with different kinds o f residents having different standards by which they judge their

homes, and by which they derive contentment from their physical spaces. Hence, models

for resident satisfaction have attempted to take a holistic approach to the concept,

incorporating the various factors that may influence different groups’ perceptions o f

contentment from their homes (Lara & Bekker, 20121; Mohit et al., 2012).

After a discussion on resident satisfaction and the different models created to

operationalize it, this chapter continued with a discussion on multifamily housing.

According to Follain (1994), multifamily housing is a living arrangement wherein

different families inhabit one building or structure as lessees o f its owner, who then

assumes the role o f landlord, collecting rent, and overseeing the maintenance o f the

common spaces. This relatively new living arrangement has become an alternative

system availed o f in Saudi Arabia due to the demand on the housing sector (Salam,

2013). According to Al-Jamea (2014), because o f the rapid growth o f the Saudi Arabian

population, newer forms of housing have been instituted that fail to contribute to the

values and the overall quality o f life o f Saudi Arabians, and that must be investigated

rigorously in order that Saudi Arabians are not jeopardized by their living conditions.

Furthermore, according to Sidawi (2009), studies must be made investigating current

methods employed by the Saudi Arabian government in alleviating the housing demand

problem in the Kingdom.

C H A PT E R 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Method and Design

The purpose o f this study is to explore housing satisfaction among Saudi residents

in multifamily housing complexes in Saudi Arabia. A mixed methodology was used to

achieve this purpose. The procedures for the quantitative and qualitative portions o f the

study will be discussed in this section. The use o f a mixed methods design enables the

researcher to provide more comprehensive information on the subject.

Using the mixed methods design allowed the researcher to compensate for the

limitations o f a purely quantitative approach by going beyond the numerical data to focus

on the views o f the Saudi Arabian residents with regard to their experiences with living in

multifamily housing complexes in an urban region in Saudi Arabia.

Similarly, the use o f the mixed methods approach also balances the weaknesses of

a purely qualitative approach by allowing for the collection o f data from a larger

population, thereby addressing the issue o f limited generalizability of study findings

(Canales, 2012). As such, this mixed methods study involves collecting quantitative data

to provide a macro picture on satisfaction among Saudi Arabian residents in multifamily

housing facilities and augmenting these findings by collecting qualitative data from

individual residents on the experience o f residing in multifamily housing complexes in

specific urban regions in Saudi Arabia.

The use o f the mixed methods approach involved merging the quantitative and

qualitative data to develop and more comprehensive understanding o f the subject under

6 7

investigation (Klassen, Creswell, Plano Clark, Clegg Smith, & Meissner, 2012). In this

particular study, the quantitative portion focused on the overall satisfaction o f Saudi

Arabian residents with regard to the multifamily housing complex in which they currently

reside, while the qualitative portion o f this mixed methods study focused on describing

their experiences with residing in a multifamily housing complex with regard to their

perceptions on its advantages and disadvantages and in relation to Saudi Arabian culture.

Research Questions

RQ1: What are the perceptions o f Saudi Arabian residents living in multifamily

housing facilities in Saudi Arabia?

RQ2: Based on the perception o f residents, how do multifamily housing

facilities benefit Saudi Arabian residents?

RQ3: How does the concept o f multifamily housing facilities coexist with the

tenets o f Saudi Arabian culture?

The first research question o f the study was resolved using quantitative and

qualitative data. This research question was formulated to determine the overall level of

satisfaction o f residents with the multifamily housing complex in which they currently

reside, which was quantified using numerical data gathered from a survey questionnaire.

Concurrently, this research question was also formulated to qualitatively explore the

experience o f residing in a multifamily housing facility.

The second, third and fourth research questions were formulated to further

investigate the experience o f residing in a multifamily housing complex in an urban

community in Saudi Arabia in relation to its advantages, disadvantages and coexistence

with Saudi Arabian culture.

6 8

Population

According to Salam (2013), the current context o f Saudi Arabia is marked by an

increase in the general population. The researcher noted that in the 36 years between

1974 and 2010, the population o f Saudi Arabia has increased due to developments in

public services and to immigration. Hence, the native population as well as the

immigrant population o f the Kingdom has grown significantly. Because o f this growth of

the population, pressures have been exerted on the different utilities provided the citizens

o f Saudi Arabia, including their housing. Hence, new systems for housing have arisen in

Saudi Arabia, including the multifamily housing system, which is o f interest to the

present study.

The current study aims to explore the levels o f resident satisfaction experienced

by Saudi Arabians who live in the multifamily housing systems that have arisen due to

the increase in the general population o f the Kingdom. Furthermore, the present study

aims to understand the different perceptions, experiences, and behaviors o f residents of

multifamily housing systems in Saudi Arabia. Hence, the current study pertains to a

specific population. The population considered for the present study was comprised of

Saudi Arabians living in multifamily housing systems. Only their perceptions,

experiences, and behaviors are o f significance to the current study. Other individuals

living in different housing systems were not considered for the present study as they fall

outside the delimitations for this endeavor.

6 9

Sample

The general population considered for this study includes all Saudi Arabian

citizens living in multifamily housing systems. However, for the purposes o f the present

study, the samples that were drawn to represent this population had to meet several

criteria: First, participants in the study must be residents of the multifamily housing

complex in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. The sample were drawn are limited to the particular

geographic area o f Dammam, because o f limitations on the researcher’s resources.

Second, prospective participants to the present study are married. Third, the prospective

participants had resided in the multifamily housing complex at Dammam for at least 6

months. Fourth, all prospective participants were Saudi Arabian citizens. They were

native Saudi Arabians or immigrants who are now citizens o f the Kingdom.

Based on these selection criteria, the following are the exclusion criteria for the

study: First, individuals who do not reside in a multifamily housing complex were not

considered as prospective participants in the present study. Second, individuals who do

not reside in the Dammam multifamily housing complex were also not approached to

take part in the current study. Third, unmarried individuals, even if residing in the

Dammam multifamily housing complex were also not considered for the present study.

And fourth, non-Saudi Arabian residents o f the Dammam multifamily housing complex,

married, or unmarried were also not approached for participation in the current study.

To select participants, the researcher utilized convenience sampling. This

sampling procedure is a non-probability sampling process that is based on the access that

a researcher may have to prospective participants (Farrokhi & Mahmoudi-Hamidabad,

2012). This sampling process is best used for purposes of studies where the members of

the population being studied are quite difficult to access or contact. The convenience

sampling method involves contacting a particular group o f individuals accessible to the

researcher, and including them in data collection based on their willingness to participate

in the study. Hence, in the study, the researcher contacted the administration o f the

complex in Dammam, Saudi Arabia and left the letters o f invitation for the different

residents, asking for their participation in the study. This method is different from

probability sampling methods that give all members o f the population an equal chance of

being randomly selected for the prospective study.

For the qualitative portion o f the study, a sample o f 20 participants were selected

to comprise the representative sample. This number was determined based on the needs

o f qualitative research, along with several consideration. First, according to the concept

o f diminishing returns, a relatively small number o f participants is sufficient to gather

rich and detailed information as required by qualitative research (Mason, 2010).

According to Mason (2010), after a certain number o f participants, adding more

participants no longer adds fewer and fewer pieces o f new information pertinent to the

qualitative study. Hence, adding more participants does not necessarily allow for new

information. This differs from quantitative study where adding more participants is

advantageous in order to arrive at more precise and accurate estimations o f statistics.

A second consideration was based on the concept o f saturation, which states that

new information collected does not necessarily make significant contributions to the

theme or framework developed. According to Green and Thorogood (20091), no definite

saturation points have been specified for qualitative studies. However “the experience of

most researchers is that in interview studies little that is ‘new’ comes out o f transcripts

after you have interviewed 20 or so people” (Green & Thorogood, 2009, p. 120).

Finally, the resources available to the researcher were also considered. The researcher has

a finite amount o f time with which to conduct the present study. Furthermore, the

researcher has a finite amount o f financial resources to enable the collection o f data.

Hence, given that conducting a qualitative inquiry is more time consuming and labor-

intensive, using a large sample size may not be feasible (Mason, 2010).

M aterials/Instrum ents

The current study is a mixed methods research design. As such, it includes both a

quantitative and a qualitative portion. For the quantitative portion o f the study, data were

collected using a questionnaire adapted from a published study on residential housing

satisfaction among the urban poor in Calabar metropolis in Nigeria conducted by Inah,

Yaro, Agbor, and Ukene (2014). The questionnaire used by Inah et al. (2014) is

comprised o f two sections. The first section collects data on the behavioral, economic,

functional, and timing characteristics o f housing satisfaction, while the second section

collects data on physical and environmental quality attributes.

This instrument required the participants to rate their satisfaction level for 24

attributes o f multifamily housing using a 5-point Likert scale. The scale ranges from 5

(extremely satisfactory) to 1 (very unsatisfactory) (Inah, Yaro, Agbor, & Ukene, 2014).

However, the present study took into consideration not just the different attributes of

multifamily housing, but also the different attributes o f the inhabitants o f such systems of

housing. Hence, in addition to these two sections, the researcher added items to the

questionnaire that generated data on the demographic characteristics o f the participants.

In particular, demographic data such as socioeconomic status (as measured by average

monthly household income), size o f household, and number o f children were asked from

participants.

For the qualitative portion o f the study, the researcher utilized an interview as the

method o f data collection. To facilitate such data collection, an interview schedule

consisting o f different questions to be asked participants was used by the researcher.

However, the researcher was not constrained by the interview schedule. Hence, the

researcher was allowed to veer away from the questions outlined in the interview

schedule in order to verify certain responses from participants, or to ask for elaborations

and clarifications regarding the same.

Operational Definition o f Variables

The current study aims to understand the levels of resident satisfaction among

Saudi Arabians living in multifamily housing conditions. For the purposes of the current

study, several variables were considered. These variables were operationalized in the

current study in the following manner:

Demographic variables. In the current study, demographic variables were referred

as exclusively to socioeconomic status (as measured by average monthly household

income), size o f household, and number o f children. These variables were measured

according to the questionnaire administered by the researcher to all participants in the

quantitative portion o f the study.

M ultifamily housing. For the purposes o f data collection and analysis,

multifamily housing was defined as systems o f housing where different families live in

one building as lessees o f a landlord who owns the premises (Follain, 1994).

Furthermore, in the study, only multifamily housing in the Dammam complex o f Saudi

Arabia were considered.

Resident satisfaction. Resident satisfaction was measured according to the

questionnaire developed by Inah et al. (2014) for families residing in multifamily

housing.

7 4

D ata Collection, Processing, and Analysis

D ata collection. Participants for this study must meet the following inclusion

criteria: (1) must be a resident o f the multifamily housing complex in Dammam, (2) must

be married, (3) must have resided in the multifamily housing complex for at least 6

months, and (4) must be Saudi Arabian. As such, the following are the exclusion criteria

for the study: (1) individuals who do not reside in a multifamily housing complex, (2)

individuals who do not reside in the Dammam multifamily housing complex, (3)

unmarried individuals residing in the Dammam multifamily housing complex, and (4)

non-Saudi Arabian residents o f the Dammam multifamily housing complex, married, or

unmarried. It should also be noted that the goal for participant recruitment is to avoid

recruiting multiple participants from one unit in the multifamily housing complex.

The researcher started recruitment procedures by requesting for the permission of

the administration o f the multifamily housing complex to collect data from the residents.

As part o f this procedure, the researcher wrote a letter to the president of the

administration that includes all the pertinent details o f the study, such as the purpose of

the study, the scope o f the study, the type o f data that were collected, and the nature of

participation expected from the participants.

The researcher also attached a copy o f the letter o f informed consent that was

distributed to the potential participants. The researcher also requested permission to place

a small drop box in the lobby o f each building o f the multifamily housing complex

through which residents can course their replies to the researcher.

Once permission had been granted by the administration, the researcher recruited

participants by leaving invitation letters along with the survey form on a shelf above the

drop box in the lobby o f each building. As with the letter o f request to the administration,

the invitation letters contained the pertinent details for the study. In addition, the

researcher also provided a copy o f the letter of informed consent for the perusal o f

interested individuals.

The letter o f informed consent reiterates the expectations from study participants,

the time commitment required from the participants, and some sample items from the

study questionnaire. The letter o f informed consent emphasized that the welfare o f the

participants was the priority in this study, and the policies and procedures that were

implemented to protect their privacy and the confidentiality o f the data they provide were

outlined. In addition, it was also be clearly communicated to the participants that while

all participants were asked to complete the survey questionnaire for the quantitative

portion o f the study, some participants were also be randomly selected to participate in

phone call individual interviews for the qualitative portion o f the study.

On the letter o f informed consent, it was clearly stated that individuals who return

a signed letter o f informed consent are willing to participate in individual phone call

interviews, which was audio-recorded for data collection and analysis purposes. In the

signature portion o f the letter o f informed consent, the participant was asked to indicate

the number o f their residential unit for data collection purposes. The residents were asked

to indicate a phone number through which the researcher can contact them if they are

randomly selected to be interviewed for qualitative data collection.

Interested individuals were asked to submit the signed letter o f informed consent

at the drop box in the lobby o f the multifamily housing complex. Interested participants

must submit their signed letters o f informed consent at the lobby drop box by a specific

deadline, which is one week after the invitation letters had been delivered to the residents.

On the day o f the deadline, the researcher collected the drop boxes from the lobbies and

manually collates the signed letters o f informed consent.

The researcher also noted the unit numbers o f the participants who submitted a

signed letter o f informed consent, which serve as the tracking list for the participants.

Using this list, the researcher sent a copy o f the survey questionnaire through the

residents’ mailbox. Once again, the participants o f the study were asked to submit their

completed survey questionnaires at the drop box located in the lobby of the multifamily

housing complex. As with the letters o f informed consent, the researcher set a collection

deadline o f one week after sending the survey questionnaires.

Also, the researcher used different ways to distribute the survey questionnaire

form in addition to the drop box among the residents o f the Dammam Housing Complex.

The researcher passed the letter o f informed consent and the survey forms to the school

o f the complex to be given to students who attend the school knowing that all students

live in the Complex. This procedure started by submitting a request to the elementary

school’s president asking for the permission to collect data through students who live in

the Dammam Complex. The request included detailed information in how the data

should be collected and what are the questions. After receiving the permission from the

administration o f the school, packages included invitation letter, letter of consent and the

survey were given to one teacher who had the packages available for students, who were

interested, to pass them to their parents. The teacher placed the packages on a table near

the class door and announced to the students that, whoever is interested may take one

package to his parent and return the survey the next day. Also included in the package a

note stated that if any member o f the household has filled this form before should not

resubmit the form again to avoid multiple survey from one household. The researcher

collected the completed survey from the administration o f the school.

In addition to the drop box and the school, the researcher with a family member

and friends attended the Friday Prayer at the mosque located inside the complex. With

the permission o f the Imam, the researcher and his group stood up outside the mosque

and introduced themselves and presented the survey. Interested people participated in

answering the survey questions after reading the consent letter and informing them that

they should not participate if they have answered the survey questionnaire before from

the drop box or the school.

Q uantitative research. The quantitative portion o f the study was implemented

using a descriptive research design. The researcher recruited participants from the

population o f residents from a multifamily housing complex found in the urban

municipality o f Dammam, in the Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia. The particular housing

complex for the study population is composed o f 1,664 units, with approximately 10,000

residents. These 10,000 residents comprise the population from which the study samples

were recruited.

The quantitative data for the study were collected using a questionnaire adapted

from a published study on residential housing satisfaction among the urban poor in

Calabar metropolis in Nigeria. This questionnaire is comprised o f two sections. The first

section collects data on the behavioral, economic, functional, and timing characteristics

o f housing satisfaction, while the second section collects data on physical and

environmental quality attributes.

This instrument required the participants to rate their satisfaction level for 24

attributes o f multifamily housing using a 5-point Likert scale. The scale ranges from 5

(extremely satisfactory) to 1 (very unsatisfactory)(Inah, Yaro, Agbor, & Ukene, 2014). In

addition to these two sections, the researcher added questions to collect data on the

demographic characteristics o f the participants. In particular, demographic data such as

socioeconomic status (as measured by average monthly household income), size o f

household, and number o f children were collected.

After collecting the completed survey questionnaires, the researcher transcribed

the responses into a spreadsheet on the Statistical Packet for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

software, version 21.0. The responses o f the participants for each item were processed

using frequency statistics and measures o f central tendency, in particular, the mean,

median, and mode. In the data analysis, the scores for the survey questions, the size o f the

household, and the number o f children were operationalized as continuous variables,

while the average monthly household income was operationalized as a categorical

variable.

Analysis o f variance was conducted to determine whether socioeconomic status

accounts for statistically significant differences between the housing satisfaction scores of

the participants. A correlation analysis was conducted to determine whether the size of

the household and the number o f children is correlated with housing satisfaction.

Q ualitative research. Qualitative data for the study were collected through phone

call interviews. As stated in the previous section, the residents who submit a signed letter

o f informed consent also indicate consent to be randomly selected to participate in

individual phone call interviews for qualitative data collection. Using the unit numbers of

the participants who submitted completed survey questionnaires, the researcher were

randomly select 20 participants for the interviews. This sample size was determined

based on three considerations.

First, the concept o f diminishing returns in qualitative studies means that

collecting data from more sample points does not equate to collecting new information

(Mason, 2010). Second, based on the concept o f saturation, new information collected

does not necessarily make significant contributions to the theme or framework developed.

While no definite saturation points have been specified for qualitative studies, “the

experience o f most researchers is that in interview studies little that is ‘new’ comes out of

transcripts after you have interviewed 20 or so people” (Green & Thorogood, 2009, p.

120). Lastly, the resources available to the researcher were also considered. Given that

conducting a qualitative inquiry is more time consuming and labor-intensive, using a

large sample size may not be feasible (Mason, 2010).

After randomly selecting 20 participants, the researcher utilized the contact details

provided by the resident in the letter of informed consent to schedule the phone call

interview at a time convenient to the researcher and the interviewee. Before ending the

call, the researcher reminded the participants that the interviews were audio recorded for

data collection and analysis purposes. On the day o f the scheduled phone call interview,

the researcher asked the interviewee to give permission for the audio recording o f the

interview.

After each interview, the researcher personally transcribed the audio recorded

interviews for data analysis. Using the interview transcripts, the researcher conducted

data analysis procedures using NVivo v. 8.0, a software program for qualitative analysis.

The researcher also analyzed the data using the modified van Kaam method o f analysis,

as explained by Moustakas (1994).

The procedure for qualitative data analysis is summarized in the table shown

below (Table 3).

1 List each individual expression related to the stated experience and

classify into preliminary groups.

2 Identify invariant constituents among the individual expressions

based on the following requirements. Expressions that do not meet

these two requirements will be eliminated.

1. Is it necessary and sufficient to understand the participant’s

meaning?

2. Can the experience be labeled?

3 Use thematic labels to cluster invariant constituents relaying the core

thematic experiences.

4 Using the interview transcripts, review thematic categories, invariant

constituents and themes to confirm that all constituents are expressed

in the data

5 Isolate verbatim examples from the transcripts to support the

invariant constitutions and themes.

6 Identify individual structural descriptions to describe the essence of

the experience.

7 Based on the goals o f the research study, summarize and interpret the

themes and invariant constituents.

Table 3. 7 step modified van Kaam method o f analysis (Moustakas, 1994)

Limitations and Assum ptions

This study is based on four assumptions. First, it is assumed that the participants

responded to the survey questionnaire and interview questions with complete honesty.

Because o f the data collection processes for both the qualitative and quantitative portions

o f the study, it is necessary to depend on the honesty o f participants. This assumption

arises whenever self-report methods such as questionnaires and interviews as used, as

they are in the present study.

Second, it is assumed that the participants of this study are representative o f the

population under investigation. To strengthen this assumption, participants were selected

strictly based on the selection and exclusion criteria mentioned earlier in this chapter.

Third, it is assumed that the survey questionnaire used to collect qualitative data is

appropriate for this study. This assumption is based on the study conducted by Inah et al.

(2014) that developed and made use o f the questionnaire, attesting to its validity and

reliability in studies regarding multifamily housing and resident satisfaction. Lastly,

given that the Dammam housing complex is similar to multifamily housing complexes

built in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Khobar in terms o f the residents’ demographics, the findings

o f this study based on the responses o f residents from the Dammam complex were also

assumed to be generalizable to the population of residents from similar multifamily

housing complexes in the specified locations.

This study is limited to Saudi Arabian residents o f multifamily housing

complexes in urban areas who are married, with or without children. This study is

delimited to Saudi Arabian residents of the multifamily housing complex who are

unmarried, and to married residents o f the multifamily housing complex in Saudi Arabia

who are not Saudi Arabian. This study is also limited to residents in multifamily housing

complexes in the urban areas o f Saudi Arabia, and delimited to residents o f multifamily

housing complexes in suburban areas o f Saudi Arabia or other locations globally.

Another limitation o f the present study is that questionnaire being used and

adapted from the study conducted by Inah et al. (2014) has not yet been studied with

respect to different cultures. The questionnaire being used for this current study was

previously used only for the context o f African multifamily housing and resident

satisfaction. Hence, data and analyses from this study need to be validated in future

studies prior to being generalizable.

The sampling procedure used for the present study also presents another

limitation to the generalizability o f the current study. Because a convenience sampling

was utilized, certain limitations arise because of this process. According to Peterson and

Merunka (2014), convenience sampling at times gives confusion regarding the findings

and analyses o f studies. When convenience sampling is used, special care must be taken

by researchers to ensure that the sample size and the methods for data collection used

mitigate against the limitations o f non-probability and non-random sampling methods.

Prelim inary Results an d Discussion

The results o f this study included data gathered from both qualitative and

quantitative methods. A discussion was presented in this section regarding the two kinds

o f data. The limitations on the discussion were also provided.

For the first research question, on the perceptions o f Saudi Arabian residents

living in multifamily housing facilities in Saudi Arabia, both quantitative and qualitative

8 4

methods were employed. First, a survey questionnaire is used to elicit quantitative

numerical data and obtain an objective picture o f how satisfied the participants are in

their current housing situation. Second, the perceptions o f the participants gathered using

semi-structured interviews that utilized open-ended questions, which may provide further

context to enrich the numerical data on their satisfaction. This allows the participants to

speak using their own words and help identify issues that may not have been foreseen in

the survey questionnaire.

For the second research question, on the perceptions of the participants regarding

potential improvements that can be made on the multifamily housing experience in Saudi

Arabia, the results include the qualitative data gathered from semi-structured interviews

that utilized open-ended questions to reveal what they perceive can be improved on in

multifamily housing situations. This study is informed by their respective perceptions on

the most valuable characteristics o f multifamily housing and their subjective

considerations o f what must be prioritized by policymakers and housing developers. The

results here can be used to identify potential weaknesses in multifamily housing facilities

and help policymakers and housing developers avoid such shortcomings in the future.

For the third research question, on the perceptions o f the participants regarding

the benefits o f multifamily housing facilities for Saudi Arabian residents, the results

include qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews. This allows the participants

to speak their mind on the kinds o f benefits they perceive as a result of their living in a

multifamily housing facility. The results here can help in obtaining a clearer picture of

what residents value the most in their housing situation and might influence their future

decisions in terms o f housing.

For the fourth research question, on the perceptions o f the participants regarding

the concept itself o f multifamily housing and whether it conforms to the tenets o f Saudi

Arabian culture or not, the results were gathered from qualitative data obtained through

semi-structured interview. The results here also illustrated how Saudi Arabian residents

perceive multifamily housing in general, in relation to their cultural and social beliefs.

The insights that emerged from this research question may help researchers determine

how multifamily housing facilities can be best understood in the context o f Saudi Arabia

and its citizens.

Overall, the results o f this study included a thorough identification and analysis of

the data gathered through both quantitative and qualitative methods. This data were

collected with the main goal o f illustrating the phenomenon o f multifamily housing in

Saudi Arabia through the perceptions o f Saudi Arabian residents that provided context to

the numerical data gathered from the survey questionnaire.

Implications for Research

The most important data gathered in this study includes the perceptions o f Saudi

Arabian residents o f multifamily housing facilities. To date, no studies have been made

regarding this phenomenon. This gap must be filled because o f the rapidly increasing

popularity o f multifamily housing facilities in Saudi Arabia.

This popularity has been influenced by recent economic and social changes in the

nation. Multifamily housing situations are now much more common and is seen as a

viable alternative to the traditional single-family housing situation. The results obtained

in studies on resident satisfaction on multifamily housing situations located in other

countries may not be generalizable to Saudi Arabia, given the subjective aspects of

8 6

resident satisfaction. Unique circumstances and situations may exist in different places

and conducting this study provided with the data on this phenomenon in Saudi Arabia.

By revealing the perceptions o f the residents regarding their housing situation in a

multifamily housing complex in Saudi Arabia, a clearer idea may be gained on their

levels of resident satisfaction. Once this has been brought to light, a number of

implications can be seen.

First, policymakers in Saudi Arabia may gain a better picture o f what Saudi

Arabians feel about multifamily housing facilities. Using this information, they may be

able to offer better solutions to their constituents regarding their housing situation.

Moreover, laws and policies can be created that take this information into account,

allowing for a more satisfied populace.

Second, housing developers in Saudi Arabia may use the information gathered

here to drive their decisions regarding housing developments. By taking note o f what

Saudi Arabian residents perceive about this phenomenon, the developers may be able to

provide better services to them. A potential result o f this could be higher revenues for

them and happier residents.

Third, scholars in housing studies may use the results o f this study to gain

information on Saudi Arabian perceptions to multifamily housing. This has so far been

non-existent in the literature. Scholars can use the data collected and analyzed here to

spur future studies in other countries and they may use the insights presented here to

guide their research questions or survey instrument.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, given the popularity o f multifamily housing

today, the citizens o f Saudi Arabia who choose to live in a multifamily housing situation

may benefit from the added information that can be used by the people mentioned above:

namely, policymakers, housing developers, and scholars in housing studies. These

stakeholders were to provide and help Saudi Arabians be more satisfied with their

housing situation. This overall resident satisfaction could also lead to a more prosperous

nation, one with adequate and satisfying housing for all.

Ethical Assurances

Greaney et al. (2012) provided an outline o f the ethical assurances that must be

followed in every scientific endeavor, as derived from the principles o f the Belmont

Report. According to the researchers, the first important principle o f ethical assurances

in scientific research is respect for persons. Under this principle, researchers noted that

all participants must be treated as independent agents with their own self-determination

whenever they take part in the study. Hence, when individuals choose to participate in an

academic endeavor, the researchers must respect their autonomy and their individual

wills. Hence, the researchers must not deprive their participants o f their free will and

their capacity to choose options for themselves.

Under this principle o f respect for persons, one o f the first ethical assurances that

must be secured for participants is their right to be informed and to give their consent

prior to participation in the research. Hence, in the current study, before any individual

becomes a participant, he or she should be informed o f the nature o f the study, as well as

the pertinent details regarding how the study were conducted, how data were collected,

and analyzed. The prospective participants were also be informed of the significance of

the study and the ultimate goals o f the researcher for conducting it. According to

Geamey et al. (2012), the researchers o f a particular study must also inform their

8 8

prospective participants o f their right to privacy and their right to withdraw from the

study. The first right refers to the assurance that the researcher must give with respect to

the identity o f participants and the data collected from them. In the present study, the

researcher assured that each prospective participant that his or her identity were not be

revealed to anyone else, and that only the researcher has the access to information

regarding which parts o f the data collected pertain to which participants. Under the

second right, the right to withdrawal, the researcher in the present study assured that each

prospective participant may choose to stop participating in the study at any given point.

The participant may choose not to participate at all, or he or she may choose to withdraw

any data already collected, without needing to explain why he or she chooses to

withdraw.

According to Geamey et al. (2012), all of this information must be given to

prospective participants, and each o f them must be allowed a reasonable amount o f time

with which to review the details given them. Prospective participants were also be given

the contact information of the researcher in order that they may direct any questions

regarding the study to the researcher. The researcher also answered all questions as

satisfactorily and as completely as possible. For the present study, each prospective

participant was given one week to review the details o f the study prior to giving their

consent. After such information has been given, and after the intervening period for

review, the consent o f prospective participants must be acquired by the researcher.

Hence, every prospective participant in the present study was given informed consent

forms that they must sign. Signing the informed consent forms was the proof o f the

participants’ agreement to become part o f the study. Without such signed informed

consent forms, prospective participants were not able to take part in the present study,

and were not included in the data collection process.

Prospective participants were assured of the confidentiality o f their submissions.

In the present study, all survey data and interview data collected from participants were

identified only through alphanumeric codes that only the researcher can decipher.

Furthermore, these data were stored either in physical or digital storage spaces. Physical

storage spaces were locked by the researcher, who shall be the only person who can open

the same. On the other hand, online storage spaces were password-protected, with only

the researcher having access to the password required to open documents.

According to Geamey et al. (2012), the second principle o f ethics in any academic

inquiry is the principle o f beneficence. This principle refers to the assurance that every

researcher must give with respect to the lack of dangerous risks to the safety o f

participants. Under this principle, no scientific inquiry must be conducted that would

subject participants to harm.

Based on this principle, every academic inquiry must be analyzed with respect to

the interventions and methods that were conducted to collect and analyze data. Hence, in

the present study, a risk-benefit analysis can also be conducted in order to understand

whether or not the methods o f the present study posed any threat to participants that are

greater than the daily threats to which participants are exposed anyhow. Should it be

found that certain aspects o f the present study posed a threat greater than what

participants can expect in their daily activities, then such aspects o f the study were

removed or revised in favor or less harmful processes. Furthermore, the current study

was also submitted to the Institutional Review Board, the body who renders a judgment

regarding the safety o f the study and the lack o f risks that it poses to any and all

participants. Once the approval o f the board is acquired, then the researcher may proceed

with the selection o f participants, and the conduction o f the data collection processes.

Under the third principle o f the Belmont Report - justice - researchers are

required to represent groups who are rarely given a voice in scientific inquiry.

Furthermore, no discrimination must be made regarding the participants who take part in

the study. In the present study, no discrimination was made as to the types o f households

studied, with respect to the genders, age, ethnicity, or religions o f its members.

Furthermore, the researcher shared the findings o f the study to the scientific community

at large in order that other groups who might benefit from its findings may use the

findings and analyses generated from the present study.

Summary

The current study aims to examine the resident satisfaction experienced by Saudi

Arabians living in multifamily housing in the Dammam complex. The study also

investigated the different perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors individuals have with

respect to their resident satisfaction in Saudi Arabia. The current study was composed of

participants from the Dammam complex, selected through a convenience sampling

method. In general, a mixed method research design was utilized, with the quantitative

portion o f the study using a questionnaire developed by Inah et al. (2014) for data

collection. On the other hand, the qualitative portion o f the study employed a phone call

interview method among 20 individuals in order to gather rich and detailed information

on the experiences and perceptions o f individuals living in multifamily housing situations

in Saudi Arabia. For the quantitative portion o f the study, a correlation analysis was

used, while for the qualitative portion, analysis using the van Kaam methodology was

employed.

The researcher took great care in order to mitigate against the limitations inherent

in the methods o f the study with respect to sampling, data collection and data analysis.

Furthermore, the researcher ensured the ethical conduction of the current study, based on

the recommendations o f the Belmont Report as summarized by Geamey et al. (2012). It

is hoped that the present study contributed to the information regarding policies in Saudi

Arabia that responded to the needs and demands o f a growing population with respect to

housing systems.

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Introduction

Chapter 4 presents the data analysis and findings o f the study. This section

reports the data gathered and established by the researcher based on the three research

questions o f the study. The purpose o f this mixed methods research study was to explore

resident satisfaction among Saudi residents in multifamily housing complexes in Saudi

Arabia. Given that, a number o f social and economic changes have led to the increase in

popularity o f multi-family housing in the country as an alternative to a traditional single

family housing. To determine the phenomenon, the researcher conducted a mixed-

methods approach using both the quantitative and qualitative approaches; and a

triangulation o f results after the two phases to ensure the validity and reliability o f the

gathered data. For the quantitative approach, the researcher employed a survey

questionnaire in order to ascertain and measure the level o f resident satisfaction Saudi

Arabians have with respect to multifamily housing. In addition, the researcher performed

20 phone call interviews with Saudi-Arabian residents who have experienced living in a

multi-family housing firsthand. The two methods were guided by the following research

questions:

Research Question # 1. What are the perceptions o f Saudi Arabian residents

living in multifamily housing facilities in Saudi Arabia?

Research Question # 2. Based on the perception o f residents, how do multifamily

housing facilities benefit Saudi Arabian residents?

R esearch Question # 3. How does the concept of multifamily housing facilities

coexist with the tenets o f Saudi Arabian culture?

Q uantitative Portion

Overall, there were 797 survey respondents for the quantitative portion. These

were residents from multi-family housing facilities in Saudi Arabia. Chart 2.1. up to 2.6.

contains the breakdown o f the demographics o f the participants o f the survey.

Chart 2.1. Gender o f Participants

G ender

Female 53% _

Initially, chart 2.1. presented the gender o f the participants o f the study. It is

reflected that there were almost the same number o f male and female participants, Male

(53%) and Female (47%).

Chart 2.2. Age o f Participants

Age 51 & older 9%

20-30

41-50

31-40

Chart 2.2. reflects the age o f the participants o f the study. It was indicated that the

age group 31-40 years old has the highest number (34%), followed by the age group of

20-30 years old that can be accounted as 34% o f the population.

Chart 2.3. Employment Status

Em ploym ent Status

Others 14%

Student 20%

Employed 38%

Retired 16% Unemployed

12%

Chart 2.3. presents the employment status o f the participants of the study. Most of

the participants are employed (38%), followed by students (20%).

Chart 2.4. No. o f adults in household

No. o f Adults in Household

28%

Chart 2.4. reflects the number o f adults living in the household. The participants

reported that most o f them have 3 to 4 (43%) adults in the household.

Chart 2.5. Number o f adult children living in the household

Adult children living in the household

9 6

Moreover, the participants were asked if there were adult children living in the

household. The participants reported that 43% said No while 30% said Yes while the

other 27% refers to Others. Finally, Chart 2.6. reflects the monthly income o f the

household. It is indicated that participants with the lowest monthly income has the

highest in number (29%).

Chart 2.6. Monthly income

M onthly Income

Table 4.1 to 4.6 o f the quantitative portion contains the results o f the survey based on the

different elements. The levels o f satisfaction were:

1 = Very Dissatisfied

2 = Dissatisfied

3 = Neutral

4 = Satisfied

5 = Very Satisfied.

Table 4.1

1 2 3 4 5 A. PHYSICAL ELEMENTS

I. How content are you with the size o f compound 171 121 299 139 69

2. How content are you with the size o f rooms 140 164 263 157 72

3. How content are you with the electrical fixtu res 126 155 303 151 63

4. How content are you with the no. o f rooms 124 170 256 176 71

5. How content are you with the toilet and bathroom available 119 113 293 202 70

6. How content are you with the operation o f doors 110 130 323 169 65

7. How content are you with the ro o f performance 123 121 324 158 71

8. How content are you with the quality o f building materials 121 141 299 175 61

9. How content are you with the storage space 120 154 311 157 56

10. How content are you with the ceiling heights 119 82 385 140 72

Table 4.2

1 2 3 4 5 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS

11. How content are you with the fre e ventilation 151 186 256 146 58

12. How content are you with the noise pollution 182 234 271 86 23

13. How content are you with the water pollution 190 273 228 82 23

14. How content are you with the air pollution 197 238 242 92 25

IS. How content are you with the availability ofgood road 161 156 264 165 48

16. How content are you with the drainage system 161 170 300 133 32

17. How content are you with the waste disposal system 183 161 288 103 62

Table 4.3

1 2 3 4 5 C. FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS

18. How content are you with the position o f different rooms 160 124 328 129 52

19. How content are you with the height o f thefloor 119 104 354 168 44

20. How content are you with the parking space 109 149 267 202 64

21. How content are you with the functionality in design 104 155 318 160 55

Table 4.4

1 2 3 4 5 D. BEHAVIOURAL ELEMENTS

22. How content are you with the level o f privacy in house 147 137 295 166 51

23. How content are you with the proxim ity to place o f worship 98 108 276 244 72

24. How content are you with the building set backs 96 90 371 192 45

25. How content are you with the security level o f house 106 149 298 194 52

26. How content are you with the physical appearance 111 133 305 181 66

27. How content are you with the proxim ity o f house to police station 129 163 269 173 62

28. How content are you with the proxim ity o f house to hospital 102 114 298 219 65

29. How content are you with the proxim ity o f house to fir e station 130 130 264 197 76

Table 4.5

1 2 3 4 5 E ECONOMIC ELEMENTS

30. How content are you with the extent o f social relation among neighbors

153 83 290 207 65

31. How content are you with the proxim ity to school fo r children 105 94 311 231 51

32. How content are you with the proxim ity o f house to market 120 125 301 192 58

33. How content are you with the proxim ity o f house to workplace 100 142 313 188 47

34. How content are you with the frequency o f house maintenance 120 127 353 141 57

100

T a b le 4 .6

F. TIMIING ELEMENTS 1 2 3 4 5

35. How content are you with the easiness o f maintenance o f house 155 130 291 170 52

36. The overall level o f satisfaction 120 127 330 176 68

37. How many children live in the household?

□ 1 - 2 □ 3 - 4 □ 5 - 6 □ 7 +

273 271 179 54

38. Are all you r fam ily members living in the household satisfied with your living?

□ Yes □ No

413 373

39. I f possible, please include each o f the fam ily members overall level o f satisfaction:

FAMILY MEMBERS 1 2 3 4 5

Total 673 512 1170 556 191

101

Level o f Satisfaction Among Saudi Residents in Multifamily Housing Complexes in

Saudi Arabia

This section summarized the responses o f the 800 Saudi Arabians about the

resident satisfaction in multifamily housing complexes in Saudi Arabia. In the survey

questionnaire, satisfaction in multifamily housing was measured with different elements

which include physical, environmental, functional, behavioral, economic, and timing.

The Saudi Arabian residents were asked to rate their satisfaction level in each o f the

elements using a 5-point Likert scale range o f 5 (very satisfactory) to 1 (very

dissatisfactory).

First, Table 5.1 to 5.10 summarized the level satisfaction in the physical elements.

In terms o f the size o f the compound, many or 299 (37.4%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians

have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 36.5% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were

either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the size o f their compound. In terms of

the size o f the rooms, many or 263 (32.9%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal

level o f satisfaction while a total o f 38% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied

or extremely not satisfied with the size o f their room. In terms o f the electrical fixtures,

many or 303 (37.9%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction

while a total of 35.2% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not

satisfied with the electrical fixtures. In terms o f the number o f rooms, many or 256

(32.0%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f

36.8% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the

electrical fixtures. In terms o f the toilet and bathroom available, many or 293 (36.6%) out

o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 29% o f 800

102

Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the toilet and

bathroom available. In terms o f the operation o f doors, almost half or 323 (40.4%) out of

the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 30.1% o f 800

Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with operations of

doors. In terms o f the roof performance, almost half or 325 (40.5%) out o f the 800 Saudi

Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 30.5% o f 800 Saudi Arabians

were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the roof performance. In terms of

the quality o f building materials, many or 299 (37.4%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians

have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 32.7% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were

either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the quality o f building materials. In

terms of the storage space, many or 311 (38.9%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have

normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 34.3% of 800 Saudi Arabians were either not

satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the storage space. In terms o f the ceiling heights,

almost half or 4385 (48.1%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level of

satisfaction while a total o f 25.2% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or

extremely not satisfied with the ceiling heights.

As a summary, it can be observed that the highest frequency o f the samples of

Saudi Arabians have a normal satisfaction level in terms o f the physical elements in their

multifamily housing, while the second highest was not being satisfied with the physical

elements.

103

Table 5.1

Frequency and Percentage Summaries o f Level o f Satisfaction in Physical Elements (n =

800)

7- Size of compound Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 171 21.4

Not Satisfied 121 15.1

Normal 299 37.4

Satisfied 139 17.4

Extremely Satisfied 69 8.6

Missing 1 0.1

Table 5.2

8 -Size of rooms Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 140 17.5

Not Satisfied 164 20.5

Normal 263 32.9

Satisfied 157 19.6

Extremely Satisfied 72 9.0

Missing 4 0.5

104

Table 5.3

9- Electrical fixtures Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 126 15.8

Not Satisfied 155 19.4

Normal 303 37.9

Satisfied 151 18.9

Extremely Satisfied 63 7.9

Missing 2 0.3

Table 5.4

10- no. o f rooms Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 124 15.5

Not Satisfied 170 21.3

Normal 256 32.0

Satisfied 176 22.0

Extremely Satisfied 71 8.9

Missing 3 0.4

105

Table 5.5

11- Toilet and bathroom available Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 119 14.9

Not Satisfied 113 14.1

Normal 293 36.6

Satisfied 202 25.3

Extremely Satisfied 70 8.8

Missing 3 0.4

Table 5.6

12* The operation of doors Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 110 13.8

Not Satisfied 130 16.3

Normal 323 40.4

Satisfied 169 21.1

Extremely Satisfied 65 8.1

Missing 3 0.4

1 0 6

Table 5.7

13- The roof performance Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 123 15.4

Not Satisfied 121 15.1

Normal 324 40.5

Satisfied 158 19.8

Extremely Satisfied 71 8.9

Missing 3 0.4

Table 5.8

14- The quality o f building materials Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 121 15.1

Not Satisfied 141 17.6

Normal 299 37.4

Satisfied 175 21.9

Extremely Satisfied 61 7.6

Missing 3 0.4

107

Table 5.9

15- The storage space Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 120 15.0

Not Satisfied 154 19.3

Normal 311 38.9

Satisfied 157 19.6

Extremely Satisfied 56 7.0

Missing 2 0.3

Table 5.10

16- The ceiling heights Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 119 14.9

Not Satisfied 82 10.3

Normal 385 48.1

Satisfied 140 17.5

Extremely Satisfied 72 9.0

Missing 2 0.3

108

Second, Table 6.1 to 6.7 summarized the level satisfaction in the environmental

elements. In terms o f the free ventilation, almost half or a total o f 337 (42.2%) out o f 800

Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied (18.9%) or extremely not satisfied (23.3%) while

there were also many or 256 (32%) Saudi Arabians having normal level of satisfaction

with the free ventilation. In terms o f the noise pollution, more than half or a total o f 416

(52.1%) out o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied (29.3%) or extremely not

satisfied (22.8%) while there were also many or 271 (33.9%) Saudi Arabians having

normal level o f satisfaction with the noise pollution. In terms o f the water pollution, more

than half or a total o f 463 (57.9%) out o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied

(34.1%) or extremely not satisfied (23.8%) while there were also 228 (28.5%) Saudi

Arabians having normal level o f satisfaction with the water pollution. In terms o f the air

pollution, more than half or a total o f 435 (54.4%) out of 800 Saudi Arabians were either

not satisfied (29.8%) or extremely not satisfied (24.6%) while there were also many or

242 (30.3%) Saudi Arabians having normal level o f satisfaction with the air pollution. In

terms o f the availability o f good road, many or a total o f 317 (39.6%) out o f 800 Saudi

Arabians were either not satisfied (19.5%) or extremely not satisfied (20.1%) while there

were also many or 264 (33%) Saudi Arabians having normal level o f satisfaction with the

availability o f good road. In terms o f the drainage system, almost half or a total o f 331

(41.4%) out o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied (21.3%) or extremely not

satisfied (20.1%) while there were also many or 300 (37.5%) Saudi Arabians having

normal level o f satisfaction with the drainage system. In terms o f the waste disposal

system, almost half or a total o f 344 (43%) out o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not

satisfied (20.1%) or extremely not satisfied (22.9%) while there were also many or 288

1 0 9

(36%) Saudi Arabians having normal level of satisfaction with the waste disposal system.

As a summary, it can be observed that the highest frequency o f the samples of

Saudi Arabians have either a not satisfied or extremely not satisfied satisfaction level in

terms o f the environmental elements in their multifamily housing, while the second

highest was normal level o f satisfaction with the environmental elements.

Table 6.1

Frequency and Percentage Summaries o f Level o f Satisfaction in Environmental

Elements (n = 800)

17- The free ventilation Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 151 18.9

Not Satisfied 186 23.3

Normal 256 32.0

Satisfied 146 18.3

Extremely Satisfied 58 7.3

Missing 3 0.4

110

Table 6.2

18- The noise pollution Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 182 22.8

Not Satisfied 234 29.3

Normal 271 33.9

Satisfied 86 10.8

Extremely Satisfied 23 2.9

Missing 4 0.5

Table 6.3

19- The water pollution Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 190 23.8

Not Satisfied 273 34.1

Normal 228 28.5

Satisfied 82 10.3

Extremely Satisfied 23 2.9

Missing 4 0.5

I l l

Table 6.4

20- The air pollution Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 197 24.6

Not Satisfied 238 29.8

Normal 242 30.3

Satisfied 92 11.5

Extremely Satisfied 25 3.1

Missing 6 0.8

Table 6.5

21- The availability of good road Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 161 20.1

Not Satisfied 156 19.5

Normal 264 33.0

Satisfied 165 20.6

Extremely Satisfied 48 6.0

Missing 6 0.8

112

Table 6.6

22- The drainage system Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 161 20.1

Not Satisfied 170 21.3

Normal 300 37.5

Satisfied 133 16.6

Extremely Satisfied 32 4.0

Missing 4 0.5

Table 6.7

23- The waste disposal system Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 183 22.9

Not Satisfied 161 20.1

Normal 288 36.0

Satisfied 103 12.9

Extremely Satisfied 62 7.8

Missing 3 0.4

113

Third, Table 7.1 to 7.4 summarized the level satisfaction in the functional elements.

In terms o f the position o f different rooms, almost half or 328 (41%) out o f the 800 Saudi

Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 35.5% o f 800 Saudi Arabians

were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the position o f different rooms. In

terms o f the height o f the floor, almost half or 354 (44.3%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians

have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 27.9% of 800 Saudi Arabians were

either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the height of the floor. In terms o f the

parking space, many or 247 (33.4%) out of the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level of

satisfaction while a total o f 32.2% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or

extremely not satisfied with the parking space. In terms of the functionality in design,

many or 318 (39.8%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction

while a total o f 32.4% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not

satisfied with the functionality in design.

114

As a summary, it can be observed that the highest frequency o f the samples of

Saudi Arabians have a normal satisfaction level in terms o f the functional elements in

their multifamily housing, while the second highest was not being satisfied with the

functional elements.

Table 7.1

Frequency and Percentage Summaries o f Level o f Satisfaction in Functional Elements (n

— 800)

24. The position o f different rooms Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 160 20.0

Not Satisfied 124 15.5

Normal 328 41.0

Satisfied 129 16.1

Extremely Satisfied 52 6.5

Missing 7 0.9

115

Table 7.2

25. The height of the floor Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 119 14.9

Not Satisfied 104 13.0

Normal 354 44.3

Satisfied 168 21.0

Extremely Satisfied 44 5.5

Missing 11 1.4

Table 7.3

26. The parking space Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 109 13.6

Not Satisfied 149 18.6

Normal 267 33.4

Satisfied 202 25.3

Extremely Satisfied 64 8.0

Missing 9 1.1

1 1 6

Table 7.4

27. The functionality in design Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 104 13.0

Not Satisfied 155 19.4

Normal 318 39.8

Satisfied 160 20.0

Extremely Satisfied 55 6.9

Missing 8 1.0

Fourth, Table 8.1 to 8.8 summarized the level satisfaction in the behavioral

elements. In terms o f the level o f satisfaction in privacy in house, many or 295 (36.9%)

out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 35.5% of

800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the level of

privacy in house. In terms o f the proximity to place o f worship, many or 276 (34.5%) out

o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while there were also many

or 244 (30.5%) o f the 800 Saudi Arabians that were satisfied with the proximity to place

of worship. In terms o f the building set backs, almost half or 371 (46.4%) out o f the 800

Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while there were 192 (24%) o f the 800

Saudi Arabians that were satisfied with the building set backs. In terms o f the security

level o f house, many or 298 (37.3%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level of

satisfaction while a total o f 31.9% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or

extremely not satisfied with the security level o f house. In terms o f the physical

appearance, many or 305 (38.1%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level of

satisfaction while a total o f 30.5% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or

extremely not satisfied with the physical appearance. In terms o f the proximity o f house

117

to police station, many or 292 (36.5%) were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied

with the proximity o f house to police station while there also many or 269 (33.6%) out of

the 800 Saudi Arabians that have normal level o f satisfaction. In terms o f the proximity

o f house to hospital, many or 298 (37.3%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal

level o f satisfaction while there were 219 (27.4%) o f the 800 Saudi Arabians that were

satisfied with the proximity o f house to hospital. In terms o f proximity o f house to fire

station, many or 264 (33%) out of the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level of

satisfaction while a total o f 32.6% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or

extremely not satisfied with the proximity o f house to fire station.

As a summary, it can be observed that the highest frequency o f the samples of

Saudi Arabians have a normal satisfaction level in terms o f the majority o f the behavioral

elements in their multifamily housing, while the second highest was not being satisfied

with majority o f the behavioral elements. However, there were exceptions in the

behavioral elements o f proximity to place o f worship, building set backs, and proximity

o f house to hospital where the highest satisfaction level among the samples o f Saudi

Arabians was normal satisfaction level but the second highest was satisfied with these

behavioral elements. Also, the highest satisfaction level among the samples o f Saudi

Arabians in the behavioral element o f proximity o f house to police station was not

satisfied or extremely not satisfied while the second highest was the normal satisfaction

level.

1 1 8

Table 8.1

Frequency and Percentage Summaries o f Level o f Satisfaction in Behavioral Elements (n

= 800)

28. The level of privacy in house Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 147 18.4

Not Satisfied 137 17.1

Normal 295 36.9

Satisfied 166 20.8

Extremely Satisfied 51 6.4

Missing 4 0.5

Table 8.2

29. The proximity to place o f worship Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 98 12.3

Not Satisfied 108 13.5

Normal 276 34.5

Satisfied 244 30.5

Extremely Satisfied 72 9.0

Missing 2 0.3

1 1 9

Table 8.3

30. The building set backs Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 96 12.0

Not Satisfied 90 11.3

Normal 371 46.4

Satisfied 192 24.0

Extremely Satisfied 45 5.6

Missing 6 0.8

Table 8.4

31. The security level of house Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 106 13.3

Not Satisfied 149 18.6

Normal 298 37.3

Satisfied 194 24.3

Extremely Satisfied 52 6.5

Missing 1 0.1

120

Table 8.5

32. The physical appearance Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 111 13.9

Not Satisfied 133 16.6

Normal 305 38.1

Satisfied 181 22.6

Extremely Satisfied 66 8.3

Missing 4 0.5

Table 8.6

33. The proximity of house to police station Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 129 16.1

Not Satisfied 163 20.4

Normal 269 33.6

Satisfied 173 21.6

Extremely Satisfied 62 7.8

Missing 4 0.5

121

Table 8.7

34. The proximity o f house to hospital Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 102 12.8

Not Satisfied 114 14.3

Normal 298 37.3

Satisfied 219 27.4

Extremely Satisfied 65 8.1

Missing 2 0.3

Table 8.8

35. The proximity o f house to fire station Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 130 16.3

Not Satisfied 130 16.3

Normal 264 33.0

Satisfied 197 24.6

Extremely Satisfied 76 9.5

Missing 3 0.4

122

Fifth, Table 9.1 to 9.5 summarized the level satisfaction in the economic elements.

In terms o f the extent o f social relation among neighbors, many or 290 (36.3%) out o f the

800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 29.5% o f 800 Saudi

Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the extent o f social

relation among neighbors. In terms o f the proximity to school for children, many or 311

(38.9%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while there were

231 (28.9%) o f the 800 Saudi Arabians that were satisfied with the proximity to school

for children. In terms o f the proximity o f house to market, many or 301 (37.6%) out of

the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while there were also many or

245 (30.6%) o f the 800 Saudi Arabians that were satisfied with the proximity o f house to

market. In terms o f the proximity o f house to workplace, many or 313 (39.1%) out o f the

800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 30.3% of 800 Saudi

Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the proximity o f house

to workplace. In terms o f the frequency o f house maintenance, almost half or 353

(44.1%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f

30.9% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the

frequency o f house maintenance.

As a summary, it can be observed that the highest frequency of the samples of

Saudi Arabians have a normal satisfaction level in terms of majority o f the economic

elements in their multifamily housing, while the second highest was not being satisfied

with the economic elements. However, there was an exception the economic element of

proximity to school for children in which the highest frequency o f the samples o f Saudi

Arabians have a normal satisfaction level, but the second highest was that they were

123

satisfied with this economic element in the multifamily housing.

Table 9.1

Frequency and Percentage Summaries o f Level o f Satisfaction in Economic Elements (n

= 800)

36. The extent o f social relation among neighbors Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 153 19.1

Not Satisfied 83 10.4

Normal 290 36.3

Satisfied 207 25.9

Extremely Satisfied 65 8.1

Missing 2 0.3

Table 9.2

37. The proximity to school for children Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 105 13.1

Not Satisfied 94 11.8

Normal 311 38.9

Satisfied 231 28.9

Extremely Satisfied 51 6.4

Missing 8 1.0

124

Table 9.3

38. The proximity o f boose to market Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 120 15.0

Not Satisfied 125 15.6

Normal 301 37.6

Satisfied 192 24.0

Extremely Satisfied 58 7.3

Missing 4 0.5

Table 9.4

39. The proximity of house to workplace Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 100 12.5

Not Satisfied 142 17.8

Normal 313 39.1

Satisfied 188 23.5

Extremely Satisfied 47 5.9

Missing 10 1.3

125

Table 9.5

40. The frequency o f house maintenance Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 120 15.0

Not Satisfied 127 15.9

Normal 353 44.1

Satisfied 141 17.6

Extremely Satisfied 57 7.1

Missing 2 0.3

Sixth, Table 10.1 to 10.2 summarized the level satisfaction in the timing elements.

In terms o f the easiness o f maintenance o f house, many or 291 (36.4%) out o f the 800

Saudi Arabians have normal level o f satisfaction while a total o f 35.7% o f 800 Saudi

Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied with the easiness of

maintenance o f house. In terms o f the overall level o f satisfaction, almost half or 330

(41.3%) out of the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal overall level o f satisfaction while a

total o f 28% o f 800 Saudi Arabians were either not satisfied or extremely not satisfied.

126

Table 10.1

Frequency and Percentage Summaries o f Level o f Satisfaction in Timing Elements (n =

800)

41. The easiness of maintenance of house Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 155 19.4

Not Satisfied 130 16.3

Normal 291 36.4

Satisfied 170 21.3

Extremely Satisfied 52 6.5

Missing 2 0.3

Table 10.2

42. The overall level of satisfaction Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 120 15

Not Satisfied 104 13

Normal 330 41.3

Satisfied 176 22

Extremely Satisfied 68 8.5

Missing 2 0.3

Lastly, Table 11.1 to 11.5 summarized each o f the family members overall level of

satisfaction. For the overall level o f satisfaction o f family member 1, 286 (35.8%) were

either not satisfied (14.8%) or extremely not satisfied (21%) while there were also 262

(32.8%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal overall level o f satisfaction. For the

overall level of satisfaction o f family member 2, 258 (32.3%) out of the 800 Saudi

Arabians have normal overall level o f satisfaction while there were also 250 (31.3%)

were either not satisfied (15%) or extremely not satisfied (16.3%). For the overall level of

satisfaction o f family member 3, 241 (30.1%) were either not satisfied (14.6%) or

extremely not satisfied (15.5%) while there were also 239 (29.9%) out o f the 800 Saudi

Arabians have normal overall level o f satisfaction. For the overall level o f satisfaction of

family member 4, 218 (27.3%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal overall level

o f satisfaction while there were also 204 (25.5%) were either not satisfied (10.6%) or

extremely not satisfied (14.9%). For the overall level o f satisfaction o f family member 5,

204 (25.5%) were either not satisfied (9%) or extremely not satisfied (16.5%) while there

were 193 (24.1%) out o f the 800 Saudi Arabians have normal overall level o f satisfaction.

As a summary o f the overall level o f satisfaction o f each of the family members, many

have a normal overall satisfaction level or have a not satisfied overall satisfaction.

128

Table 11.1

Frequency and Percentage Summaries o f Family Members ’ Overall Level o f Satisfaction

(n = 800)

Family member 1 Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 168 21.0

Not Satisfied 118 14.8

Normal 262 32.8

Satisfied 85 10.6

Extremely Satisfied 33 4.1

Missing 134 16.8

Table 11.2

Family member 2 Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 130 16.3

Not Satisfied 120 15.0

Normal 258 32.3

Satisfied 126 15.8

Extremely Satisfied 40 5.0

Missing 126 15.8

129

Table 11.3

Family member 3 Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 124 15.5

Not Satisfied 117 14.6

Normal 239 29.9

Satisfied 127 15.9

Extremely Satisfied 40 5.0

Missing 153 19.1

Table 11.4

Family member 4 Frequency Percent

Extremely Not Satisfied 119 14.9

Not Satisfied 85 10.6

Normal 218 27.3

Satisfied 121 15.1

Extremely Satisfied 32 4.0

Missing 225 28.1

130

Table 11.5

Family member 5 Frequency Perccut

Extremely Not Satisfied 132 16.5

Not Satisfied 72 9.0

Normal 193 24.1

Satisfied 97 12.1

Extremely Satisfied 46 5.8

Missing 260 32.5

Summary

The objective o f this quantitative aspect o f the study was to explore resident

satisfaction among Saudi residents in multifamily housing complexes in Saudi Arabia.

The summary o f the results o f the quantitative survey were as follows:

• For physical elements, the highest frequency of satisfaction level among the 800

samples o f Saudi Arabians was normal satisfaction level while the second highest

was not being satisfied with the physical elements.

• For environmental elements, the highest frequency o f satisfaction level among the

800 samples o f Saudi Arabians was not satisfied or extremely not satisfied while

the second highest was normal satisfaction level.

• For functional elements, the highest frequency o f satisfaction level among the 800

samples o f Saudi Arabians was normal satisfaction level while the second highest

was not being satisfied with the functional elements.

• For majority o f the behavioral elements, the highest frequency o f satisfaction

level among the 800 samples o f Saudi Arabians was normal satisfaction level

131

while the second highest was not being satisfied with the behavioral elements.

• For the behavioral elements o f proximity to place o f worship, building set backs,

and proximity o f house to hospital, the highest frequency o f satisfaction level

among the 800 samples o f Saudi Arabians was normal satisfaction level while the

second highest frequency was satisfied.

• For the behavioral element o f proximity o f house to police station, the highest

frequency o f satisfaction level among the 800 samples o f Saudi Arabians was not

satisfied or extremely not satisfied while the second highest frequency was

normal satisfaction level.

• For economic elements, the highest frequency o f satisfaction level among the 800

samples o f Saudi Arabians was normal satisfaction level while the second highest

was not being satisfied with the functional elements. Except for the economic

element o f proximity to school for children in which the highest frequency o f the

samples o f Saudi Arabians have a normal satisfaction level, but the second

highest was that they were satisfied.

• In terms o f the overall level o f satisfaction, the highest frequency was a normal

overall level o f satisfaction while the second highest frequency was either not

satisfied or extremely not satisfied.

• Many o f the family members have a normal overall satisfaction level or have a

not satisfied overall satisfaction.

132

Qualitative Portion

Description o f the Sample for the Qualitative Analysis

This section discusses the summary o f the demographic information o f the 200

samples o f Saudi Arabians who live in the multifamily housing systems. The

demographic variables include gender, age, employment status, socioeconomic status (as

measured by average monthly household income), size o f household, and number o f

children. The demographic information is summarized in Table 12.

In terms o f gender, there were slightly more female samples (52.8%) o f Saudi

Arabians than males (46.9%). In terms o f age among the 800 Saudi Arabians, 272 (34%)

were aged 20 to 30 years old, 269 (33.6%) were aged 31 to 40 years old, 187 (23.4%)

were aged 41 to 50 years old, and 68 (8.5%) were aged 51 years old or older. For the

employment status among the 800 Saudi Arabians, many or 307 (38.4%) were employed,

157 (19.6%) were students, 131 (16.4%) were retired, and 93 (11.6%) were unemployed.

In terms o f the number o f adults in the household among the 800 Saudi Arabians, half of

the samples said that there were 1 to 2 adults (31.3%) or 3 to 4 adults (28.5%). There

were 152 (19%) that said there were 5 to 6 adults in the household, and 105 (13.1%) said

there were 7 to 8 (13.1%) adults at their household. Also, almost half or 339 (42.4%) out

o f the 800 Saudi Arabians said that there were no adult son with wife and children living

with them in their household, and 240 (30%) Saudi Arabians have adult son with wife

and children living with them in their household. In terms o f the socioeconomic status or

the average monthly household income among the 800 Saudi Arabians, the samples were

mostly earning the income range o f 5,000 to 20000. To be more specific, 229 (28.6%)

earn 5,000 to 10,000, 207 (25.9%) earn 10,0001 to 15,000, 186 (23.3%) earn 15,001 to

133

20,000. In terms o f the number o f children living in the household, 273 (34.1%) Saudi

Arabians have 1 to 2 children, 271 (33.9%) have 3 to 4 children, and 179 (22.4%) have 5

to 6 children. Lastly, all o f the family members o f more than half or 413 (51.6%) out of

the 800 Saudi Arabians were living in the household satisfied with their living.

Table 12.1

Frequency and Percentage Summaries o f Demographic Information (n = 800)

1. Gender Frequency Percent

Missing 3 0.4

Female 422 52.8

Male 375 46.9

Table 12.2

2. Age Frequency Percent

Missing 4 0.5

20-30 272 34

31-40 269 33.6

41-50 187 23.4

51 & older 68 8.5

134

Table 12.3

3. Employment Status Frequency Percent

Missing 2 0.3

Employed 307 38.4

Other 110 13.8

Retired 131 16.4

Student 157 19.6

Unemployed 93 11.6

Table 12.4

4. How many adults In the household? Frequency Percent

Missing 25 3.1

1-2 250 31.3

3-4 228 28.5

5-6 152 19

7-8 105 13.1

8+ 40 5

135

Table 12.5

5. Do you have an adult son with wife and children

living with you? Frequency Percent

Missing 8 1

No 339 42.4

Other 213 26.6

Yes 240 30

Table 12.6

6. Which of the following categories best describes your

household monthly income? Frequency Percent

Missing 11 1.4

10001-15000 207 25.9

15001-20000 186 23.3

20001-25000 100 12.5

25001 + 67 8.4

5000-10000 229 28.6

136

Table 12.7

43. How many children live in the household? Frequency Percent

Missing 23 2.9

1-2 273 34.1

3-4 271 33.9

5-6 179 22.4

7 + 54 6.8

Table 12.8

44. Are all your family members living in the household

satisfied with your living? Frequency Percent

Missing 14 1.8

No 373 46.6

Yes 413 51.6

137

Research Design for the Qualitative Analysis

For the research design of the qualitative portion, the researcher employed a

phenomenological analysis on the interviews of the participants. As stated in the

previous chapter, the researcher utilized the modified van Kaam method based on the

chart procedure below. The results o f the modified van Kaam procedure are found in the

next section o f the study.

138

Table 13.

The van Kaam method employed in the qualitative analysis o f the study

Procedure

1 List each individual expression related to the stated experience and classify into

preliminary groups.

2 Identify invariant constituents among the individual expressions based on the

following requirements. Expressions that do not meet these two requirements will be

eliminated.

1) Is it necessary and sufficient to understand the participant’s meaning?

2) Can the experience be labeled?

3 Use thematic labels to cluster invariant constituents relaying the core thematic

experiences.

4 Using the interview transcripts, review thematic categories, invariant constituents

and themes to confirm that all constituents are expressed in the data

5 Isolate verbatim examples from the transcripts to support the invariant constitutions

and themes.

6 Identify individual structural descriptions to describe the essence o f the experience.

7 Based on the goals o f the research study, summarize and interpret the themes and

invariant constituents.

139

Sum m ary of the Findings for the Q ualitative Portion

M ajo r Themes 1 and 2. Average experience; and Bad and unsuccessful

experience. The first and second major themes emerged from the first research question

o f the study, which were the perceptions o f Saudi Arabian residents living in multifamily

housing facilities in Saudi Arabia. The first main experience was “average” and the

second was a “bad and unsuccessful” one. The two themes received the highest number

o f occurrences with six o f the 20 total sample population or 30% (Table 16). Table 16

contains the major and invariant constituents of the study; the invariant constituents are

the other importance experiences that followed the major themes, which received

relatively fewer responses.

Table 14

The perceptions o f Saudi Arabian residents living in multifamily housing facilities in

Saudi Arabia

Thematic Label 1 # o f

Occurrences

# o f

Occurrences

Major Theme 1:

Average experience 6 30%

Major Theme 2:

Bad and unsuccessful experience 6 30%

Invariant Constituent 1:

Not a comfortable experience 3 15%

Invariant Constituent 2:

Positive experience but with some issues 3 15%

Invariant Constituent 3:

Comfortable experience 1 5%

Invariant Constituent 4:

Cannot say 1 5%

Overall, the first major theme, which was an “average experience”, is considered

by the researcher as one of the six most significant findings o f the qualitative portion.

Participant # 2 explained the experience as: “Not bad.” Participant # 3 echoed his

multifamily housing facilities experience as “Just fine.” Participant # 5 exclaimed that

the experience was just average: “ It is okay.” Participant # 6 shared that generally, the

experience was “not bad” : “In general, not bad.”

Participant # 13 was just okay with the experience, stating: “It is okay.” Lastly,

Participant # 17 echoed that the experience was just average: “ It was okay experience.”

141

The second major theme, which was a “bad and unsuccessful experience”, is also

considered by the researcher as one o f the six most crucial findings o f the qualitative

portion. Participant # 4 admitted that his experience in living in a multifamily housing

facility as “very bad”: “It is a very bad experience for so many reasons”. Participant # 8

also shared that he had a “very bad experience” as the multifamily concept is too

inhabited: “Very bad experience, too many people. It is highly populated.” Participant #

16 shared how he did not like the experience and described it as “annoying” : “I don’t like

it, it is very annoying experience.” Participant # 18 admitted that he had a bad experience

overall: “Bad experience.” Participant # 19 also did not like the experience and described

it as: “Unsuccessful experience.” Lastly, Participant # 20 simply exclaimed it as a

negative experience: “Bad experience.”

The first invariant constituent that followed was a “not comfortable experience”;

this theme received three occurrences o f the 20 total sample population or 15%.

Participant # 1 straightforwardly shared his experience in living in a multifamily as not

comfortable: “It was not a comfortable experience.” Participant # 12 shared that he was

not comfortable with the setting: “I’m not comfortable.” Lastly, Participant # 14 did not

like the experience as well because o f the lack o f space: “Don’t like it, very small

apartments.”

The second invariant constituent that followed was a “positive experience but

with some issues”, this theme also received three occurrences of the 20 total sample

population or 15%. Participant # 7 stated that the experience has been positive but there

are some problems with the neighbors: “I like it, but there are some problems with

neighbors.” Participant # 11 shared that he had a positive experience overall and that he

142

liked it: “Positive experience, I like it.” Lastly, Participant # 15 liked the experience but

admitted that security needs to be improved: “Very nice, but it needs security.”

The third invariant constituent that followed was a “comfortable experience”; this

theme received ju st one occurrences o f the 20 total sample population or 5%. Participant

# 9 shared that he was comfortable with the experience and the evolving concept: “I’m

comfortable.” The fourth and last invariant constituent that followed was that one

“cannot say” or describe the experience; this theme also received just one occurrence of

the 20 total sample population or 5%. Participant # 10 admitted that he can’t tell o f the

experience was a positive or negative one: “Can’t tell.”

M ajo r Themes 3 and 4. Bigger space for the rooms and bathroom s; and No

im provem ents can be done anym ore. The third and fourth major themes emerged from

the second research question o f the study, which was how the multifamily housing

experience in Saudi Arabia can be improved. The third major theme or suggestion for

improvement was a “bigger space for the rooms and bathrooms” and the fourth major

theme was that participants believed that “no improvements can be done anymore.” The

two themes received the highest number o f occurrences with six o f the 20 total sample

population or 30% (Table 17). Table 17 contains the major themes and invariant

constituents o f the study; the invariant constituents are the other importance experiences

that followed the major themes, which received relatively fewer responses.

143

Table 15

How the multifamily housing experience in Saudi Arabia can be improved?

Thematic Label 2 # o f

Occurrences

# o f

Occurrences

Major Theme 3:

Bigger space for the rooms and bathrooms 6 30%

Major Theme 4:

No improvements can be done anymore 6 30%

Invariant Constituent 1:

No change, happy with the experience 2 10%

Invariant Constituent 2:

Improved maintenance o f the building and houses 2 10%

Invariant Constituent 3:

Reserved parking slots and spaces for residents 2 10%

Invariant Constituent 4:

Better security around the multifamily housing location 1 5%

Invariant Constituent 5:

Prioritize the comfort and safety o f the elders 1 5%

Invariant Constituent 6:

Building does not match the way o f life 1 5%

Invariant Constituent 7:

Installation o f children’s playground 1 5%

Overall, the third major theme, which was the need for a bigger space for the

rooms and bathrooms, is considered by the researcher as one o f the most significant

findings o f the qualitative section. Participant # 3 stated that a “bigger space and bigger

windows” would improve their experience. Participant # 6 wanted a change in layout

144

resulting to a bigger space: “Change the layout o f rooms and make them bigger and make

bathrooms larger than the way they are.” Participant # 7 suggested making the place

bigger and more spacious: “A bigger place. Make the rooms bigger.” Participant # 12

stated the house space should be larger and the cleanliness should be maintained: “Make

the flat larger and keep maintenance on schedule.” Participant # 14 added that the

experience would improve if the rooms and bathrooms were larger: “Make rooms and

bathrooms large.” Lastly, Participant # 16 also wanted an overall bigger space, which

would aid in making the experience a better one: “Make bigger rooms and reserved

parking spots.”

The fourth major theme, which was having the negative experiences made the

participants believe that no improvements can be done anymore, is considered by the

researcher as one o f the six chief findings o f the qualitative study. Participant # 4 showed

his dissatisfaction with the experience by not wanting to share suggestions on how to

improve the multifamily housing, as he believes that: “No one would listen, never

mind.” Participant # 8 stated that changes cannot be done anymore: “No, I can’t change

anything.” Participant # 9 echoed how there are “No changes” anymore. Participant # 10

also believed that there could be no more improvements: “I can’t make any changes.”

Participant # 19 stated that he does not know what changes can be made, as there are so

many things that are needed to be improved and developed: “ I don’t know, so many

things.” Lastly, Participant # 20 echoed that he does not know what could be changed: “I

don’t know.”

The first invariant constituent, which was that no change is needed, as participants

are happy with the experience, received two occurrences o f the 20 total sample

145

population or 10%. Participant # 2 explained that he would not want to change anything

and was contented with the experience: “ I wouldn’t change anything. Happy with the

way it is.” Participant # 13 had no suggestions for improvements: “Nothing.”

The second invariant constituent, which was that improved maintenance o f the

building and houses was needed, received two occurrences o f the 20 total sample

population or 10%. Participant # 5 advised that for the experience to be better, the

maintenance o f the place should be given attention to “Maintenance o f the building and

the flat.” Participant # 12 again stated the house space should be larger and the

cleanliness should be maintained: “Make the flat larger and keep maintenance on

schedule.”

The third invariant constituent, which was that reserved parking slots and spaces

for residents are needed, also received two occurrences o f the 20 total sample population

or 10%. Participant # 15 suggested for a parking space: “Parking.” In addition,

Participant # 16 echoed that reserved parking spots would improve the experience:

“Make bigger rooms and reserved parking spots.”

The fourth invariant constituent, which was the need for better security around the

multi-family housing location, received just one occurrence o f the 20 total sample

population or 5%. Participant # 1 suggested that their multifamily housing experience in

Saudi could be improved if security was better or a police station was installed near them:

“I would add securities and a police station.”

The fifth invariant constituent, which was the suggestion to prioritize the comfort

and safety o f the elders, also received just one occurrence o f the 20 total sample

population or 5%. Participant # 11 suggested that the families who have elderly members

1 4 6

should be placed on the lower floors: “Make families with elders people live in lower

floors, elevators are not always available.”

The sixth invariant constituent, which was the statement and experience that the

building does not match the way of life, also received just one occurrence o f the 20 total

sample population or 5%. Participant # 17 admitted that the structure o f the building

does not match his country’s way o f life: “This kind o f building is does not match the

Saudi family way o f life.”

The seventh and last invariant constituent, which was the request for the

installation o f children’s playground, also received ju st one occurrence o f the 20 total

sample population or 5%. Participant # 18 wanted a children’s playground to develop the

experience under the multifamily housing experience: “Add children playground.”

M a jo r Them e 5. No advantages and benefits observed in multifamily

housing. The fifth major theme emerged from the third research question o f the study,

which was that there were no advantages and benefits observed from multifamily

housing. The fifth major theme was that the residents believe that the multi-family

housing does not benefit them. The key theme received the highest number of

occurrences for this thematic label with six o f the 20 total sample population or 30%

(Table 16). Table 16 contains the major theme and invariant constituents o f the study,

the invariant constituents are the other importance experiences that followed the major

themes, which received relatively fewer responses.

147

Table 16

How multifamily housing facilities benefit Saudi Arabian residents

Thematic Label 3 # o f

Occurrences

# o f

Occurrences

Major Theme # 5:

No advantages and benefits observed in multifamily housing 6 30%

Invariant Constituent # 1:

Proximity to many important places 4 20%

Invariant Constituent # 2:

Facilities that offer recreational activities 3 15%

Invariant Constituent # 3:

Develop new relationships and friends 3 15%

Invariant Constituent # 4:

Services and parking space 2 10%

Invariant Constituent # 5:

Good quality building 2 10%

Invariant Constituent # 6:

Learning from different cultures as they interact with other

people

1 5%

Overall, the fifth major theme which that there are no advantages and benefits

observed is considered by the researcher as one o f the six most crucial findings o f the

study. Participant # 4 also believed that there are no advantages in this type o f housing:

“No advantages o f this type o f housing.” Participant # 8 strongly believed that

everything was negative: “Everything is really bad.” Participant # 9 stated that there are

no positive experiences worth mentioning given that there were more than enough

148

negative experiences: “No positives worth to mention and so many negatives.”

Participant # 16 was confident to exclaim that there are no positive qualities and

experiences to share “Nothing positive to mention.” Participant # 19 explained that there

are no positive and beneficial factors at all: “Nothing positive at all.” Lastly, Participant

# 20 echoed that he liked nothing about the new concept and experience: “Nothing I

like.”

The first invariant constituent, which was that one benefit o f living in a multi

family housing, was the proximity to many important places received four occurrences of

the responses o f the 20 respondents or 20% o f the total sample population. Participant #

6 stated that the concept benefits the families, as the location is close their relatives:

“Close to relatives.” Participant # 11 stated that he liked that the area was: “Close to

everything.” Participant # 1 2 added that the multifamily housing was: “Close to the

market.” Participant # 17 echoed how the location is very close to important facilities

and locations: “The size o f the building and being close to the market stores and

groceries.”

The second invariant constituent, which was the advantage o f having facilities

that offer recreational activities, received three occurrences o f the responses o f the 20

respondents or 15% o f the total sample population. Participant # 1 shared that the

multifamily housing facility that benefited the residents the most was the park nearby

“Having a park close by.” Participant # 2 shared how the facilities that offer recreational

activities are beneficial for the families: “Park and gym.” Participant # 3 echoed that the

park and the gym were most useful and beneficial for his family: “The park and the gym

which are available for the residents o f the complex.”

1 4 9

The third invariant constituent, which was the advantage o f the development o f

new relationships and friends, again received three occurrences o f the responses o f the 20

respondents or 15% o f the total sample population. Participant # 14 described how

multifamily housing allows friendships and relationships to develop: “Make friends with

neighbors.” Participant # 15 echoed that the interaction and collaboration makes the

experience better: “Close interacting and collaboration with neighbors.” Lastly,

Participant # 18 shared how the connection with neighbors is beneficial to the residents:

“The social connection between neighbors.”

The fourth invariant constituent, which was the services and parking space,

received two occurrences o f the responses o f the 20 respondents or 10% o f the total

sample population. Participant # 5 shared that the services, size o f the rooms, and

availability o f parking were the main benefits: “Residents’ services, the size of the rooms

and the parking space availability.”

Participant # 7 echoed that the services available add up to the advantages o f the concept:

“Services close by.”

The fifth invariant constituent, which was the benefit o f learning from different

cultures as they interact with other people, received just occurrence o f the responses of

the 20 respondents or 5% o f the total sample population. Participant # 10 shared a unique

experience o f having the benefit o f learning from interacting with different people:

“Getting introduced to different culture and mixing with people.”

M ajo r T hem e 6. C oncept does not m aintain and threatens the tenets o f the

Saudi A rabian culture. The sixth major theme emerged from the fourth research

question o f the study, which was how the concept of multi-family housing facilities

150

coexist with the tenets o f Saudi Arabian culture. The sixth major theme was that the

concept o f multi-family housing does not maintain and threatens the tenets o f the Saudi

Arabian culture. The chief theme received the highest number o f occurrences for this

thematic label with ten o f the 20 total sample population or 50% (Table 17). Table 17

contains the major theme and invariant constituents o f the study; the invariant

constituents are the other importance experiences that followed the major themes, which

received relatively fewer responses.

151

Table 17

How the concept o f multifamily housing facilities coexist with the tenets o f Saudi Arabian

culture

Thematic Label 4 # of Occurrences # of Occurrences

Major Theme # 6:

Concept does not maintain and threatens the tenets o f the Saudi Arabian culture

10 50%

Invariant Constituent # 1:

Supports and maintains the Saudi Arabian culture; no threats observed

6 30%

Invariant Constituent # 2:

Maintains the Saudi Arabian culture but threatens it as a whole

2 10%

Invariant Constituent # 3:

Coexisting outcomes depend on the residents 1 5%

Invariant Constituent # 4:

Saudi Arabian culture is not maintained but not threatened as well

1 5%

Overall, the "Concept does not maintain but threatens the tenets o f the Saudi

Arabian culture" is considered as one o f the chief findings in the qualitative study.

Participant # 1 believed that the concept o f multifamily housing negatively affects the

tenets o f Saudi Arabia’s culture: “The concept o f multifamily housing is will affect the

Saudi Arabian culture. The concept threatens the Saudi culture.” Participant # 2 echoed

that the concept o f multi-family housing is a danger to their country’s culture: “Does not

maintain the Saudi culture. It is dangerous to the Saudi culture.” Participant # 4 also said

that the concept endangers the Saudi culture: “Doesn’t maintain the Saudi identity. O f

course it threatens the Saudi culture.”

152

Participant # 8 admitted that for him, the tenets of the concept does not maintain but

instead threatens the Saudi culture: “No, it doesn’t maintain the Saudi culture. Yes, it

threatens the Saudi culture.” Participant # 9 echoed the same perceptions as the first four

participants: “It does not maintain the Saudi culture. Yes, it is dangerous to the Saudi

culture.” Participant # 13 explained that the concept does not maintain the culture but

instead threatens the most basic tenets: “It does not maintain the Saudi culture. Yes, it

threatens the Saudi culture.” Participant # 16 added that the setting does not support the

culture that the residents are used to and agreed that it threatens their culture: “No, it does

not maintain the Saudi culture. O f course, it threatens the Saudi culture.” Participant #

18 believed that the setting does not support the culture but instead endangers their

beliefs and norms: “No. Depends, but mostly yes.” Participant # 19 also stated that the

multi-family housing does not support the culture and at the same time, the concept

threatens the beliefs o f the people: “No, does not maintain the Saudi culture. Yes, it

threatens the Saudi culture.” Lastly, Participant # 20 explained how the setting does not

uphold their culture and that it threatens it by going against the most basic norms: “No, it

does not maintain the Saudi culture. Yes, it threatens the Saudi culture because o f the

mixing o f men and women in the complex.”

The first invariant constituent that followed was that the concept supports and

maintains the Saudi Arabian culture; no threats observed. The invariant constituent

received six occurrences o f the 20 participants or 30% o f the total sample population.

Participant # 3 was the first participant who believed that the current concept of

multifamily housing supports and maintains the Saudi culture: “Yes, it maintains the

Saudi culture. No, it does not threaten the Saudi culture.” Participant # 5 had the same

153

perception that the concept does not support and sustain the Saudi culture and that it even

threatens the beliefs: “No does not maintains the Saudi culture. Yes it does.” Participant

# 6 stated that the concept supports the Saudi culture and that one positive factor would

be the closeness to family: “Yes, it maintains the Saudi culture because families are close

to each other. No, it does not threaten the Saudi culture.” Participant # 7 added how if

there is unity then the concept does not affect the tenets o f the culture in any way: “Yes it

does, if neighbors are from the same culture and understand each other. No, it does not

threaten the Saudi culture.” Participant # 1 4 simply stated that yes; the concept supports

the culture and does not threaten the tenets and beliefs o f the Saudi Arabians: “Yes. No.”

Lastly, Participant # 15 echoed that the setting maintains the culture and does not threaten

it: “Yes, it maintains the Saudi culture. No, it does not threaten the Saudi culture.”

The second invariant constituent that followed was that the concept or setting

maintains the Saudi Arabian culture but threatens it as a whole. The invariant constituent

received two occurrences o f the 20 participants or 10% o f the total sample population.

Participant # 10 shared a different perspective, that the concept maintains the culture and

that the danger depends on the people facing the experience: “Sure, it maintains the Saudi

culture; people are all from the same culture. Yes, mixing threatens the Saudi culture, yet

good people are more than bad people.” Participant # 11 explained how he believes that

the Saudi culture is maintained by the concept but is overall endangered given the

mixture o f different races and norms o f people: “ Yes, it maintains the Saudi culture. Yes,

it threatens the Saudi culture because o f the mixing o f people.”

The third invariant constituent that followed was that the coexisting outcomes

depend on the residents. The invariant constituent received just one occurrence o f the 20

154

participants or 5% o f the total sample population. Participant # 12 explained how the

outcomes on the culture depend on the residents but overall, the concept does not seem to

threaten the culture o f Saudi: “It depends. No, it does not threaten the Saudi culture.”

The fourth invariant constituent that followed was that the Saudi Arabian culture

is not maintained but not threatened as well. The invariant constituent again received just

one occurrence o f the 20 participants or 5% o f the total sample population. Participant #

17 shared that the culture is not maintained with the evolving setting but does not find it

enough to threaten the culture as a whole: “No, it does not maintain the Saudi culture,

but... No, it doesn’t threaten the Saudi culture.”

Individual s tru c tu ra l descriptions. The following individual structural

descriptions present a significant report on the 20 participants’ lived experiences

regarding the multi-family housing facilities in Saudi Arabia. These descriptions were

patterned from the previous stage o f the study.

Structural description fo r Participant # 1.

Participant # 1 believed that his experience in living in a multifamily as not

comfortable. Participant # 1 also believed that their multi-family housing experience in

Saudi could be improved if security was better or a police station was installed near them.

Participant # 1 believed that the multi-family housing facility that benefited the residents

the most was the park nearby. Lastly, Participant # 1 believed that the concept of

multifamily housing negatively affects the tenets o f Saudi Arabia’s culture: “The concept

o f multifamily housing is will affect the Saudi Arabian culture. The concept threatens the

Saudi culture.”

155

Structural description fo r Participant # 2.

Participant # 2 explained the experience as: “Not bad.” Participant # 2 believed

that they would not want to change anything and was contented with the experience.

Participant # 2 also believed how the facilities that offer recreational activities are

beneficial for the families. Lastly, Participant # 2 believed that the concept o f multifamily

housing is a danger to their country’s culture: “Does not maintain the Saudi culture. It is

dangerous to the Saudi culture.”

Structural description fo r Participant # 3.

Participant # 3 believed that his multi-family housing facilities experience was

“Just fine.” Participant # 3 believed that a “bigger space and bigger windows” would

improve their experience. Participant # 3 believed that the park and the gym were most

useful and beneficial for his family. Lastly, Participant # 3 was the first participant who

believed that the current concept o f multifamily housing supports and maintains the Saudi

culture.

Structural description fo r Participant # 4.

Participant # 4 believed that his experience in living in a multi-family housing

facility as “very bad”. Participant # 4 believed that his dissatisfaction with the experience

was more probable and did not want to share suggestions on how to improve the

multifamily housing. Participant # 4 also believed that there are no advantages in this

type o f housing. Lastly, Participant # 4 also believed that the concept endangers the

Saudi culture.

156

Structural description fo r Participant # 5.

Participant # 5 believed that the experience was just average. Participant # 5

believed that for the experience to be better, the maintenance o f the place should be given

attention to. Participant # 5 believed that the services, size o f the rooms, and availability

o f parking were the main benefits. Lastly, Participant # 5 believed that the concept does

not support and sustain the Saudi culture and that it even threatens the beliefs.

Structural description fo r Participant # 6.

Participant # 6 believed that generally, the experience was “not bad” : “In general,

not bad.” Participant # 6 believed that a change in layout resulting to a bigger space was

needed. Participant # 6 believed that the concept benefits the families as the location is

close their relatives. Lastly, Participant # 6 believed that the concept supports the Saudi

culture and that one positive factor would be the closeness to family.

Structural description fo r Participant # 7.

Participant # 7 believed that the experience has been positive but there are some

problems with the neighbors. Participant # 7 believed to make the place bigger and more

spacious. Participant # 7 believed that the services available add up to the advantages of

the concept. Lastly, Participant # 7 believed how if there is unity then the concept does

not affect the tenets o f the culture in any way.

Structural description fo r Participant # 8.

Participant # 8 believed that he had a “very bad experience” as the multifamily

concept is too inhabited. Participant # 8 believed that changes cannot be done anymore.

Participant # 8 believed that everything was negative. Lastly, Participant # 8 believed the

tenets o f the concept does not maintain but instead threatens the Saudi culture.

157

Structural description fo r Participant # 9.

Participant # 9 believed that he was comfortable with the experience and the

evolving concept. Participant # 9 believed how there are “No changes” possible

anymore. Participant # 9 believed that there are no positive experiences worth

mentioning given that there were more negative than positive experiences. Lastly,

Participant # 9 believed that “It does not maintain the Saudi culture. Yes, it is dangerous

to the Saudi culture.”

Structural description fo r Participant #10.

Participant # 10 believed that he can’t tell o f the experience was a positive or

negative one. Participant # 10 also believed that there could be no more improvements.

Participant # 10 believed a unique experience o f having the benefit o f learning from

interacting with different people. Lastly, Participant # 10 believed in a different

perspective, that the concept maintains the culture and that the danger depends on the

people facing the experience.

Structural description fo r Participant #11.

Participant # 11 believed that he had a positive experience overall and that he

liked it. Participant # 11 believed that the families who have elderly members should be

placed on the lower floors. Participant # 11 believed that he liked that the area was:

“Close to everything.” Lastly, Participant # 11 believed that the Saudi culture is

maintained by the concept but is overall endangered given the mixture of different races

and norms of people.

158

Structural description fo r Participant #12.

Participant # 12 believed that he was not comfortable with the setting. Participant

# 12 believed that the house space should be larger and the cleanliness should be

maintained. Participant # 1 2 believed that the location of the multi-family housing was

beneficial. Participant # 12 believed how the outcomes on the culture depend on the

residents but overall, the concept does not seem to threaten the culture of Saudi.

Structural description fo r Participant #13.

Participant # 13 believed that that he was ju st okay with the experience.

Participant # 13 believed that he had no suggestions for improvements. Participant # 13

believed that the residents benefit from the good quality o f building. Lastly, Participant #

13 believed that the concept does not maintain the culture but instead threatens the most

basic tenets.

Structural description fo r Participant #14.

Participant # 14 believed that he did not like the experience as well because o f the

lack of space. Participant # 14 believed that the experience would improve if the rooms

and bathrooms were larger. Participant # 14 believed how multifamily housing allows

friendships and relationships to develop. Lastly, Participant # 14 believed that yes; the

concept supports the culture and does not threaten the tenets and beliefs o f the Saudi

Arabians.

Structural description fo r Participant #15.

Participant # 15 believed the experience was okay but admitted that security needs

to be improved. Participant # 15 believed that a parking space would improve the

experience. Participant # 15 believed that the interaction and collaboration makes the

159

experience better. Lastly, Participant # 15 believed that the setting maintains the culture

and does not threaten it.

Structural description fo r Participant #16.

Participant # 16 believed that he did not like the experience and described it as

“annoying” . Participant # 16 believed that reserved parking spots would improve the

experience. Participant # 16 believed that there are no positive qualities and experiences

to share. Lastly, Participant # 16 believed that the setting does not support the culture

that the residents are used to and agreed that it threatens their culture.

Structural description fo r Participant #17.

Participant # 17 believed that the experience was just average. Participant # 17

believed that the structure o f the building does not match his country’s way o f life.

Participant # 17 believed in how the location is very close to important facilities. Lastly,

Participant # 17 believed that the culture is not maintained with the evolving setting but

does not find it enough to threaten the culture as a whole.

Structural description fo r Participant #18.

Participant # 18 believed that he had a bad experience overall. Participant # 18

believed that a children’s playground is needed to develop the experience under the

multi-family housing experience. Participant # 18 believed how the connection with

neighbors is beneficial to the residents. Lastly, Participant # 18 believed that the setting

does not support the culture but instead endangers their beliefs and norms.

Structural description fo r Participant #19.

Participant # 19 also believed he did not like the experience and described it as:

“Unsuccessful experience.” Participant # 19 believed that he does not know what

160

changes can be made, as there are so many things that are needed to be improved and

developed. Participant # 19 believed that there are no positive and beneficial factors at

all. Lastly, Participant # 19 also believed that the multi-family housing does not support

the culture and at the same time, the concept threatens the beliefs o f the people.

Structural description fo r Participant # 20.

Participant # 20 believed that it was a negative experience. Participant # 20

believed that he does not know what could be changed. Participant # 20 believed that he

liked nothing about the new concept and experience. Participant # 20 believed how the

setting does not uphold their culture and that it threatens it by going against the most

basic norms.

1 6 1

Triangulation of the Quantitative and Qualitative Portions

The results o f the qualitative and quantitative sections o f the study coincided

when triangulated by the researcher. However, some factors were different when

analyzed from the survey against the interviews. The results o f the qualitative section

strengthened the survey conducted in during the first phase, which was the quantitative

portion. Regarding the physical elements o f the multi-housing facilities, the quantitative

portion presented that the residents mostly felt just "normal" on their level o f satisfaction.

This aspect included the size o f the compound and rooms; the quality o f the structural

and the other physical factors o f the facilities. Meanwhile, majority answered on their

contentment with the environmental factors as "normal" again. This aspect included the

ventilation; noise, water, and air pollution; and the disposal system. With regard to the

functional and economic elements such as the positioning o f rooms, parking space, and

design, participants felt that the level o f satisfaction was "normal" again. The behavioral

elements o f the house such as privacy, security, proximity to the important institutions

received a "normal" rating again. In addition, the timing elements and overall satisfaction

received a "normal" grade from the surveyed residents. These results from the

quantitative portion, that the general experience was just “normal” corresponded and

matched with the first major theme o f the qualitative study wherein participants believed

that the experience was just “average” . The main difference observed was that the

respondents from the survey (quantitative portion) felt “normal to satisfied” with the

basic elements presented such as the physical, environmental, functional, economic, and

behavioral while the participants from the interviews (qualitative portion) had mostly

negative reactions when asked about their feelings on their experiences. The negative

1 6 2

reactions stemmed from the dissatisfactions that they have experienced and complained

about previously to the higher authorities or administration but currently has been not

addressed still thus leaving the participants uninterested with the concept o f the multi

family housing. Lastly, the main similarity observed from the two studies or methods

was the satisfaction with the proximity of the multi-family housing facilities to the

important institutions and areas. This advantage was observed by the participants in the

qualitative portion as well. In conclusion, the two phases’ results were mostly similar

and if there were some disparity in the results, they were not enough to prove the results

wrong or incorrect, as participants were able to explain and defend their experiences

especially in the qualitative potion to qualify for the validity and reliability o f the results.

Sum m ary an d Conclusion

The researcher reported the results of the study in Chapter 4, based from

the gathered data analyses o f the two portions- the quantitative and qualitative studies.

For the quantitative portion composed o f a survey with 797 respondents, the researcher

found that on all the elements presented, the respondents gauged their multi-family

housing experience from “normal to satisfied.” Meanwhile, for the qualitative section,

the researcher found six major themes from the analysis o f the interviews using the

modified van Kaam method. The researcher found that the residents interviewed felt that

they had an “average experience and the other half o f the majority felt that they had a

“bad or unsuccessful experience”. Participants o f the interviews also suggested that a

“bigger space for the rooms and bathrooms” can improve the experience but at the same

time, the other half o f the majority lost faith in the concept, as they believed that “no

improvements can be done anymore.” The fifth major theme was that participants “had

1 6 3

no advantages and benefits observed” which echoed the previous major theme. Lastly,

with the level o f dissatisfaction from the interviewed participants, they believed that the

concept does not maintain and threatens the tenets o f the Saudi Arabian culture. The

researcher will develop on the results o f the study together with the discussion o f the

interpretations, in Chapter 5. Also, the conclusions of the study will be incorporated in

the last chapter.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

The current study will investigate the satisfaction of Saudi Arabians living in

multifamily housing arrangements. The current study aims to quantify the levels of

resident satisfaction among Saudi Arabian residents living in multifamily housing

systems. Moreover, it aims to explore the different perceptions, experiences, and

behaviors o f such residents in order that the findings from the study may contribute

information regarding the improvement o f living conditions o f Saudi Arabian citizens.

Resident satisfaction is created to address the concerns o f inhabitants. However, it was

noted that there is a difficulty defining this concept (Anderson & Weidemann, 1997).

One factor to consider in examining resident satisfaction in this study is the living

arrangement o f an individual. Due to the demand in the housing sector o f Saudi Arabia,

multifamily system has become an alternative system (Salam, 2013). The researcher

employed mixed-method research design which involves two phases o f data collection: a

quantitative phase in order to gather data that will then be used to guide a qualitative

phase that will provide deeper understanding about the concepts.

For the quantitative results, the survey instrument (n = 797) revealed that

participants, most o f Saudi Arabian citizens living in multifamily housing systems felt

just "normal" on their level of satisfaction. This aspect included the size of the

compound and rooms; the quality of the structural and the other physical factors o f the

facilities. Moreover, majority of the respondents answered on their level o f satisfaction

1 6 4

165

with the environmental factors as "normal" again. This aspect included the ventilation;

noise, water, and air pollution; and the disposal system. Also, the respondents felt that

the level o f satisfaction was "normal" for the functional and economic elements which

include the positioning o f rooms, parking space, and design. Furthermore, the behavioral

elements o f the house such as privacy, security, proximity to the important institutions

received a "normal" rating again. Thus, the timing elements and overall satisfaction

received a "normal" rate from the respondents.

For the qualitative results, participants in the interviews (« = 20) emerged with six

themes. The first two themes: “average experience” and “bad and unsuccessful

experience” emerged from the participants perceptions about the multifamily housing

facilities in Saudi Arabia. The third and fourth theme: “bigger space for the rooms and

bathrooms” and “no improvements can be done anymore” emerged from the second

research question that pertains to their perceived improvements to the multifamily

housing experience in Saudi Arabia. The fifth theme: “no advantages and benefits

observed” emerged from the third research question that asked about the perceived

benefits from the multifamily housing facilities. Finally, the last theme: “concept does not

maintain and threatens the tenets o f the Saudi Arabian culture” emerged from the fourth

research question asked about how the concept o f multifamily housing facilities coexists

with the tenets o f Saudi Arabian culture.

The analysis o f the data presented in chapter 4 will be discussed more immensely

in this chapter. Moreover, implications the findings about the Saudi Arabian residents

living in multifamily housing arrangements will be presented along with the

recommendations for professional practice and future studies.

166

Discussion

Checking for the alignment o f the findings with the existing literature will

generate more meaningful insights about the resident satisfaction among Saudi residents

in multifamily housing complexes in Saudi Arabia. For the quantitative data, the

discussions encompass concerns about its significance to the research question while the

relevance o f the themes with respect to the existing literature will be the focus o f the

discussion for the qualitative data.

Analysis o f the Quantitative Data

For the quantitative portion is composed by data from the survey o f 797

respondents. The researcher utilized frequency table to reflect the responses o f the

participants. The researcher found that on all the elements presented, the respondents

gauged their multi-family housing experience from “normal to satisfied.” While the

findings show that the participants rated the multifamily housing complexes as to be

“normal to satisfied” from different aspects, it was showed in the demographic data that

most o f the participants have low to average income. This significant finding is supported

by the study conducted by Heywood, Oldman, and Means (2002). It was found by the

researcher that low-income homeowners may also be satisfied with their poor housing

conditions while remaining utterly aware o f the poor condition of their housing

situations. According to Heywood et al. (2002), the physical state or even the community

in which the house belongs, may not be o f importance with respect to the overall

satisfaction derived from the home o f some group o f people. Thus, other factors such as

the capacity to be sheltered from the elements, and to be afforded a sense o f protection,

safety, and privacy may indicate housing satisfaction (Heywood et al., 2002). Mohit and

1 6 7

Nazyddah (2009) posited that norms and values o f the individuals living in a particular

residence have important implications on how satisfied or dissatisfied they will be with

respect to different aspects o f their house. Conversely, this finding may seem to be

opposed to the research conducted by Kahraman (2013). Kahraman (2013) posited that

value when houses are more economically valuable, residents tend to be more satisfied

with them.

Analysis o f the Qualitative Data

The descriptive data generated from the quantitative data summarized the

perception o f the general population with regards to resident satisfaction in multifamily

housing. To better understand the perception o f the participants, a qualitative method was

utilized. The researcher utilized the modified van Kaam method for data analysis. The

researcher emerged with six themes from the analysis o f the qualitative data. The present

analysis begins with a discussion o f the most frequent themes. In Chapter 4, the patterns

of responses to the interview questions as well as the emergence o f the main themes were

presented. The present chapter provides more extensive details about the themes were

presented and how are these themes related to the research question.

The first theme was “average experience” with regards to multifamily housing.

This theme answers the research question: What are the perceptions o f Saudi Arabian

residents living in multifamily housing facilities in Saudi Arabia? This finding can be

explained by the study conducted by Weiderman and Anderson (1985). According to

these researchers, resident satisfaction was a function o f residential quality, wherein the

amount o f contentment residents felt regarding their houses and dwelling places were

influenced by the quality of their physical environments. The “average experience”

168

revealed by the participants can be explained the cognitive, emotional, and conative cited

by Weiderman and Anderson (1985). According to these researchers, the cognitive

aspects o f resident satisfaction refer to the rational considerations that residents have

regarding their perceptions o f their housing situation, such as financial concerns. Thus, as

reflected in the current study, financial concerns may induce the average experience of

the participants since o f them have low to average income. This finding may be well

supported by the second theme that emerged from the responses o f the participants which

is, “bad and unsuccessful experience” with multifamily housing in Saudi Arabia.

However, Weidemann and Anderson (1985) argued that resident satisfaction may

become subjective. This is because o f the emotional or affective aspects of resident

satisfaction which refer to the residents’ subjective feelings, such as their personal

priorities in choosing a home or deeming it suitable for habitation. It can then be assumed

that the variance between the participants’ perception towards multifamily housing in

Saudi Arabia may be caused by the emotion aspect o f resident satisfaction.

Interestingly, Weidemann and Anderson (1985) noted that the conative aspects of

resident satisfaction which refers to the striving components o f housing perception and

selection. This facet o f resident satisfaction pertains to the desire to acquire a better

housing system or not. Thus, the “average” to “bad experience” perception may also be

affected by the desire o f the participants to have better housing system. For instance, to

expound on conative aspect o f resident satisfaction, some residents would choose to live

in the same kind o f housing if given the choice.

Accordingly, the theme “bigger space for the rooms and bathrooms” and “no

improvements can be done anymore” emerged from the second research question: Based

1 6 9

on the perceptions o f residents, how can the multifamily housing experience in Saudi

Arabia be improved? The two themes are somehow opposing one another, but just like

the first and second theme, this can be explained by the subjectivity factor o f measuring

resident satisfaction. The emotional and the conative aspects of resident satisfaction play

a major role as reflected by the discrepancy between the findings. Another factor to

consider in emerging to these results is the variance within groups o f individuals. The

results from one study conducted by Mohit, Ibrahim, and Rashid (2012) showed that the

perceptions and selection strategies o f a specific group cannot be generalized to other

groups or populations, given the variety in values that specific groups place on such

aspects.

The fifth theme: “no advantages and benefits observed” emerged from the third

research question: Based on the perception o f residents, how do multifamily housing

facilities benefit Saudi Arabian residents? This finding clearly reflects the conclusions of

Weiderman and Anderson (1985). According to these researchers, as the house become

economically valuable, resident satisfaction increases. Since, there are more participants

with low to average income, it is then expected that there are more who will have

negative responses towards the benefits from living in multifamily housing in Saudi

Arabia. Moreover, the negative responses from the participants can also be equated to the

quality o f life, specifically, physical and mental well-being o f the participants. According

to Kahraman (2013) earlier studies have noted that resident satisfaction, because o f its

overall contribution to the physical and mental well-being o f individuals, also influences

the quality o f life o f residents. Hence, it can be assumed that individuals who are more

satisfied with their houses, usually have higher levels of quality o f life. Furthermore,

170

relating this negative response to the demographic data from the participants, it can be

assumed that most o f the residents in multifamily housing in Saudi Arabia have low

quality o f life.

Essentially, while most o f the findings focused on determining factors that affect

resident satisfaction, it can also be viewed the other way around (Amerigo & Aragones,

1990). According to Amerigo and Aragones (1990), resident satisfaction can also be the

predictor o f residents’ behavior. For instance, the amount o f satisfaction residents derive

from their homes can be viewed as contributing to how these residents behave with

respect to their physical surroundings, their community, and the individuals they interact

with within and around their residents and domiciles (Amerigo & Aragones, 1990).

Relating to the current research, the behavior o f participants which are reflected from the

six themes that emerged from the analysis may be influenced by the very concept this

study is exploring, residents satisfaction.

Finally, the last theme: “concept does not maintain and threatens the tenets o f the

Saudi Arabian culture” emerged from the fourth research question: How does the concept

o f multifamily housing facilities coexist with the tenets o f Saudi Arabian culture? Mohit

and Nazyddah (2009) posited that perceptions and attitudes are influenced by three

things: the five objective components o f the house, the values and norms o f the residents

based on their culture and belief, and the characteristics o f the household. As opposed to

this finding, Sidawi (2009), there exist limitations inherent in the culture o f Saudi Arabia

that prevent its citizens from taking advantage o f available methods o f house construction

and purchase. Sidawi posited that banking Saudi Arabian culture is naturally averse to

the concept o f borrowing or making loans. Thus, it can be assumed that most Saudi

171

Arabians fail to comprehend the concept o f loans, along with its benefits, because of

cultural beliefs regarding the unacceptable nature of acquiring loans from strangers, or

business institutions. With the current study’s findings, this is not the case. Most o f the

participants responded that concept o f multifamily housing does not maintain and

threatens the tenets o f the Saudi Arabian culture.

Insights Derived from the Overlap o f the Two Phases

One insight observed from the two phases o f data gathering is that the residents

mostly felt just "normal" on their level o f satisfaction. This insight may be explained by

the existing literature. These overlapping findings can be explained by the study of

Weiderman and Anderson (1985). According to Weiderman and Anderson (1985),

resident satisfaction was a function o f residential quality which is dependent to the

quality o f their physical environment. The demographic data reflected that most o f the

participants are low to average income. Thus, as reflected in the quantitative and

qualitative findings, the “normal” responses from most o f the participants can be

explained by the notion that the more satisfied the participants with the physical

environment o f their houses, the more they will have resident satisfaction.

Alternatively, the main difference observed was that the respondents from the

survey (quantitative portion) felt “normal to satisfied” with the basic elements presented

such as the physical, environmental, functional, economic, and behavioral while the

participants from the interviews (qualitative portion) had mostly negative reactions when

asked about their feelings on their experiences. The negative reactions stemmed from the

dissatisfactions that they have experienced and complained about previously to the higher

authorities or administration but currently has been not addressed still thus leaving the

172

participants uninterested with the concept o f the multi-family housing. As explained in

the study by Weiderman and Anderson (1985), the emotional and conative aspects of

resident satisfaction in multifamily housing in Saudi Arabia.

Finally, the main similarity observed from the two phases was the satisfaction

with the proximity o f the multifamily housing facilities to the important institutions and

areas. These findings were supported by James (2007). According to James (2007)

residents may have different needs and expectations from their living conditions because

o f the relatively close proximity that they have with respect to their neighbors and to

other families. However, Opoku and Abdul-Muhmin (2010) posited that the three least

important factors considered by low-income Saudi Arabian house buyers are the

following: exterior space, street location, and proximity to relatives.

173

Implications

The popularity o f multifamily housing has been influenced by recent economic

and social changes in the nation. Multifamily housing situations are now much more

common and are seen as a viable alternative to the traditional single-family housing

situation. One implication of this study is the generalizability o f findings to the other

population that should be considered for future study. Future researchers must the

subjective aspects of resident satisfaction. Moreover, policymakers in Saudi Arabia may

have a better picture o f what Saudi Arabians feel about multifamily housing facilities.

Through this finding, they may be able to come up with better solutions for the

stakeholders regarding their housing situation. Moreover, the findings o f the current

study may be used to assess the existing laws and policies in order to have a more

satisfied populace.

Another implication o f the current study is for the housing developers in Saudi

Arabia to use the information gathered here to drive their decisions regarding housing

developments. By considering the perception o f Saudi Arabian residents, the developers

may be able to provide better services to them. Thus, a potential result o f considering

these findings could be higher revenues for them and happier residents. Also, the findings

o f the current study may be beneficial to the scholars in housing studies. Future studies

may consider exploring on other countries by using the findings to guide their research

questions or survey instrument.

Essentially, the findings o f the current study may benefit the citizens of Saudi

Arabia who choose to live in a multifamily housing situation may benefit from the added

information that can be used by the people mentioned above: namely, policymakers,

housing developers, and scholars in housing studies. Through these findings, these

stakeholders will be able to provide and help Saudi Arabians be more satisfied with their

housing situation. This overall resident satisfaction could also lead to a more prosperous

nation, one with adequate and satisfying housing for all.

175

Recoin mendations

The researcher suggested that future studies may consider other quantitative

analysis be conducted to assess the data gathered. Other method such as correlation may

generate concrete conclusions about the topic. Through correlational analysis, future

studies may compare resident satisfaction to other variables that may be related to the

concept. While there is enough number o f samples considered in this study, it is not fully

utilized due to the limited quantitative data analysis.

The population considered in this study is limited to the geographic area of

Damman. Thus, it is recommended that future studies should expand the geographical

scope o f the population to strengthen the generalizability o f the study. Another limitation

o f the present study is that questionnaire being used and adapted from the study

conducted by Inah et al. (2014) has not yet been studied with respect to different cultures.

Thus, the researcher recommended that future studies to consider other quantitative tool

to use to measure resident satisfaction. The questionnaire being used for this current

study was previously used only for the context o f African multifamily housing and

resident satisfaction. Hence, data and analyses from this study need to be validated in

future studies prior to being generalizable.

Finally, the sampling procedure used for the present study also presents another

limitation to the generalizability o f the current study. The current study utilized

convenience sampling method. According to Peterson and Merunka (2014), when

convenience sampling is used, special care must be taken by researchers to ensure that

the sample size and the methods for data collection used mitigate against the limitations

1 7 6

o f non-probability and non-random sampling methods. Thus, other sampling methods are

recommended such as random sampling method in order to ensure credibility o f the

study.

177

Conclusion

Based on the results o f the analysis o f quantitative data, Saudi Arabians who live

in multifamily housing has “normal” response with regards to their resident satisfaction.

Moreover, analysis o f the qualitative data revealed that in general, participants o f the

current study have “average to bad experience” about the multifamily housing facilities in

Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it was found that participant consider having “bigger space for

the rooms and bathrooms” and “no improvements can be done anymore” about their

perceived improvements to the multifamily housing experience in Saudi Arabia.

Accordingly, participants found “no advantages and benefits observed in multifamily

housing” in Saudi Arabia. Finally, it was found that the participants perceived that the

“concept does not maintain and threatens the tenets o f the Saudi Arabian culture”. In

general, it can be concluded that the situation of families in multifamily houses is

acceptable based on their quantitative responses. However, it was revealed in the

qualitative data that families prefer to live in a more spacious area as well as they see the

new form o f housing as a disruptor o f their culture and their way o f life.

APPENDIX

A: Level o f Satisfaction Survey - English

Texas Southern University Houston. Texas

Yazeed M. alshammari

Level of Satisfaction Survey

VK e invite you to participate in a research study conducted by Yazeed M Alshammari from the 1 exas Southern I ’nrversity. \X’e are asking you to take p art in this smdv because we arc trying to leam m ore ab out the resident satisfaction am ong Saudi residents in high-rise mulafamilv housing complexes. I t will take about 15 m inutes o f vour time

'i ou were selected as a possible participant because you are a resident o f Dam m am Mulofamilv H ousing Complex. Your participation is voluntary. There arc no anticipated risks o r benefits to your participation You may decide to discuss your participation with your family o r fnends.

Please com plete the following Level o f Satisfaction Survey based on the project o f Dam m am H ousing C omplex. Thank vou for t o u t tunc.

P ro je c t N a m e :

D am m am H ousing Complex, Saudi Arabia

D a te :

O c t o b e r 15. 2014

T h a n k you very m uch for taking the rime to com plete this survev. Y our feedback is valued an d verv m uch appreciated!

\ 1

L r r t/ af Satisfaction Stm rt •

Texas Southern U niversity Houston. Texas

Yazeed M. alshammari

Level o f Satisfaction Survev

W i k is y o u r G ender? 0Muk □ Fenwlc

W hich o f th e fo llo w in g categoriya h e s t describes yo u r age? D 3i* 3*' p r i I 4 i ' □ 41 5*1 □ 51 b o l d e r

3. W bjfib o f th e fo llo w in g d escrib es yo u ? J 2 S E m p lciv rd Q U n e m p lo y e d D R etired D S ru d cn i O ( Hhcr

4. Horyenaary a d u lts in th e household? 0 \ - 2 ' D 3 4 D 5 - 6 0 - 8

S. D o y b u h ave a n a d u h so n w ith w ife a n d children liv in g w ith you? Ye* □ N o □ ( )th e r

6. W h jn o o f th e fo llo w in g ca teg o ries b e st d escribes yo u r h o u seh o ld m o n th ly incom e? S i b , CK X t-IO .fX K ) □ IO.ik’M - 1 5 ,0 0 0 □ 15.(i01 - 2 0 . 0 0 0 □ 2 0 .0 0 1 - 25.00* \ □ 2 5 .0 0 0

Level o f Sotufoction Swrvrt • October IS , 2014 2

Texas Southern U niversity Houston. Texas

Yazeed M. alshammari

L e v e l o f Satisfaction Survey

PSemsr masmer th e fo llo w in g q u estio n u itb S i baaed o n th e level ofsm dsfm cdon where:

I — E xtrem efy N o t Smtishmd 2 — N o t Sm dshcd J - N orm al 4 = Sm dshed S ~ E xtreta eh ■ Sm ashed

H WarnHi B B 7. H ow co n te n t m e y o u w ith th e f i r e o f co m pound □ □ □ □

S. H on- coarear m e yo u w ith th e u s e o f room s □ □ □ □

9 . H ow c o n te n t m e yo u w ith A c electrical fbtntres D D □ □ JO. H ow c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e no. o f room s EĴ □ □ □ D JJ. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e to ile t a n d bathroom available l / □ □ □ □ 1 2 H ow co n te n t are y o u w ith th e operation o f doors □ X T ' D □ □

IS . H o n ■ c o n te n t are yo u w ith th e r o o f perform ance □ 0 ^ □ □ □

J4. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e q u a lity o f b u ild in g m aterials □ x / □ □ □

IS . H ow c o n te n t are yo u n itb th e storage apace □ e f ^ □ □ □

16. H ow c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e ceilin g h eig h ts □ □ a □

H M B B B 17. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e lir e ven tila tio n □ □ □

IS. H ow c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e n o ise p o llu tio n D □ r f □ □

19. H o w c o n te n t are yo u w ith th e w ater p o llu tio n D et"" a □ D 20. H ow c o n te n t are yo u n itb th e a ir p o llu tio n D x / ' □ □ D

21. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e a va ila b ility o f g o o d road □ □ a-"' □ D 2 2 H ow co n te n t are y o u w ith th e drainage system □ z ' P □ □

23. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e w aste d isp o sa l system □ ES □ □ D

L r tv J o f Satisfaction Stfive) ’ 3

Texas Southern U niversity Houston. Texas

Yazeed M. alshammari

Level o f Satisfaction Survex

/ 1 \( no\ M in \fi \ /' 24. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e p o sitio n o fd iffe r e n t room s □ o ' p □ □

25. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith d ie h e ig h t o f th e Boot □ c f ^ □ □ □

26. H o w c o a te o t are y o u w ith th e p a rkin g apace □

□ □

c K □

27.: H o w c o a te o t are y o u w ith th e fu n c tio n a lity in d esig n □ D □

IB mm■ 28. H o w c o a te o t see y o u w itb th e le v e l o tp riv a cy in b ouse □ O □ □

29. H o w c o n te n t a te y o u w ith th e p ro xim ity to p ls c r o fw o tsb ip □ □ □ □

30. H on- c o n tro l are y o u w ttb th e b u ild in g g et b tc k t □ IT"'' □ / -

□ □

31. H o w c o n te n t n te y o a w itb ib e e ecu rity le v e l o f bouse □ BI □ □ □ 32. H o w c o n te n t u te y o u n itb th e p h y sic s! sp p e stsn c e z f ' □ □ □ □

33. H o w co n te n t s te y o u w itb th e p ro xim ity o f bouse to p o lic e stsd o n □ o '' □ □ □

34. H o w c o n te n t s re y o u w itb tb e p ro xim ity o f bo u se to b o sp itn l □ g / p □ □

35. H o w c o n te n t a te y o u w itb tb e p ro xim ity o f b o u se to Ore ststio n □ D □ a

36. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith tb e e x te n t o f so cia l relation am ong n eig h b o rs □ □ □ □

37. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith tb e p ro xim ity to sch o o l fo r children □ or □ a □ 38. H o w c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e p ro xim ity o f h o u se to m a rket □ □ □ □

39. H o w c o n te n t are }t>u n itb th e p ro xim ity o f b o u se to w orkplace □ d ^ u a □

□ □

40. H ow ' c o n te n t are y o u w ith th e freq u en cy o f b o u se m a in ten a n ce □ □ □

l - t v t l s f Sahsfoiltvtt Servry * 4

182

Texas Southern University H ouston. Texas

Yazeed M. alsham m ari

Level o f Satisfaction S u r v o

/ 7 i I f M I \ / s

41. H o w c o n te n t a rt y o u w itb tb e ea sin ess o f m aintenance o fb o u te

42. T be overmO le v el o f sa tisfaction

□ s f . □ D □

□ O □ □ □

43. H o w m any children b v t in tb ejtd u seb o ld ? □ 1 - 2 B T - 4 □ 5 - 6 n 7<

44. A re a ll y o u r fa m ily m em bers liv in g in tb e h o u seh o ld a a tit/fcd w itb yo u r Hving? □ Yes

IVbv?

1 sadsfkd tyko

-........................Lln&uiiu-hfje....c££L*.i.yn.................... 43. //p o s sib le , p le a te in clu d e each o f tb e fa m ily m em bers overall le v e l o fsa tisfa ctio n :

f \ M i l > M l M / i l /(•s

F am ily m em b er 1

F am ily m em b er 2

F am ih m em b er J

F am ily m em b er 4

F am ih• m em b er 5

□ Xfi / D

O E J D

46. C om m ents / T estim onial:

L r v r f o f Satisfaction Jjmei * 5

183

B: Level o f Satisfaction Survey - A rabic

O'*-® î jawJ Jjjn . atjj3U ylk

Uajh pUiiCAMfr-M

*j* ^ <iijLS3 j l j> .ijAiAt y j V 0 * */>•*-& 4 )* »ijj2Ldi spiLk 4SjLUi > 4 {* . I t V u 4^X<Ji ^ ^ t ^ o l ,*iu p jwj>J (jH U * j | l J j m a i ^ -if j J I f k w J U t ^

4 jLlmfl J J> SluWfc* jLll.- lJ1 *-y V / “• j^“ jXXjI.^. L̂ ~~? C~7~" lJ*-‘ t5~~-

. A j < Jk dB *,A“ ,^L*jfc 4̂ SmA £•**-* £ JL>"** o**4 ̂ k i j B i f jL *» jp . JUMMilfl <Jl£{

julk 4 ĵik <H*Jl — ylijl *^- |m!

2014 j ! j &1 i s

•4J4&I -, |*4 -j i4£-jl 0 W*

j a D

c * * ^ . 1

jSi □

j& - 51 a 50-41 O

f S ) i t s * I d # ! 2 40-31 a 30 - 20 Q '"

tdb jjL q je.iAi« n

r i ^ a ^ i j ^ u o - ^ s

-■.-11- Cl t-abj* J|fc O -J&j* □

8 j* 1 □ b . 7 a * d j i 3 £ l* B ~ V ( 1 8 t A $ O t K B * 1 0 f * A

<•• 5 □ 4 -3 O ' 2 - 1 □

dftj Q

( J J U I o 3 S 41+j J j < *i/l A k * C f~ * J t j

V D <«i □

n u M t^ ie i^ ju e j^ fS jb jB 1 - 25001 □ 25000-20001 O 20000- 151101 □ 15000- 10001 B T ^ 10000-5000 □

1 O d o txrtA X U

(jjL A I k_ij a

J | j f - e ljjf lliB i ^ l k

Lu)jH jjTuiao £}jy- -1 f1** CM-I fr«**

|i>M« AfU y k sU ^t t J^jl

4 *J o - 0 > » J “1

□ □ a x s □ v * ^ & e * t * 7

□ □ □ a □ £ * L StjM t fj L * * j k La a

□ □ □ a □ ijM ijtS K C i ^ S j i t ^ a L l j t j j l a a a j t U 9

□ □ d □ □ ia kjM ffJ ia sm J k La 1 0

□ □ a □ □ i * t i J t Hi^l tfj& a * * J t U 1 1

□ □ □ □ □ L* 12

□ □ d □ □ kJLJ! q JL*£» LiyM f j j L t j * U 1 3

□ a 0" □ □ ti& fjij* Ltjp.£* uy^fkM ji u 14

□ a □ et □ fV L&jBifjSm** j i L 15

□ □ □ □ □ aJLJi CteUSJ fra j * u 15

□ □ □ d □ t j t t i j j t a p u i u 17 □ □ Ef' a □ ta ijA ltijB X g * U tjM a jp ** j» U I t □ □ a □ □ 9^*3 iSfjttfra Uqjt ffjlam* j t La 19 □ □ a □ □ 0(j$2al(jBfra L i j l j j l — J t la 30 □ a □ □ □ £j>j U ) l ^ J I J j U l j i j i f r . L ij t j j L ~ a j S U 21 a Of □ a □ v : a t î jamtt plMi£* ia ĵM j j l a a jA U 21 □ □ a a □ LjJii»t}a<j* liJ llfU / £ * L^Jajlaaa J t La 23

2 <-0» .<>*»<*<*■'- Ono»rrJ5,MM

185

□ □ □ o ' □ 2 4

□ □ cT □ □ j $ i 9 g t t j l f i f i h + j i & jS*m JA Lt 2 S □ □ a 0 □ L S yM & JL * jA L» 2 6 □ a □ □ ^ * U fi fim U yM & j!» M ,jA U 2 7

□ a □ a U s j M j A L, 2 $ □ □ □ ia □ +~Jf(fM4lL~Jl£* UylajLm J* U 29 □ □ □ o' □ fb*0*4 i t j i * * £* U 30 □ □ ef □ □ 4 J & * ! g * L iu M &ji*m j » u 3 J □ □ i / □ □ ^ j U J j n M » S g * L i j S j » U 3 2

□ o' □ / □ a 2 h j J J t J t J , ̂ H u » t t f i . L J t^M ( t J M , J A U 3 3 a □ t / □ □ ^ L t S . ^ 3 ^ 4 - a L ^ t y t A jM J A U 3 4 □ □ □ □ v i u » £ t i a t j 4 i i ~ j > 6 * u 35

□ □ □ 03 □ C f j ! * * & / fb U H & A t £ t U y 3 a j S ~ * J A u 36 □ □ E- i a □ I j l j U J I f f M i l l u m t g * L 2 (j M 0 j S— j A L , 3 7 □ D o ' □ □ , t u J t J 1 3 m B f i t U i ( j t t f j l m t j A U 33

□ □ P e T □ d m 3 f i t U k j t J A U 3 9

□ □ O / □ □ J J i t B ^ V > » J * j * j i £ * U > j! * j b — J A U 4 0

Xfltuf* £“ ,'A', tt‘Jlt^ J* lj* 41 twQI 4* 42

3 October IS, JOi4

186

(jXwiSS Aiuibk • Cy' ~

Jtif - »tjjaUB s*fc luajll (Jj / nat

j » i - 7 □ 6 - 5 0 < - 3 0 ^ 2 - t D

^ p J a lt t l j i d f f j j A * ^ j* il j t f i ll1 #f>Ap/ / I * , 44

v car^

.......... . . . ^ w ^ y p t f . . . . . . . . . ............................................

T ^ I U J t f j J * AJX*M jIjJH U k j jjlts * j* U tit j$ s

□ □ □ □ I f i j A * * 1 □ o ef □ □ 2 o a 0 o □ 3 □ □ ef □ □ 4 ( l J jA m B 4 n o o el a S f i j j A a S ! 5

............................

O c to b e r 3S, 2 0 1 4

REFERENCES

Agus, R., Doling, J., & Lee, D. (2002). Housing policy systems in South and East Asia.

New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Al-Jamea, M. (2014). Towards social and cultural sustainability in the designs of

contemporary Saudi houses. International Journal o f Sustainable Human

Development 2. Retrieved from http://ijshd.eduservgroup.com/wp/wp-

content/uploads/2014/05/Vol2Issl -p35-43-Al-Jamea.pdf

Amerigo, M. & Aragones, J. (1990). Residential satisfaction in council housing. Journal

o f Environmental Psychology, 10, 313-325.

Amerigo, M. & Aragones, J. (1997). A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to

Residential Satisfaction. Journal o f Environmental Psychology, 7997(117), 47-57.

Anderson, J. & Weidemann, S. (1997). Developing and utilizing models o f resident

satisfaction. In G. Moore & R. Marans (Eds.), Advances in Environment,

Behavior, and Design, pp. 287-314. New York: Plenum Press.

Asharaf A.S., Mouselhy, M.A. 2012. Dynamics o f Saudi Arabian Population: Analysis

through four censuses -1974, 1992,2004 and 2010. Riyadh Center for Population

Studies.

Assaf, S., Bubshaitr, A. & Al-Muwasheer, F. (2010). Factors affecting affordable housing

cost in Saudi Arabia. International Journal o f Housing Markets and Analysis 3,

290-307.

Atkins, P., Blumenthal, P., Edisis, A., Friedhoff, A., Curran, L., Lowry, L., St. Clair, T.,

187

http://ijshd.eduservgroup.com/wp/wp-

188

Wial, H., & Wolman, H. (2011). Responding to Manufacturing Job Loss: What

Can Economic Development Policy Do? Washington: Brookings Institution.

Retrieved from

http://www.brookings.edU/~/media/research/files/papers/2011 /6/manufacturing%

2 Oj ob%201 oss/06_m an ufacturi ng_j ob_l oss. pdf

Canales, G. (2012). Transformative mixed methods checklist for psychological research

with Mexican-Americans. Journal o f Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 6-21.

doi:10.1177/1558689812446022

Caruth, G. (2013). Demystifying mixed methods research design: A review of the

literature. Mevlana International Journal o f Education 3.

http://dx.d0 i.0rg/l 0.13054/mije. 13.35.3.2

Comia, G. & Slade, B. (2005). Property Taxation o f Multifamily Housing: An Empirical

Analysis o f Vertical and Horizontal Equity. Journal o f Real Estate Research,

27(1), 17-46.

Deasy, C. (1985). Designing places fo r people. New York: Whitney Library of Design.

DeLisle, J. (2001). Real Estate Capital Markets: Transitional Economic Turmoil Amidst

Demographic Change. The Appraisal Journal, 1(A), 47-50.

Farrokhi, F. & Magmoudi-Hamidabad, A. (2012). Rethinking convenience sampling:

Defining quality criteria. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2. doi:

10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction

to theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

http://www.brookings.edU/~/media/research/files/papers/2011

http://dx.d0i.0rg/l

Follain, J. (1994). Some Possible Directions for Research on Multifamily Housing.

Housing Policy Debate, 5(4), 533-568.

Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. (1986). Residential satisfaction and

residential quality: an overview o f recent applications. Paper presented at the 21st

International Congress o f Applied Psychology, Jerusalem, Israel.

Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. (1989). Evaluating the built

environment from the users’ point o f view: an attitudinal model o f residential

satisfaction. In W. Preiser (Ed.), Building Evaluation, pp. 181-198. New York:

Plenum Press.

Glick, J., Bean, F., & van Hook, J. (1997). Immigration and changing patterns of

extended family household structure in the United States 1970-1990. Journal o f

Marriage and the Family, 59( 1), 177-191.

Goodman, J. (1999). The Changing Demography o f Multifamily Rental Housing.

Housing Policy Debate, 70(1), 31-57.

Greaney, A., Sheehey, A., Heffeman, C., Murphy, J., Mhaolrunaigh, N., Heffeman, E. &

Brown, G. (2012). Research ethics application: A guide for the novice researcher.

British Journal o f Nursing 21. Retrieved from http://stabler3010.

pbworks.eom/w/llle/fetch/60346390/Greeney%20Sheehy%20et%20al%20researc

h%20ethics.pdf

Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2009). Qualitative methods fo r health research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Heywood, F., Oldman, C., & Means, R. (2002). Housing and home in later life.

Philadelphia: Open University Press.

http://stabler3010

Hwang, E. & Ziebarth, A. (2006). Impacts o f residential environments on housing

satisfaction among Korean-American elders. Housing and Society, 33(2), 1 -20.

Inah, S. A., Yaro, M. A., Agbor, E. A., & Ukene, D. (2014). Residential housing

satisfaction o f the urban poor in Calabar Metropolis, Nigeria. Architecture

Research, 4(1 A), 1-8. doi:10.5923/s.arch.201401.01

James, R., III (2007). Multifamily Housing Characteristics and Tenant Satisfaction.

Journal o f Performance o f Constructed Facilities, 21(6), 472-480.

Kahraman, Z. E. H. (2013). Dimensions o f housing satisfaction: A case study based on

perceptions Of rural migrants living in Dikmen. Metu Jfa, 1.

Kellekci, O. & Berkoz, L. (2006). Mass housing: user satisfaction in housing and its

environment in Istanbul, Turkey. European Journal o f Housing Policy, 6(1), 77-

99.

Klassen, A. C., Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V. L., Clegg Smith, K., & Meissner, H. I.

(2012). Best practices in mixed methods for quality o f life research. Quality o f

Life Research, 21, 377-380. doi: 10.1007/s 11136-012-0122-x

Lara, T. & Bekker, M. (2012). Resident Satisfaction as a Project Quality Measure: the

Case o f Nova Vida Housing Project, Angola. Journal o f Contemporary

Management, 9, 364-381. Retrieved from

http://www.dspace.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/20649/Lara_Resident(2012).p

df?sequence=l

Larco, N. Steiner, B., Stockard, B., & West, A. (2011). Pedestrian-Friendly Environments

and Active Travel for Residents o f Multifamily Housing: the Role o f Preferences

and Perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 44(3), 303-333.

http://www.dspace.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/20649/Lara_Resident(2012).p

Mandic, S. & Cirman, A. (2012). Housing conditions and their structural determinants:

comparisons with the enlarged EU. Urban Studies, 49(4), 777-793.

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size in saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3).

Mohit, M. & Nazyddah, N. (2009). Social housing programme o f Selangor Zakat Board

o f Malaysia and housing satisfaction. Journal o f Housing and the Built

Environment, 26(2), 143-164. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.eom/article/l 0.1007/s 10901-011 -9216-y/fulltext.html

Mohit, M., Ibrahim, M., & Rashid, Y. (2010). Assessment o f residential satisfaction

in newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat

International, 54(2010), 18-27.

Mohit, M. & Nazyddah, N. (2009). Social housing programme o f Selangor Zakat Board

of Malaysia and housing satisfaction. Journal o f Housing and the Built

Environment, 26(2), 143-164. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.eom/article/l 0.1007/s 10901-011 -9216-y/fulltext.html

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

National Association o f Home Builders (2014 February 5). “Demand for Multifamily

Housing will Continue to Rise in 2014 and Beyond.” Retrieved from

http://www.nahb.org/news_detai ls.aspx?newsID= 16639&fromGS A= 1

Newman, S. & Duncan, G. (1979). Residential problems, dissatisfaction and mobility.

Journal o f the American Planning Association, 45, 106-112.

Oakley, D., Ruel, E., & Reid, L. (2012). Atlanta’s Last Demolitions and Relocations: The

http://link.springer.eom/article/l

http://www.nahb.org/news_detai

Relationship Between Neighborhood Characteristics and Resident Satisfaction.

Housing Studies, 28(2), 205-234. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2013.767887

Obrinsky, M. & Stein, D. (2007). Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental

Housing. In symposium Revisiting Rental Housing: A National Policy Summit.

Symposium conducted at the Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard

University, March 2007. Retrieved from

http://l 40.247.195.238/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/rr07-14_obrinsky_stein.pdf

Ogu, V. (2002). Urban residential satisfaction and the planning implications in a

developing world context: the example o f Benin City, Nigeria. Internaional

Planning Studies, 7(1), 37-53.

Opoku, R. & Abdul-Muhmin, A. (2010). Housing preferences and attribute importance

among low-income consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat International 34. Doi:

10.1016/j .habitatint.2009.09.006

Paris, D. & Kangari, R. (2005). Multifamily Affordable Housing: Residential

Satisfaction. Journal o f performance o f constructed facilities, 19(2), 138-145.

Peterson, R. & Merunka, D. (2014). Convenience samples o f college students and

research reproductibility. Journal o f Business Research 67. doi:

10.1016/j .jbusres.2013.08.010

Potter, J. & Cantarero, R. (2006). How Does Increasing Population and Diversity Affect

Resident Satisfaction? A Small Community Case Study. Environment and

Behavior, 38(5), 605-625. doi: 10.1177/0013916505284797

Potter, J., Chicoine, J., & Speicher, K. (2001). Predicting Residential Satisfaction: A

http://l

comparative case study. Architecture Program: Faculty Scholarly and Create

Activity, 75-83. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=arch_fa

cultyschol

Prakash, S. (2013). Racial Dimensions o f Property Value Protection Under the Fair

Housing Act. California Law Review, 101(5), 1437-1498.

Prosper, V. (2004). Aging in Place in Multifamily Housing. Cityscape: A Journal o f

Policy Development and Research, 7(1), 81-106.

Rapoport, A. (1969). House, Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Salam, A. (2013). Population and household census, Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia 2010:

Facts and figures. International Journal o f Humanities and Social Science 3.

Retrieved from http://www.ijhssnet.com/joumals/Vol_3_No_16

_Special_Issue_August_2013/31 .pdf

Schuetz, J. (2008). Guarding the Town Walls: Mechanisms and Motives for Restricting

Multifamily Housing in Massachusetts. Real Estate Economics, 36(3), 555-586.

Sidawi, B. (2009). Hindrances to the financing o f affordable housing in Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia. Emirates Journal fo r Engineering Research 14. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edU/l 196044/Hindrances to the financing of affordable

housing_in_Kingdom_of_Saudi_Arabia

Ulusoy, M., Erdogan, E., Yildiz, E., & Erdogan, H. (2012). An Investigation on

Residential Satisfaction in Mass Housing: A Case Study o f Garanti Houses in

Konya-Turkey. In symposium 1st International Conference on Architecture &

Urban Design. Symposium conducted at the ICAUD Proceedings, Konya,

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=arch_fa

http://www.ijhssnet.com/joumals/Vol_3_No_16

http://www.academia.edU/l

1 9 4

Turkey. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/download/30400764/1 icaud2012_mine_ulusoy_eerdog

an_eyildiz haerdogan.pdf

Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. (1982). Residents’ perceptions o f satisfaction and safety:

a basis for change in multifamily housing. Environment and Behavior, 14(6), 695-

724.

Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential

satisfaction. In I. Altman & C. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments, pp. 153-182.

New York: Plenum Press.

Wiesenfeld, E. (1992). Public housing evaluation in Venezuela: a case study. Journal o f

Environmental Psychology, 12, 213-223.

Zietz, E. (2003). Multifamily Housing: A Review o f Theory and Evidence. Journal o f

Real Estate Research, 25(2), 185-244.

http://www.academia.edu/download/30400764/1

ASSESSMENT OF SAUDI FAMILIES’ LEVEL OF SATISFACTION TOWARD LIVING IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX: THE DAMMAM HOUSING COMPLEX

Yazeed Mazyad Alshammari, Ph.D.

Texas Southern University, 2015

Professor Lalita Sen, Advisor

Abstract

Multifamily housing facilities have rapidly gained in popularity over the last

decade in Saudi Arabia. Social and economic changes have influenced more Saudi

Arabians to forego traditional single-family housing. As the goal o f all housing is to

satisfy the resident, this new kind o f housing must be examined in terms o f resident

satisfaction, to determine success. This study was conducted with the goal o f revealing

the perceptions o f Saudi Arabian residents regarding multifamily housing facilities in

Saudi Arabia. A mixed methods approach was used: a quantitative survey questionnaire

and a qualitative interview instrument. The former was used to provide numerical data on

the residents o f multifamily housing facilities, and the latter was used to provide context

and shed light on any social or cultural factors that influence resident satisfaction in Saudi

Arabia. By determining these perceptions, policymakers and housing developers can

provide better services to these residents. Moreover, these residents may feel the benefits

o f this study in the future, through the efforts o f policymakers and housing developers,

giving them a better home and life.

195