The Role of Neighborhood Origin in the Residential Satisfaction …
445
the argument that the variation in RS explained by the model for formal origin
neighborhoods is low because of the standardization process embedded in formal
housing delivery. In this regard, research has shown that standardized delivery models
often result in developments with houses constructed of permanent materials and with
infrastructure provided, but that these developments may lack character, giving rise
to descriptions of them as sterile (Bond and Tait 1997).
Yet, given the greater explanatory power of the model of RS for informal origin
neighborhoods at 51.2%, a closer examination of the nuances and potential differences between the three selected neighborhoods in this category might be beneficial
to better understand the results. However, that direction is beyond the scope of the
present study. It is interesting to find that of all the selected variables of the model,
Architectural and Town-planning has the greatest effect on RS for this group. The
three informal neighborhoods included in the sample differ from each other significantly in terms of physical characteristics. Yet, the residents consider physical
characteristics to be quite important to RS. Architectural and Town-Planning as conceptualized in this study deals with building aesthetics and building density, two
aspects most people would assume are best handled by experts. Yet, these aspects
show a greater impact on RS in informal origin neighborhoods than in formal origin
neighborhoods. It would, therefore, be beneficial for future research to address how
residents conceptualize building aesthetics and building density in order to better
understand their impact on RS.
Two variables are common to both models of RS: (i) Architectural and TownPlanning, and (ii) Unsafe. This is consistent with the literature that defines both the
physical built environment and social aspects of residential areas as the overarching
categories contributing to RS (Amérigo and Aragones 1997). The perception of being
unsafe in formal origin neighborhoods can be interpreted as a failure of formal housing delivery for which safety has been and continues to be a focal concern. In Latin
America, gated communities have become the common simplistic response to safety
concerns (Coy and Pöhler 2002). In the case of Bogotá, the trend toward low-income
gated communities is intended to match the residential features offered to affluent
citizens under the assumption that doing so solves issues pertaining to vandalism
and other crimes. However, given the low impact of the regression model for formal
origin neighborhoods, the perception of being unsafe becomes less important in the
context of all the variables used to explain RS for residents of these neighborhoods.
The perception of feeling Unsafe had more impact on RS for informal origin
neighborhoods (B = −0.164) than for formal origin neighborhoods (B = −0.157).
The fact that the variable Unsafe was important in both models of RS underscores
the significance of social aspects as contributors to RS (Amérigo and Aragones
1997). Moreover, the greater contribution of this variable to RS in the informal
origin neighborhoods as compared to the formal origin neighborhoods corroborates
research that has established the importance of social factors in informal housing
(Chavis and Wandersman 1990).
However, even though social factors are important, the fact that Unsafe contributed
more to the model in informal origin neighborhoods indicates that participatory processes associated with the development of this kind of neighborhood in Bogotá does
445
the argument that the variation in RS explained by the model for formal origin
neighborhoods is low because of the standardization process embedded in formal
housing delivery. In this regard, research has shown that standardized delivery models
often result in developments with houses constructed of permanent materials and with
infrastructure provided, but that these developments may lack character, giving rise
to descriptions of them as sterile (Bond and Tait 1997).
Yet, given the greater explanatory power of the model of RS for informal origin
neighborhoods at 51.2%, a closer examination of the nuances and potential differences between the three selected neighborhoods in this category might be beneficial
to better understand the results. However, that direction is beyond the scope of the
present study. It is interesting to find that of all the selected variables of the model,
Architectural and Town-planning has the greatest effect on RS for this group. The
three informal neighborhoods included in the sample differ from each other significantly in terms of physical characteristics. Yet, the residents consider physical
characteristics to be quite important to RS. Architectural and Town-Planning as conceptualized in this study deals with building aesthetics and building density, two
aspects most people would assume are best handled by experts. Yet, these aspects
show a greater impact on RS in informal origin neighborhoods than in formal origin
neighborhoods. It would, therefore, be beneficial for future research to address how
residents conceptualize building aesthetics and building density in order to better
understand their impact on RS.
Two variables are common to both models of RS: (i) Architectural and TownPlanning, and (ii) Unsafe. This is consistent with the literature that defines both the
physical built environment and social aspects of residential areas as the overarching
categories contributing to RS (Amérigo and Aragones 1997). The perception of being
unsafe in formal origin neighborhoods can be interpreted as a failure of formal housing delivery for which safety has been and continues to be a focal concern. In Latin
America, gated communities have become the common simplistic response to safety
concerns (Coy and Pöhler 2002). In the case of Bogotá, the trend toward low-income
gated communities is intended to match the residential features offered to affluent
citizens under the assumption that doing so solves issues pertaining to vandalism
and other crimes. However, given the low impact of the regression model for formal
origin neighborhoods, the perception of being unsafe becomes less important in the
context of all the variables used to explain RS for residents of these neighborhoods.
The perception of feeling Unsafe had more impact on RS for informal origin
neighborhoods (B = −0.164) than for formal origin neighborhoods (B = −0.157).
The fact that the variable Unsafe was important in both models of RS underscores
the significance of social aspects as contributors to RS (Amérigo and Aragones
1997). Moreover, the greater contribution of this variable to RS in the informal
origin neighborhoods as compared to the formal origin neighborhoods corroborates
research that has established the importance of social factors in informal housing
(Chavis and Wandersman 1990).
However, even though social factors are important, the fact that Unsafe contributed
more to the model in informal origin neighborhoods indicates that participatory processes associated with the development of this kind of neighborhood in Bogotá does