Keywords

Neighborhood satisfaction; Home satisfaction; Saudi Arabia; Shantytowns; Migration

Introduction

As agreed, slums or shantytown is an unresolved urban issue faced by many developing countries [1]. It is a result of rapid urban growth crowding of people in urban areas and loss of prime land. Unprecedented population growth associated with the uncontrolled flow of rural to urban migration pressurizes governments or urban sectors to build houses but falling short of the demands of housing, the shortage of which forces people to build their own housing in shanty or slum areas [2]. Cities in the Arab countries including Cairo, Alexandria (Egypt), Dubai (United Arab Emirates) face this issue [3]. Saudi Arabia has not suffered severely from slums or shanty areas as experienced by other developing countries because of the government’s aggressive approaches or initiatives [3,4]. But still this issue l is not fully resolved and therefore, needs for further intervention to blunt its influence on the quality of living.

Specifically, Riyadh city has few such shanty areas despite the rapid growth of urban infrastructure and strong commitments to city development. Such areas developed from multiple factors including the rural to urban migration in search of buying or building homes suitable but affordable for family size [5]. The influx of migrants, similar to Riyadh, lead to growing number of shanty areas in Lahore city, Pakistan [6]. Davis (2006) [7] rightly attributed this rural-urban migration to the growth of slums and squatter settlements. Such instances increase urban poverty, despite increased incomes [8].

According to Khraif (2000) [9], the rural to urban migration phenomenon is a stimulus to both the native-concentrated service sectors and foreigner-concentrated commercial and productive sectors of Riyadh city. Moreover, it attracts people from other locations and outside of the Kingdom, but creates overcrowded and substandard residential colonies leading to unsafe shanty or slum areas. Erected rickety shacks with mud, wood, secondhand zinc sheet metal, cement blocks, etc., [4] without legal recognition of rights characterizes such dwellings. However, immigrant segregations as well as rental market discriminations complicate the housing sectors in many shanty localities [10], subsequently, cause an increase in house rental price.

Migrants-a majority of Riyadh’s shanty area residents-differ from others in terms of age, education, type of housing, and home ownership [5]. Moreover, their future intention to move out from such places is influenced by their attachments with the locality such as duration of stay, homeownership, and parent’s residences [11], which, in turn, influence their satisfaction level. Therefore, this paper attempts to shed some light on the satisfaction of shanty area residents. The specific objectives are as follows:

a. To investigate satisfaction of residents at various shantytowns of Riyadh, from both neighborhoods and home; and

b. To model the explanatory variables.

This study shall not rely on characteristics and contributing factors of the growth of shanty areas but shall give more attention on the personal profiles and attachments of residents such as education, work status, income, place of birth, nationality, etc., which directly or indirectly affect satisfaction. These analyses expected to provide valuable information to stakeholders of urban sectors to manage the shanty/slum development and at the same time bring prosperity to the residents.

Hence, this paper is structured as follows: the next section describes the literature review that throws some light on characteristics of Shanty areas and the contributing factors that promote of life satisfaction. The third section addresses the methodology includes data and methods, and background study area. The results and discussions are included in the fourth section. The final part is conclusions and recommendations.

Literature Review: Contributing Factors of Life Satisfaction in Shanty Areas

Shanty areas are less amenable environments or neighborhoods in terms of housing structures, crudely built huts, cabins, or houses, power, water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructures [12], often, attracting people of lower socio-economic status. That is, lack of decent housing, schools, clinics, dependable transporting to and from work, as well as political voice but exposed to infectious diseases, crimes and natural disasters [13]. It is projected about 1.5 billion urban residents shall be slum dwellers by 2020: most of them in developing countries [14]. Often, the migrations stimulated by the advances in transportation and communication technologies leads to the development of such neighborhoods [15], urban decay, or rapid urban growth. Lack of interventions by governments complicates this issue [16].

Disadvantages of such inferior dwellings have influenced quality of life, both personally and environmentally; they are not suitable for good health or satisfaction of residents with their housing situations and neighborhoods [16,17]. Despite that, an attractive appearance that includes innovative designs and perceived safety of neighborhoods is a predictor of satisfaction [18].

Life satisfaction, defined as evaluations of one’s life according to subjectively determined standards [19], has motivational goals as the basis [20]. Besides that, better health, optimism, financial security, participation in activities and hobbies, and a good sexual relationship promote satisfaction in life [21]. Again, personal characteristics like physical impairments, leisure activities, marital and mental health status, and family relations have also significant predictive value on satisfaction [22]. Therefore, residential satisfaction may include an adequacy of thermal and visual comfort and security, the size of living and sleeping areas, and management of the housing estate [23].

However, a mismatched perception of neighborhood characteristics influences environmental satisfaction [24]. Therefore environmental satisfaction is influenced by not only the intention to stay but also by the place of residence and the routine events of that place (shanty areas) [25]. However, residents of a certain type of shantytown-slum-have lower levels of life satisfaction than others do though they are more satisfied than expected [26]. The housing conditions, amenities and personal safety receive attention in context of satisfaction with the neighborhood environment [27], in addition to the relationship between the individual and residential or home environment [28].

Even, shanty town residents are poor but healthier than the conventional housing residents [29]. At this extent, however, in nature, they are extremely poor with socioeconomic and environmental conditions that exaggerate urban poverty and childhood malnutrition and contamination of drinking water stored in shanty areas caused diarrhea [30,31].

Reconsidering all the contributing factors of satisfaction, this paper has selected some important factors underlying the personal profiles and attachments of residents such as education level, work status, income, place of birth, nationality, etc., in order to examine their satisfaction levels on their neighborhood and the home and to model the variables that influences satisfaction.

Methodology

This study is a questionnaire-based survey conducted in shanty towns of Riyadh’s city. The survey is carried out through face-toface interviews with randomly selected head of households using a semi-structured schedule and covering various aspects related to satisfaction—soliciting information regarding neighborhoods and homes. Data collected during 2015-2016 by using a stratified sampling method covered 430 household heads. Figure 1 shows the location map of shantytowns covered in this study.

Figure 1: Location map of shantytowns selected for the study.

The shantytowns due to their strategic locations in the city, which cover hectare of lands. The unstructured housing and unhygienic environments damage the city image due to improper waste disposal systems, dilapidated buildings, poorly built roads, and deficient water, electricity and sewage infrastructure in the unused government lands. Some of them are very accessible to the main roads and are quite similar in character with the squatter settlements in many other countries. These areas exist since 40 years ago near to military and factory areas but now spread to the rapidly developing Riyadh city boundaries such as Al-Mursalat and Al-Jibs.

The sample selected from shantytown populations proportionally: a large majority from Al-Mursalat (30.7%); followed by Al-Jibs (14.0%), Ibn Shuraim (14.0%), An-Nahdha (12.8%), Okaz (11.6%), Al-Ghannamiyya (9.0%), and Al-Ammajiyya (7.9%). These percentages are proportional to the population percentages in these neighborhoods (Table 1).

Table 1 Housing units and sample size by shanty areas.

Data is analyzed through a linear regression separately for each of the different dimensions related to satisfaction - neighborhood and home (using a Likert type 5 point scales: very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, somewhat satisfied, satisfied, and very satisfied), against a model of indicators categorized into three elements, namely: personal, urban service (public water facility), and attachments. A missing data replacement performed (linear interpolation) to gain full credits for the sample size (missing data ranged from 5-10%).

Results and Discussion

The results of this study are discussed under two headings, namely: (1) level of satisfaction - neighborhood and home with individual differences across areas, personal profiles, public water facility, and attachment with the place of dwellings; and (2) determinant of satisfaction – linear regression analysis.

The age distribution for respondents (head of households) revealed that a majority were aged 30–50 years (56.0%), followed by 50+ years (32.3%) and <30 years (11.6%). A large majority were males (88.4%) since the target respondents are among the heads of households. This study expected to provide useful characteristics of results owing to the respondents also come from multiple education backgrounds including university level, which recorded more than 8%.

Satisfaction level

Figure 2 indicates satisfaction of shantytown residents on neighborhoods and homes. Comparatively higher percentage of respondents shows discontent with their neighborhoods than their home (16.5% against 9.1%). Likewise, the percentage of respondents satisfied with the neighborhood remains lower than home (16.2% against 17.7%) as also very satisfied (15.4% against 16.7%). These results, undoubtedly, shows the residents’ unhappiness and inconvenience with the living environments. Overall, only 31.6% and 34.4% reported being satisfied (Satisfied and Very satisfied together) with neighborhood and home, respectively. The increased level of satisfaction with home outnumbers that of neighborhood, expectedly, as people decorate their homes to suit their expectations and requirements. Besides that, residents have better control over their home designs, than neighborhoods, and thus are able to decorate considerably, improving the cleanliness. Besides, the quality of life in their home is part of their satisfaction with life in city [32]. As these localities are not suited to inhabit, the public sector does not initiate environmental improvements officially. These issues complicate the situation, thus, urgently calling for a strategic action.

Figure 2: Distribution based on satisfaction level-Neighbourhood and home.

Satisfaction level examined in more detail across variables of area, personal characteristics, public water facility, and attachment to the place of dwelling. However, the overall mean of satisfaction on neighborhood (3.05) and home (3.07) indicates that respondents, on an average, expressed moderate levels of satisfaction (Table 2). Moreover, the mean satisfaction with shantytowns remains balanced areas having lower neighborhood satisfaction reports higher home satisfaction and the other ways. Both satisfaction levels vary significantly across the shanty areas (F=35.333; p=0.000 and F=16.551; p= 0.000). That is, shantytowns have potential to create variations in satisfaction. In other words, the satisfaction of residents living in one area varies from that of another. This, in turn, explains the differential living conditions of shantytowns in quality of living, hygiene standards, and accessible infrastructure.

Table 2 Mean satisfactions per each category of persons for model variables.
(Satisfaction score ranging from 1 to 5)

Personal profiles considered include age, education, work status, and income. Firstly, age creates variations in satisfaction with neighborhood, significantly (F=2.071; p=0.038), but not of home (F=0.955; p=0.471). That is, the neighborhood has more importance than home to certain age groups. Secondly, education creates variations on satisfaction for both neighborhood (F=11.666; p=0.000) and home (F=3.799; p=0.005), significantly. The mean satisfaction indicates that neighborhood satisfaction increases with education but not the home satisfaction. That is, residential neighborhood is person’s own preference; education has less control but not the homes. Still, education proves to be of high importance in satisfaction.

Thirdly, the work status shows no significant differences in satisfaction either on neighborhood or home. This shows that the residential neighborhood and home are accessible to their workplaces or daily activities so that it contributes to acceptable satisfaction. Fourthly, the income has a significant correlation with satisfaction-positively with neighborhood but negatively with home. It means, while an increase in income increases neighborhood satisfaction, it decreases home satisfaction. This is confusing, perhaps, a reflection of expectations or botherations of the respondents. Thus, out of these four personal characteristics, three are significantly creating variations in satisfaction levels of shantytown residents in Riyadh city.

Another set of variable is the availability of public municipal water supply. This variable also partially contradictory but explains variations in satisfaction, both on neighborhood (t=- 7.148; p=0.000) and on home (t= 4.578; p=0.000). It shows that, while the non-availability of public water supply reduces neighborhood satisfaction level (3.09 to 2.32), it increases home satisfaction level (2.91 to 3.53). Maybe, there is another source of potable water satisfactory to residents: and this needs further investigation.

Lastly, are the variables analyzed related to residents’ attachment to the shantytowns: place of birth, nationality, duration of stay and intention to continue staying? Those born in Riyadh have comparatively higher neighborhood satisfaction (3.16) than home satisfaction (3.02); possibly due to their expectations. Meanwhile, the nationality creates variations on home satisfaction significantly (t=2.697; p=0.007) but not of neighborhood. Furthermore, as expected, the non-Saudis are more satisfied with their homes compared to Saudi natives (3.50 against 3.01). The variable ‘duration of stay in the area’ creates individual differences in satisfaction, significantly, both of neighborhood (F=11.666; p=0.000) and of home (F=3.799; p= 0.005). The best duration of stay that contributed to a higher satisfaction in the neighborhood is 5-13 years, longer the duration, higher the satisfaction level. Finally, expectedly, those who intend to stay in the area are found to be more satisfied on their neighborhood and their home than others are; significant only to neighborhood (t=-3.423; p=0.001) but not of home (t=-1.531; p =0.127).

Determinant of satisfaction

As a second stage, these four categories of variables (shantytowns or areas, personal, public water facility and attachment) considered as a model affecting satisfaction (both of neighborhood and of home) analyzed through linear regression (Table 3). With reference to Al-Ammajiyya, areas such as Al-Mursalat, Al-Jibs and Al-Ghannamiyya give reduced neighborhood satisfaction, only Al-Mursalat and Al-Jibs, significantly. Meanwhile, Ibn Shuraim, An-Nahdha and Okaz increase neighborhood satisfaction (only An-Nahdha is significant). On the contrary, all shantytowns except Ibn Shuraim and Okaz increase home satisfaction (only Al- Mursalat and Al-Jibs are significant). Here, two areas-Al-Mursalat and Al-Jibs deserve attention; both have low satisfaction with neighborhood but higher with home. These two neighborhoods situated close to the downtown, near to the administrative and commercial hubs: Al-Mursalat near the modern high-class town and Al-Jibs close to the cement factory. Both face pollution, gas emission and, thus, have comparatively unhealthy neighborhood characteristics, as compared to the other shanty areas. On the contrary, these areas have more or less better housing designs and carpet areas in comparison with others. Simply put, residents have more control over improving and decorating their homes to suit their requirements than of neighborhoods. On the other hand, comparisons with the modern neighborhoods elsewhere in Riyadh city also cause dissatisfaction with the shantytowns.

Table 3 Model of satisfaction-neighborhood and home.

Although this variable determines neighborhood and home satisfaction, its effect on the neighborhood dimension seems more powerful. Al-Mursalat residents, for instance, were satisfied with homes, but not with the neighborhood. A neighborhood’s predictive power may be explained in terms of strength and direction: this effect is attributed to the locational disadvantagesclose to the city but extremely crowded with people employed in the modern sectors. However, certain neighborhoods have advantages for promoting satisfaction among residents, such as hygienic conditions, infrastructure, or basic amenities. As Rossi [33] rightly pointed out, mobility is “a process by which individuals adjust their housing to their needs within the constraints of income and market conditions.” Such adjustments are based on the costs and benefits of moving, measured by the household gain resulting from eliminating any discrepancy between observed housing consumption and equilibrium in the housing market [34].

In short, areas like Al-Mursalat (modern and rich) and Al- Jibs were less promising in terms of surrounding but have satisfying housing conditions, such as design, space, and interior decorations. That is, areas have one or the other advantage: environmental conditions or homes. More than living conditions, one’s roles, the quality of marital relationships, and indicators like physical, social, and economic well-being have a strong bearing on satisfaction, as pointed out by Austrom [21]. This finding clarifies that the complex phenomenon of migration intended to improve living conditions or escape unfavorable factors in the living environment create definite distress, thus, making migrants vulnerable to mental health complications [15].

Of the second set of variables-personal-age, education, or income has no effect on satisfaction either on neighborhood or on home, but those who currently working are less satisfied with neighborhood (β=0.0297; p<0.05), which might be due to the gap between their expectations and experiences. It may be assumed that Riyadh’s shantytowns residents found their employment opportunities unsuitable or mismatched with their living conditions. Overall, these personal aspects including the work-related variables play a less important role in satisfaction.

Thirdly, the public water supply has an effect on neighborhood satisfaction (β=0.432; p=0.00) but not on home satisfaction; hopefully, due to the perceived importance of water supply. While the environmental/ neighborhood cleanliness and comforts depend largely on public water taps, the requirements inside the home were taken care by tanker water. Nevertheless, this dimension’s importance need not be undermined. Water, power, sanitation and sewage infrastructure are of importance, especially in Riyadh city suburbs/fringe areas.

Finally, the attachment to the area/locality interpreted with variables such as place of birth, nationality, duration of stay and intention to continue staying. While the Riyadh born were more satisfied with the neighborhood (β=0.2780; p<0.01), Saudi nationals were less satisfied with their homes (β=-0.523; p<0.01). Both the duration of stay and intention to continue staying has significant effects on satisfaction – both of neighborhood and of home. Thus, this category of variables proves to be of higher importance to explain satisfaction.

In other words, stability at home reduced comfort levels with the neighborhood; that is, those having better home atmospheres were less comfortable with the neighborhood. Such perceptions lead to attitude formations influencing satisfaction [35]. However, the shift from neighborhood transience to housing adjustments explains the housing needs in the context of mobility [36]. In this context, interpretations of Virupaksha [15] seem relevant: “many times, lack of preparedness, difficulties in adjusting to the new environment, complexities of the local system, language difficulties, cultural disparities, and adverse experiences cause distress for migrants. Subsequently, there is a negative impact on the mental well-being of such populations.”

Similar results were reported regarding public housing residents in urban areas:- they were dissatisfied with their housing conditions, although satisfaction levels were higher among mortgage holders and those with access to neighborhood facilities and an adequate supply of electricity and safe drinking water [23]. Contrary to the findings of Mudege and Zulu [25], the duration of stay at a residence did not emerge as a significant predictor of satisfaction among this group of residents. In this context, the argument of Rossi [36] that public policies and institutional choices related to “acceptable” housing affect location preferences is noteworthy. Through policy mechanisms, certain social goals are promoted to satisfy social demands, mortgage policies, subsidized loans, long-term amortization rates, and income tax deductions. Others allow commoners to select their own dwelling units based on their preferred quality standards regarding hygiene and a healthy environment [36]. Such policies within the Saudi Arabian context stimulate the housing market; encourage ownership leading to local stability, and satisfaction.

Health complaints, poor accessibility to social and economic resources, and fear form the bases for lower levels of satisfaction [37-39]. Good communications and community activities among the neighbors helped to provide. Neighborhood satisfaction and residents [40]. However, the location of the house contributes significantly to satisfaction, improved quality of life, and abatement of vulnerabilities [41]. Thus, as Rossi [33] pointed out, “curing mobility would lead to better neighborhoods,” raising satisfaction levels and simultaneously facilitating a healthy and hygienic atmosphere. However, household demographicsincome and family size and composition-influence the demand for residential housing rather than benefits and moving costs [34].

Conclusion and Recommendations

Surprisingly to conclude that, shantytown residents of Riyadh city contrast with other shanty or slum areas like Cairo and other Arab cities. A majority of the residents report moderate satisfaction to live in the neighborhood and the home despite the poor living condition and inadequate access to urban facilities and services. Therefore, anxiety over lifestyle is a fair trade when measured against the prospects of increased income and other opportunities. This is due to the result of well-implemented initiatives from the government of Saudi Arabia, e.g. entitlement of land free of charge to those who own no land, giving chance to buy public land following current zoning regulations and help curtail the development of new shantytowns [4].

To this extent, this study has also found that a person’s attachment to the residing locality as the root of satisfaction with it: either the neighborhood or the home. While the personal factors have not brought any significant likelihood of satisfaction, the locality, place of birth, nationality, duration of stay at the locality and intention to continue at the shanty area do. In addition, infrastructure (i.e. public water facility) has not much value in this respect.

To take into consideration of these findings, this study has two implications for policy-strategy formulation: improving the living conditions in shanty areas through redevelopment and redistribution; and citing the need for intervention or rehabilitation policies and strategies to promote life satisfaction among shanty area residents (i.e., quality of life, lifestyle, education, environmental awareness, career ambitions, and health). Though redevelopment and redistributive policies are appropriate in some neighborhoods, rehabilitation policies recommended for the others considering priorities and value additions to the previous initiatives, such as the following:

• Promotion of hygienic conditions

• Improvement of infrastructure: basic services, educational and health infrastructures, commercial and occupational facilities, road and transport infrastructure, etc.

• Improvement of housing structures

• Safety and security

• Construction of modern housing and living arrangements with ownership granted to residents

• Discourage new migrants to get along with the culture of shanty areas

• Temporary rehabilitation facilities during the reconstruction and rebuilding period

These outlined policies-strategies potentially bring them into prospered living conditions and satisfaction with life in the city and at the same time promoting the agenda of resilient community and sustainable city development. In addition, it positively affects upon economic prosperity since most of the people living in the shanty areas are potential contributors and partners in the development of cities. Currently, they are contributing as workers and laborers for multiple urban sectors. It has become the role of the urban sector or stakeholder to create a comprehensive plan for them as migrants and urban residents. This is so-called a short-term urban planning that benefits to all, expectedly.

References

1. Gedik A (1993) Definition of Squatter Housing. Geogr Pol 61: 471-477.
2. Shechter R, Yacobi H (2005) Cities in the Middle East: Politics. Representation and History 22: 183-188.
3. Al-Mubarak AMA (2011) Urbanisation and Migration in Saudi Arabia: The case of Buraydah City.
4. Al-Mubarak F (1999) Cultural Adaptation to Housing Needs: A Case Study, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Khraif RM (1994) Residential mobility in the city of Riyadh: A study of its directions, reasons, and characteristics.
6. Rana IA, Bhatti SS (2017) Lahore, Pakistan-Urbanization challenges and opportunities. Cities 72: 348-355.
7. Davis M (2006) Planet of Slums.
8. Bloom D, Khanna T (2007) The urban revolution. Finance and Development.
9. Khraif RM (2000) The labor force in Saudi Arabia: Spatial dimensions and socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.
10. Dill V, Jirjahn U, Tsertsvadze G (2015) Residential segregation and immigrants’ satisfaction with the neighborhood in Germany. Soc Sci Q 96: 353-368.
11. Khraif RM (1992) Permanent versus temporary rural migrants in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A logit analysis of their intentions of future mobility. Geo J 26: 363-370.
12. Lauria DT, Whittington D (1989) Planning in Squatter Settlements: An Interview with a Community Leader. The World Bank pp: 1-21.
13. Mortada H (2017) Analytical conception of slums of Jeddah.
14. UN Development Group (2000) Task Force: Slum Dwellers.
15. Virupaksha HG, Kumar A, Nirmala BP (2014) Migration and mental health: An interface. J Nat Sci Biol Med 5: 233-239.
16. Yusof K (1982) Sang Kancil- Care for the Urban Squatters in Malaysia. World Health Forum 3: 278-281.
17. Westaway MS (2006) A longitudinal investigation of satisfaction with personal and environmental quality of life in an informal South African housing settlement, Doornkop, Soweto. Habitat International 30: 175-189.
18. Lovejoy K, Handy S, Mokhtarian P (2010) Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods. Landsc Urban Plan 97: 37-48.
19. Schimmack U, Radhakrishnan P, Oishi S, Dzokoto V, Ahadi S, et al. (2002) Culture, personality and subjective well-being: Integrating process domains of life satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 82: 582-593.
20. Pundt LM, Wohrmann AM, Deller J (2015) Differential predictors of post retirement life and work satisfaction. J Manage Psychol 30: 216-232.
21. Austrom MG, Perkins AJ, Damush TM, Hendrie HC (2003) Predictors of life satisfaction in retired physicians and spouses. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 38: 134-141.
22. Iwatsubo Y, Derriennic F, Cassou B, Poitrenaud J (1996) Predictors of life satisfaction amongst retired people in Paris. Int J Epidemiol 25: 160-170.
23. Ibem EO, Aduwo EB (2013) Assessment of residential satisfaction in public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria. Habitat Int 40: 163-175.
24. Cao XJ, Wang D (2016) Environmental correlates of residential satisfaction: An exploration of mismatched neighborhood characteristics in the twin cities. Landsc Urban Plan 150: 26-35.
25. Mudege NN, Zulu E (2011) In their own words: Assessment of satisfaction with residential location among migrants in Nairobi slums. J Urban Health 88: 219-234.
26. Biswas-Diener R, Diener E (2009) Making the best of a bad situation: Satisfaction in the slums of Calcutta. Soc Indic Res 55: 329-352.
27. Westaway MS (2009) Aspects of environmental quality of life that affect neighborhood satisfaction in disadvantaged and advantaged Johannesburg communities. Development Southern Africa 26: 447-45.
28. Amerigo M, Aragonest JI (1997) A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. J Environ Psychol 17: 47-57.
29. Kim YO (2016) A comparative study on relationship of spatial configuration and suicide rate between high-rise apartments of social housings and shanty towns. Urban Design International 17: 135-146.
30. Copeland CC, Beers BB, Thompson MR (2009) Faecal contamination of drinking water in Brazilian shanty town: Importance of household storage and new human faecal marker testing. J Water Health 7: 324-331.
31. Santos RB, Martins PA, Sawaya AL (2008) Nutritional status and health, environmental and socioeconomic conditions of children living in tenements and shanty towns. Brazilian J Nutrition 21: 671-681.
32. Węziak-Białowolska D (2016) Quality of life in cities-Empirical evidence in comparative European perspective. Cities 58: 87-96.
33. Rossi PH (1980) Why families move. Sage Publications.
34. Quigley JM, Weinberg DH (1977) Intra-urban residential mobility: a review and synthesis. IRSR 2: 41-66.
35. Fernando FAF (2016) Are you pleased with your neighborhood? A fuzzy cognitive mapping based approach for measuring residential neighborhood satisfaction in urban communities. International J Strategic Property Manag 20: 130-141.
36. Rossi PH (1982) Residential mobility and public policy issues: “Why families move” revisited. Journal of Social Issues 38: 21-34.
37. Heybroek L, Haynes M, Baxter J (2015) Life Satisfaction and Retirement in Australia: A longitudinal approach. Work, Aging and Retirement. Work Aging and Retirement 1: 166-180.
38. Lee HS (2015) The effects of financial factors on retiree satisfaction: Interaction effects between physical or psychological factors and financial factors. Financial Planning Review 8: 1-30.
39. Nguyen S, Tirrito TS, Barkley WM (2014) Fear as a predictor of life satisfaction in retirement in Canada. Educ Gerontol 40: 102-122.
40. Hur M, Bollinger AG (2015) Neighborhood associations and their strategic actions to enhance residents’ neighborhood satisfaction. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 44: 1152-1172.
41. Cavalheiro DC, Abiko A (2015) Evaluating slum (favela) resettlements: The case of the Serra do Mar project, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Habitat Int 49: 340-348.