Henny Coolen

Values and goals as determinants of intended tenure choice

Housing choice and tenure choice have beenstudied from many different theoreticalperspectives and with a great variety ofmethodological approaches. In explaininghousing choice, researchers have shown theinfluence of both macrolevel (housing market,economic situation) and microlevel (age,income) factors. Relatively little attentionhas been given to motivational microlevelfactors such as goals and values. In thisarticle, the focus is on values and goals asdeterminants of housing choice. Therelationships between these motivationalfactors, other microlevel factors, and housingchoice are specified in an extended means-endmodel which is based on means-end theory. Theempirical validity of this extended model hasbeen partly assessed by using it to predictintended tenure choice. In the article,previous research on the motivations forhousing choice is discussed and the extendedmeans-end model is described. The empiricalresults of applying the model to intendedtenure choice are presented and discussed,while the assessment of the reliability of thevalue scales is also described.

The Meaning of Dwellings: an Ecological Perspective

The meaning of dwellings has been studied from many different perspectives, such as psychology, phenomenology, sociology and environment‐behaviour studies. Several authors have argued that a more integrative and interdisciplinary approach is needed, in which physical, socio‐cultural, psychological and economic dimensions are interrelated. However, in these studies dwellings are mainly treated as such. What is lacking is an approach in which dwellings are considered as integral parts of the environment. An ecological approach offers such a perspective. Such an approach focuses on the individuals relationships with meaningful features of the environment; it emphasizes the intentionality of individuals actions. The reciprocity of the environment and the individual is a central feature of an ecological approach. A dwelling is an individuals primary anchor in the environment. It may serve many functions, such as shelter, privacy, security, control and status. From an ecological point of view the meaning of dwellings lies in these functional relationships between human beings and their dwellings. This paper presents the conceptual and methodological framework for studying the meaning of dwellings from an ecological perspective. This framework is illustrated with examples from the authors own research.

The Meaning Structure Method

In housing preference research, most methods for measuring housing preferences only focus on what people’s preferences are. The purpose of the meaning structure method is to assess what people’s housing preferences are and to uncover why they have these preferences. Studying the motives of housing preferences may lead to a better understanding of these preferences, while these motives may also be used for both marketing communication about houses as well as for developing and designing dwellings. The meaning structure method consists of a conceptual model, a measurement method, and an analysis. The method and its origin are described in this chapter and several examples are presented.

Discussion and Directions for Future Research

In the “Introduction” chapter of this book nine methods that are currently applied in the research field of housing preference were introduced. These methods were compared on three dimensions that concerned the origin of the data (1: stated or revealed) and the design of the measurement instrument (2: freedom of attribute choice and 3: attribute-based versus alternative-based). In the current chapter, the potential limitations that are related to these three dimensions are discussed in more detail. This may help professionals to select the right method in the light of their specific research question or to help them in judging the results of previous studies. Finally, the last section of this chapter is dedicated to directions for future research.

Reciprocity and Mutuality of Individual–Dwelling Relations

First, I would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable and sometimes critical comments on my paper. They have given me many points to reflect on. Given the limited amount of time I received for writing this reply, I shall comment here on what I consider to be the most important conceptual and methodological issues raised. While doing so I hope to clarify different aspects of my paper, because I think that several of the issues raised in the comments are to a certain extent due to a sometimes unclear and/or incomplete exposition of these points in my paper. Lawrence seriously questions whether my approach can be called ecological. After reading his exposé on what an ecological perspective is, I still believe that my approach is ecological. First, as he indicates in his comment, an ecological approach can be applied at different levels of analysis. In my approach the level of analysis is the individual human being. This follows immediately from the third basic idea on which my approach rests, namely that the meanings that objects have for human beings are central in their own right. To bypass these meanings in favour of sociocultural, geographical and economical factors is, in my view, a serious neglect of the role of meaning in the formation of preferences and behaviours. Furthermore, collective life consists of, and exists in, the fitting of preferences and behaviours to each other by the very individuals that make up these collectivities. Secondly, the different levels at which an ecological analysis can be applied are hierarchically related. In my view these between-level relations are also mutual and reciprocal, which implies that every analysis at a higher level than that of the individual should in the end also consider the role of the individual. And the concept of affordances is central in this context, because it also designates the functional meanings of the between-level relations from the perspective of the individual. Since there is still much unknown about the affordances of individuals in relation to their dwelling, I began my study of people’s relations with their dwelling from this perspective. Many studies about the meaning of home at an extra-individual level often employ an approach in which, for instance, the influence of socio-cultural factors is investigated, but in which the individual’s role is overlooked or only treated in very general terms. Furthermore, the framework as presented in my paper only serves descriptive purposes. I was, and still am, convinced that to be able to explain Housing, Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No. 4, 219–223, 2006