1
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
LIVING CLOSE TO HIGHWAYS: RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION
AND THE INFLUENCE OF (PERCEIVED CHANGES IN)
ACCESSIBILITY AND NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES
Marije Hamersma*
Faculty of Spatial Sciences
University of Groningen
PO Box 800
9700 AV Groningen
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-50-363-3875
Fax: +31-50-363-3901
E-mail: m.hamersma@rug.nl
Taede Tillema
Faculty of Spatial Sciences
University of Groningen
PO Box 800
9700 AV Groningen
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-50-363-8663
Fax: +31-50-363-3901
E-mail: t.tillema@rug.nl
Joseph Sussman
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: +1-617-253-4430
Fax: +1-617-258-5942
E-mail: sussman@mit.edu
Jos Arts
Faculty of Spatial Sciences
University of Groningen
PO Box 800
9700 AV Groningen
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-50-363-3872
Fax: +31-50-363-3901
E-mail: e.j.m.m.arts@rug.nl
* Corresponding author
SUBMISSION DATE
November 15, 2012
WORD COUNT (MAIN TEXT) 5934
Paper submitted for presentation at the 92nd TRB meeting, January 13-17, 2013, Washington, DC.
2
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ABSTRACT
Residential satisfaction is an important proxy for people´s wellbeing and for relocation behavior. In
this paper we focus on gaining insight into the residential satisfaction of households near highways,
based on survey data collected among 1,230 respondents in the Netherlands. Using ordinal regression
analysis, we studied the effect of accessibility and negative externalities, alongside other contextual
factors, on residential satisfaction. Moreover, the objective was to gain first insights into the extent to
which plans for road infrastructure adjustments influence residential satisfaction. On average, 90
percent of respondents reported to be satisfied with living near the highway. Regarding explanatory
characteristics, negative externalities slightly outweigh accessibility aspects. Moreover, subjective
evaluations of hindrance appear to have stronger explanatory power than calculated air and noise
exposure. Regarding road adjustments, we found that respondents living near locations where a road
adjustment has been announced are marginally more satisfied compared to other locations. A reason
could be that respondents expect the current situation to improve once the adjustments are finished,
for instance by increased accessibility. The overall positive residential satisfaction evaluations near
highways may imply that, generally speaking, problems regarding living near highways may be
somewhat overstated. Moreover, the notion that the explanatory power of subjective hindrance
outperforms calculated exposure levels may give reason to be cautious when making transportation
planning decisions based solely on calculations.
Keywords: highway infrastructure planning, accessibility and environmental trade-offs, residential satisfaction,
planned road adjustments.
3
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
1. INTRODUCTION
A highway has different faces. In positive terms, it is associated with development and progress of
areas, as it brings accessibility and economic growth. However, with increasing car mobility,
negative associations increase as well. Growing mobility demands have resulted in traffic congestion
problems and decreased service levels on highways (see, for instance, 1). Moreover, road
infrastructure is associated with other negative externalities like noise, air pollution and the
accompanying health problems (see for instance 2-4). Undesirable effects such as noise, air pollution
and local traffic are particularly important at the local level as they contribute to a reduction in the
quality of the local environment (5) and as such may influence location decisions in a neighbourhood.
Although both positive and negative aspects related to road infrastructure may influence
location decisions, insights into how (regional) accessibility factors and hindrance aspects are traded
off is limited (see, for instance, 6-7). Moreover, many studies do not make a distinction between the
decision to locate somewhere and the influence of external distortions. Once a location decision has
been made, a stage of equilibrium occurs, which may be distorted by external changes, one example
being planned road adjustments in the vicinity of a residential location. This may result in changes in
(perceived) accessibility and hindrance.
Residential satisfaction appears to be an interesting and valuable mediating concept between
positive and negative externalities on the one hand and household coping strategies on the other hand.
It is proven to be a good proxy for people’s overall wellbeing (8-9), a key concept in today’s world,
and relevant in relation to sustainable planning. It can be used both for evaluating wellbeing in an
equilibrium state and in a situation where external changes occur, such as planned road adjustments.
Current research, however, often disregards how people deal with such distortions. Compared to
concepts such as house prices and residential migration, residential satisfaction is valuable for road
and spatial planners because it may be directly influenced by planned infrastructural changes and may
thus indicate conformity with a plan (10). However, whereas neighborhood and/or dwelling
satisfaction have been studied in general, we are not aware of any studies that looked specifically at
residential satisfaction of households living near major highways.
Within the context of this problem the objective of this paper is to gain greater insight into
residential satisfaction of households near highways. We particularly aim to study the effects of both
accessibility and negative externalities, alongside other contextual factors, on the residential
satisfaction of households living near highways. Moreover, since residential satisfaction is an
interesting concept for measuring the impact of distortions, we also aim to gain first insight into the
extent to which plans for road infrastructure adjustments influence residential satisfaction. Such
findings can be useful for future road infrastructure planning and may be used to relieve locational
stress, prevent protest and possible relocations, and may give input for more inclusive planning, which
helps ensure a proper fit of the infrastructure in its physical and social environment.
To gain the needed insights, we collected survey data among 1,230 residents living in five
different neighborhoods located near highways in the Netherlands. Because we are also interested in
the effect of a change in infrastructure on people´s residential satisfaction, two neighborhoods were
selected where planned road adjustments are about to take place. For the analysis we used ordinal
regression because our dependent variable of residential satisfaction was measured on an ordinal
scale.
The outline of this article is as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on residential
satisfaction and its explanatory characteristics, focusing on the influence of negative externalities and
accessibility. Section 3 describes the empirical data and the applied method of analysis. The results
are presented in section 4, and the conclusions in section 5.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Residential satisfaction and general explanatory characteristics
Residential satisfaction is widely researched within different disciplines such as sociology,
psychology, planning and geography, and also in relation to different residential groups (9; 11-12). It
is a key driver of moving intentions (13-14). Residential satisfaction can be regarded as a consisting
of satisfaction with the neighborhood and with the dwelling. Whereas some studies focus on
4
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
neighborhood satisfaction (e.g., 15-16), others distinguish between housing and the neighborhood
(e.g., 9), or use a combined measure for residential satisfaction (e.g. 8). The two items, however,
appear to be highly correlated (9, 11, 17).
Generally speaking, three groups can be distinguished with regard to factors influencing
satisfaction: personal characteristics, characteristics of the dwelling and environmental factors (see,
for example, 9, 11, 17-18). Authors emphasize the importance of both objective and more subjective
factors, i.e. the perceptions and attitudes that people attach to attributes, in explaining differences
between people (8, 14, 19). Onibokun (20), for instance, states that people’s social system (e.g., socioeconomic factors, stage in the life cycle, familiarity with the neighborhood and lifestyles) are
important in understanding their perspectives. However, objective characteristics also seem to
influence people’s satisfaction levels. Generally speaking, residential satisfaction seems to increase
with income and age and to decrease with household size (e.g., 9, 21). With respect to the dwelling,
aspects like having a detached house, the house size and the attractiveness of the house’s design are
positively linked to satisfaction (9, 11, 18). Moreover, residential satisfaction seems to be higher in
more prosperous areas with fewer ethnic minorities (see for instance, 9, 11, 16, 18).
Slight variations can be observed as well. Galster & Hesser (11), for instance, find that
women are less satisfied about the dwelling, while Lu (9) finds the opposite. Moreover, differences
can be observed for tenure duration. Kroesen et al. (8) and Lu (9) report a negative relationship
between duration and residential satisfaction whereas others find a positive relationship (e.g. 12, 14,
22). Regarding subjective judgments, people especially appreciate social contacts, safety, an attractive
neighborhood with facilities and a good environmental quality (9, 11, 16, 18).
2.2 Perceived hindrance, accessibility and residential satisfaction
As described in section 2.1, various studies have intended to gain insight into factors explaining
residential satisfaction. Some of them included hindrance and accessibility characteristics in their
explanatory models. Hur & Morrow-Jones (15) studied homeowner’s satisfaction with their
neighborhood on the basis of a survey among respondents in Ohio, USA. They found that satisfaction
with accessibility to work and to family & friends, and satisfaction with the traffic situation, as a
proxy for noise (and air) hindrance, both have a comparable positive impact on neighborhood
satisfaction. However, other aspects like general appearance, satisfaction with the density of housing,
cleanliness and safety were found to be more important. For residents living in urban areas, Howley at
al. (23) find a stronger impact of accessibility on neighborhood satisfaction compared to Hur &
Morrow-Jones (15), with access to employment being of comparable strength as environmental
quality, house satisfaction and satisfaction with safety and neighbors. Cook (24), by focusing on a
specific sample of single mothers, finds quietness to be important in both suburban and urban areas,
while travel time to work, i.e. an objective proxy for regional accessibility, is negatively associated
with satisfaction in urban areas.
Several other studies into residential satisfaction include noise hindrance in a more specific
way, but include mainly local accessibility features (e.g., 16, 18-19, 25) or a combined regional and
local accessibility indicator (26). Buys & Miller (18) for instance, by using data from inner urban
higher-density environments in Brisbane, Australia, combined the proximity to work and other local
services into one overall factor and found this to be an important factor in explaining residential
satisfaction. Besides this, they found that two noise variables reduced neighborhood satisfaction,
whereas one other unexpectedly increased satisfaction. Additionally, they included satisfaction with
odor quality, which seems less important than noise. Lovejoy et al. (16) found unexpected coefficient
signs for quietness and for their infrastructure construct, which consists of local accessibility
characteristics such as the availability of sidewalks and parking space in the neighborhood. Better
scores on both factors relate to a lower neighborhood satisfaction, which they attribute to other
characteristics, such as neighborhood attractiveness, suppressing their influence. Their ‘mixed-use
factor’, which includes access to local facilities like stores and green areas is not significant.
However, although endogeneity might play a role, overall satisfaction with both location within the
neighborhood and with location within the region, turn out to be important in explaining overall
neighborhood satisfaction.
Mohan & Twigg (25) and Parkes et al. (19) both aimed at gaining insight into determinants
for neighborhood and dwelling satisfaction based on different versions of the Survey of English
5
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Housing. Both studies find that noise has a negative relationship with neighborhood satisfaction.
Furthermore, Mohan & Twigg (25) find a significant effect for access to post offices, which basically
seems to relate to the availability of facilities rather than to accessibility per se. Parkes et al. (19) do
not find any significant effect in terms of accessibility.
The studies described above focus on residential satisfaction, analyzing a wide array of
explanatory characteristics, among which are noise and accessibility. However, Kroesen et al. (8)
specifically looked into the influence of noise characteristics on residential satisfaction based on a
large community survey held in a Dutch neighborhood near Schiphol Amsterdam Airport in
1996/1997. They tested the influence of aircraft noise, road traffic and railway noise annoyance in
addition to personal variables and dwelling characteristics. Regarding aircraft noise, they
distinguished between calculated aircraft noise exposure and the perceived annoyance. Important
findings are that road traffic noise annoyance and noise hindrance by neighbors appear to be more
important in explaining residential satisfaction than aircraft noise annoyance. Potentially more
counter-intuitive is their finding that the calculated aircraft noise exposure has a higher explanatory
power than perceived aircraft noise annoyance.
2.3 Residential satisfaction near highways: what is missing?
The studies above tend to point towards noise having a higher explanatory power compared to
accessibility characteristics. Noise in its turn seems to be of lower importance in the valuation of
neighborhood satisfaction especially than some other characteristics, such as safety. Given our
specific focus on residential satisfaction near highways, some knowledge gaps within residential
satisfaction literature can be distinguished. First of all, insight into the influence of air pollution and
visual and barrier effects of roads on satisfaction is lacking. Moreover, most studies include local
accessibility, which often relates to the availability of facilities such as shops. The benefit of a
highway relates more to regional accessibility, such as access to jobs. Thirdly, insights into the
relative importance of calculated exposure levels and perceived negative externalities are lacking; in
infrastructure planning practice calculation models are often used, whereas residential satisfaction
literature focuses on perceptions of noise hindrance. And, finally, literature appears to study
residential satisfaction in a state of equilibrium, whereas it would also be interesting to gain insight
into how satisfaction is influenced by changes in the environment such as new facilities or road
adjustments.
Although specific forms of hindrance and accessibility gains with respect to transport are not
often taken into account in residential satisfaction literature, several hedonic house price studies do
simultaneously include positive and negative effects relating to transport activities (see for instance,
6-7). House prices seem to be negatively correlated to both transport externalities and distance to the
nearest highway access lane (see, for instance, 6, 27). Eliasson et al. (7) used both stated preference
techniques and hedonic pricing to look at the intrusion and accessibility impacts on house prices.
They show that short distances to roads, train stations and/or subway stations have a negative impact
on house prices. However, the negative effects seem to reduce rapidly with distance, which may lead
to the hypothesis that property prices close to the road, i.e. within a couple of hundred meters, are
relatively lower due to the fairly large nuisances associated with the road.
In addition, there are studies that focus specifically on explaining hindrance without referring
to either residential satisfaction or house prices. Different factors influence the annoyance people
perceive, such as noise sensitivity (28-30), the family situation, health status, gender (31) and the use
of and direct sight of the source (32-33). Studies often do not find a clear relationship between
objective noise exposure and annoyance (28; 34-35), which is why most emphasize subjective
annoyance to being a better estimator. Moreover, literature is unclear regarding the relative annoyance
of noise hindrance compared to air pollution. People see traffic as the main source for both noise and
air pollution (6, 36). As people often do not observe air-related pollution, whereas they immediately
hear noise, one may hypothesize that they are less annoyed by the latter. However, as air pollution can
result in health problems and diseases, people who are aware of potential effects might take air
pollution more seriously (29).
In contrast to the described limited insights into the link between regional accessibility and
residential satisfaction, accessibility plays a more prominent role in location and relocation studies.
Based on stated preference research, accessibility is one of the factors that influences location
6
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
decisions, albeit not the most important one. Most of the studies focus on regional accessibility by
looking at the importance people attach to accessibility to, for instance, jobs (e.g. 37-39). The decision
to live near a highway may be a consequence of such regional focus on accessibility (40). To
summarize, several studies look into hindrance and accessibility characteristics in relation to
transport. However, generally speaking, the link with residential satisfaction is missing.
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD
3.1 Analytical model
In this article we specifically focus on residential satisfaction near highways and aim to fill some of
the gaps in available literature as described in section 2.3. We hypothesize that both (perceived)
negative externalities related to a highway and (perceived) accessibility influence residential
satisfaction, where higher negative externalities are expected to decrease satisfaction whereas higher
accessibility levels are hypothesized to have a positive relationship with satisfaction. In addition, other
contextual factors may influence the residential satisfaction, such as socio-economic factors,
neighborhood- and dwelling characteristics/ perceptions. The influence of negative externalities may
be stronger close to the highway, as noise and air hindrance fade with distance. Moreover, external
triggers may influence residential satisfaction. An example of such a trigger is a planned road
adjustment. While still in the planning stage such adjustments can lead to anticipation effects that may
influence residential satisfaction. Changes in road infrastructure or anticipation of future changes are
expected to influence residential satisfaction via (perceived) accessibility changes and via (perceived)
hindrance. However, it may also have a direct effect on satisfaction.
3.2 Data collection and preparation
We conducted a survey among residents living near highways in 2011. Five highway locations were
selected that are geographically distributed throughout the Netherlands, three of which are locations
without planned road adjustments (see Figure 1). Because we are also interested in the effects of
changes in road infrastructure, we additionally selected two locations with planned road adjustments
(i.e. Groningen and Utrecht). The questionnaire was distributed in different neighborhoods within a
radius of one kilometer from the highway. For each zone (0-300m, 300-600m and 600-1000m from
the highway) targets for the number of distributed surveys were set, where zones closest to the
highway were relatively over-sampled because we assume that here accessibility and hindrance are
more of an issue. Depending on the size of the neighborhood and the number of postal codes in each
area, 2 to 10 addresses were selected per postal code. A total of 5,500 questionnaires were distributed
manually. 1,396 people participated, which corresponds with a response rate of about 25 percent. In
total 1,230 valid questionnaires were used for the analysis in this paper.
FIGURE 1 Geographical spread of selected locations.
7
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The survey consisted of questions about the current situation, which included characteristics of the
dwelling, information on residential location decisions, and propositions on residential preferences
and satisfaction. For residential satisfaction, respondents were asked to respond to propositions
regarding satisfaction with the neighborhood and the dwelling. To define satisfaction in our study we
combined people´s satisfaction with the house and satisfaction with the neighborhood (both graded on
a 7-point Likert scale) into one overall construct called ‘residential satisfaction’ because both are
highly correlated. We rounded average values to the nearest integer to get back to the original ordinal
scale. Moreover, questions were asked about perceived local and regional accessibility, where local
accessibility factors relate to neighborhood characteristics (e.g. the number of parking places and
access to shops), whereas regional accessibility included travel time to work, perceived accessibility
of the work location by different transport modes, and the preference to live near the highway. With
respect to negative externalities, the survey included questions and items on three types of hindrance:
noise annoyance, air pollution and visual hindrance. The noise and air constructs were measured by
means of five items, that included actual observance of hindrance (either inside or outside the house),
and items focusing on perceived concerns and health problems. Physical hindrance was measured on
four dimensions, including visual and physical obstruction, integration in the landscape and perceived
unattractiveness. Correlations and factor tests showed that combining variables was justified. We
checked whether the specific questions “I am annoyed by..” and “I am worried about..” were
measuring different things. As a very strong relation was found between both we decided to combine
them into one variable. Finally, the survey contained socio-economic background characteristics
because of potential relevance in explaining residential satisfaction. All descriptive characteristics are
shown in Table 1.
We also used three additional data sources. First of all, we used GIS and road network data to
compute the distance between the zip codes within our sampled neighborhoods and the nearest
highway access lane. Moreover, we obtained data from the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure &
Environment on mathematical exposure calculations for noise (DB) and air (NO2 and PM10) by road
traffic for each 6-digit zip code around Dutch highways. Thirdly, we included neighborhood density
(measured in square metres), based on information of Statistics Netherlands.
3.3 Model specification
We applied ordinal regression analysis to determine explanatory characteristics for residential
satisfaction and used complementary log-log link as most of our respondents report a high satisfaction
level. A total of three models were estimated. Model A contains objective explanatory characteristics,
whereas model B covers both objective and subjective independent characteristics. One important
determinant for regional accessibility is accessibility to work. Because not all respondents were
employed (i.e. 762 out of 1,230 have a job) we estimated a separate model for workers, i.e. model C,
where we included perceived accessibility to work as an explanatory factor.
Moreover, we added a separate dummy variable for two out of five case study locations where
road adjustments were planned and had been discussed (i.e. Groningen and Utrecht) in order to gain
first insights into the extent to which plans for road infrastructure adjustments influence residential
satisfaction. In models B and C we additionally included interaction effects between planned road
adjustments and accessibility and hindrance perceptions to broaden the perspective.
TABLE 1 Descriptive characteristics of variables in analysis
All residents
Mean/ St.dv Min Max
%a
Working residents
Mean/ St.dv Min Max
%a
Factors not directly related to the highway
Dwelling
House built < 1980
45.3
House built >1979
50.2
House built unkown
4.5
Detached house
35.3
40.3
54.7
5.0
33.7
8
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
Not detached house
Type of house unknown
64.0
0.7
65.6
0.7
Rented house
Owned house
Owned/rented unknown
Well insulated house
Insulation unknown
24.1
75.2
0.7
90.6
0.8
20.6
78.9
0.5
91.3
0.8
Neighborhood
Population density (M2)
Socio demographics
Female
Having children
No children
Children unknown
4.7
2.6
0.5
11.8
46.9
36.3
63.5
0.2
4.8
0.5
11.8
10.6
0.9
20
1
65
5
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
51.7
50.1
49.8
0.1
Age
Education (15=high)
51.1
4.3
Income 0-2,000
Income 2,000-4,000
Income >4,000
Income unknown
25.8
43.3
23.9
7.0
18.6
45.1
29.0
7.2
Tenure duration<10
Tenure duration 10/30
Tenure duration >30
Tenure duration unknown
Perceptions
Attractive design (17=very positive)
Good contacts (17=very positive)
Greenery (17=very positive)
Traffic safety (17=very positive)
Parking space (17=very positive)
Access to stores (17=very positive)
Factors related to the highway
Hindrance measures
0-300m from highway
300-600m from highway
600-1,000m from highway
DB exposure = >50 DB)
NO2 exposure = >12 ug/m3)
Seeing highway
Seeing screen
No sight on highway
Sight unknown
47.3
56.0
40.2
1.7
2.1
15.1
1.1
20
1
94
5
36.3
37.6
26.1
13.8
19.9
5.0
7.8
86.0
2.0
39.6
37.4
23.0
15.9
22.2
4.6
8.5
86.1
1.7
High noise hindrance (> 3)
High air hindrance (>3)
High visual hindrance (>3)
15.4
22.0
36.8
13.6
20.1
38.1
Highway interest/use
Use, often in traffic jam
Use, not often in traffic jam
(Almost) no use
Use of highway unknown
6.1
78.0
10.2
5.8
8.9
81.4
5.5
4.2
9.2
3.4
5.4
5.4
5.6
5.2
5.4
6.0
2.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
44.5
4.5
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.2
5.2
6.0
9
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Preference to live near highway(> 3)
Opinion driving (17=love)
30.5
4.9
(Regional) accessibility
0-300m from access lane
300-1,000m from access lane
>1,000m from access lane
18.5
51.5
30.0
21.3
49.9
28.9
Critical on local accessibility (<5)
14.8
Critical on car accessibility region(<5)b
NA
Regional access by public transport
NA
(17=very good)b
>40min travel time to workb
NA
Announced road adjustment
Road adjustment planned
43.9
Dependent variable: residential satisfaction
Residential Satisfaction =1 (very low)
0.1
Residential Satisfaction =2
0.6
Residential Satisfaction =3
1.8
Residential Satisfaction =4
6.4
Residential Satisfaction =5
15.3
Residential Satisfaction =6
44.1
Residential Satisfaction =7 (very high) 31.8
1230
Total N
13.5
23.0
3.7
1.3
NA
1
NA
7
NA
32.5
5.0
1.2
1
7
2.1
1
7
18.1
44.4
0
0.8
1.6
6.3
16.7
46.4
28.2
762
For each numeric and ordinal variable we checked whether the single effect with residential satisfaction
approached a linear relation. If yes, the variable is included as a scale variable (i.e. mean, st.dev., min-max are
given). If not, or if data is missing, we included classes for the variable (i.e. % in class is given), sometimes
including a category ‘unknown’ to avoid loss of cases.
b Involves home-work travel
(>..) Some of the subjective measures were measured on a scale from 1 to 7. For the inclusion of interaction
effects, these measures were recorded into two groups; (>..) or (<..) indicates where the split is made. b Involves
home-work travel
a
4. RESULTS
In this section we describe the results of the multivariate analysis. First, in section 4.1 we provide an
overall picture of residential satisfaction, the perceived accessibility and the hindrance in the
neighborhoods near highways. Subsequently, sections 4.2 and 4.3 describe contextual factors for
residential satisfaction, where section 4.2 aims at general explanatory characteristics and section 4.3
specifically focuses on accessibility, hindrance and on their relative importance. In both sections we
distinguish between more traditional objective explanatory factors and the more subjective ones.
4.1 Residential satisfaction, accessibility and hindrance in general
Generally speaking, respondents appear satisfied with their residence, i.e. house and neighborhood;
about 90 percent of respondents report to be satisfied (i.e. summation of categories 5-7 in table 1).
This finding is in accordance with satisfaction levels in other neighborhoods in the Netherlands (see
e.g. 8). Moreover, it is in line with various other studies, which also found high satisfaction ratings
(e.g., 7, 9, 19, 25).
With respect to the perception of hindrance, the picture is comparable. On a Likert-scale from
1 (very low perceived hindrance) to 7 (high level of perceived hindrance), the average hindrance
amounts to 2.1 for noise. Also for air (i.e. 2.5) and visual effects (i.e. 3.3) the level of intrusion seems
to be modest. Finally, we analyzed the perception about current accessibility, making a distinction
between regional and local accessibility. Generally speaking, respondents seem quite happy with their
accessibility. Employed respondents gave an average score of 5.6 with respect to perceived
accessibility between residence and work location ( i.e. on a scale from 1, very unsatisfied, to 7, very
10
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
satisfied). Although not directly related to the highway, satisfaction with local accessibility is also
high, with a mean value of 6.3.
4.2 Factors not directly related to highway and residential satisfaction
Table 2 shows several socio-economic characteristics that have statistically significant impact on
residential satisfaction. Most significant effects are found for model A, which only took objective
explanatory characteristics into account. However, adding subjective factors results in diminishing
explanatory power of objective characteristics. Education level is the only significant variable present
in all three models. On average, respondents with a higher education level reported a lower residential
satisfaction, which may have to do with them being more critical about the hindrance or about current
accessibility. With respect to age, we obtained mixed results. Based on a sample containing all
respondents (model A) we find a slightly positive impact of age on residential satisfaction, which
means that relatively older people are more satisfied. However, for employed residents (model C) the
opposite is found. Moreover, there seems to be an indication that tenure has mixed influence on
residential satisfaction, with households that have been living in their house for 10-30 years indicating
a lower satisfaction than households who have either been living there shorter (<10 years) or longer
(>30 years). Cognitive dissonance might play a role here, especially for short duration residents,
whereas self-selection might be important in the case of long-term residents; if the latter group would
have disliked the housing and neighborhood situation they probably would have changed locations
already. Nevertheless, the tenure effect is not robust given its statistical insignificance when adding
subjective characteristics (in models B and C). The same is true for the variable “having children”,
which has a significant negative relationship with residential satisfaction only in model A. Other
studies (15,19) often find a positive effect of family size on satisfaction. However, households living
near highways might be sensitive to negative externalities influencing their children’s health.
In addition to socio-economics we tested the influence of dwelling and neighborhood
characteristics. Two significant explanatory characteristics were found in model A. Both house
owners and respondents living in a detached house indicated having a higher residential satisfaction,
which is in line with literature (e.g. 9, 18). However, when adding subjective characteristics, i.e.
models B and C, these factors turn out to be statistically non-significant. Neighborhood perceptions
have stronger explanatory power than socio-economic and dwelling characteristics. Respondents’
residential satisfaction is particularly positively influenced by higher perceived attractiveness of the
neighborhood design, and by opinions on current traffic safety and social cohesion. These findings
correspond with other studies that did not particularly focus on highway locations (see, for instance,
16, 19).
Moreover, we tested the influence of local accessibility characteristics, i.e. perceptions about
the availability of parking spaces within the neighborhood and the perceived accessibility to shops
from a residential perspective. As expected, both factors have a positive relationship with residential
satisfaction, although their explanatory strength is lower compared to the earlier described
neighborhood characteristics. Finally, the relationship between perceptions about the amount of
greenery in the neighborhood and residential satisfaction was studied, first of all because several other
studies find a positive relationship with residential satisfaction (15, 41, 42,43), and secondly because
one could hypothesize that in the case of highway vicinity, ‘greenery’ acts as compensation for
negative externalities. Nevertheless, we find no consistent statistically significant relationship for the
different models; only model C, which is based on employed respondents finds a marginally
significant effect with an expected positive coefficient sign.
TABLE 2 Explanatory characteristics for residential satisfaction (ordinal regression estimation)
A: All
Obja
B: All
obj+suba
Factors not directly related to highway (discussed in section 4.2)
Dwelling
House built< 1980 (ref=> 1979)
-0.026
-0.062
C: Working
obj+suba
-0.305**
11
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
House built unknown
-0.107
-0.069
0.005
Detached house (ref=not detached)
Type house unknown
Rented house (ref=owned house)
Rented/owned unknown
Well insulated house (ref=bad isolated)
Insulation unknown
0.353***
0.560
-0.187*
0.169
0.002
-0.759
0.169
0.433
0.060
-0.330
-0.045
0.074
0.178
11.664
-0.200
-11.938
0.116
0.182
0.003
0.022
0.039
0.050
-0.146*
1.184
-0.100**
0.009***
-0.036
0.039
-0.021
0.018
-0.122
0.850
-0.091**
0.001
-0.011
0.100
0.190
0.108
-0.035
-1.074
-0.175**
-0.012*
-0.069
0.155
-0.030
Tenure duration<10 (ref=10-30)
0.295***
Tenure duration<30
0.285*
Tenure duration unknown
0.315
Perceptions
Attractive design (17=very positive)
NA
Good contacts(17=very positive)
NA
Greenery (17=very positive)
NA
Traffic safety (17=very positive)
NA
Parking space (17=very positive)
NA
Access to stores (17=very positive)
NA
Factors related to the highway (discussed in 4.3.1)
Hindrance measures
0-300m from highway (ref=300-600m)
0.096
600-1000m from highway
0.068
0.048
0.103
0.513**
-0.080
0.177
-0.472
0.438***
0.313***
0.010
0.178***
0.048*
0.073*
0.531***
0.219***
0.083*
0.215***
0.067*
0.090
0.179
0.005
0.160
0.238*
DB exposure =>50 DB (ref=<50)
NO2 exposure = >12 ug/m3 (ref=<12)
Seeing highway (ref=not see highway)
Seeing screen (ref=not see screen)
Sight unknown
-0.038
-0.289***
0.244
-0.302**
-0.084
-0.138
0.026
0.377
-0.092
-0.274
-0.066
0.072
0.075
-0.001
-0.149
Perceived high noise hindrance (> 3)
Perceived high air hindrance (>3)
Perceived high visual hindrance (>3)
Highway interest/use
Use, often in traffic jam (ref=not often)
(Almost) no use of highway
Use of highway unknown
Preference to live near highway (> 3)
Opinion on car driving (1- 7=love)
Regional accessibility
300-1000m from access lane (ref=< 300m)
>1000m from access lane
Critical on local accessibility (<5)
NA
NA
NA
-0.542***
-0.419**
-0.098
-.0623**
-0.249
-0.352**
0.018
-0.163
0.110
NA
NA
-0.120
-0.373***
0.339*
0.331***
-0.017
-0.356
-0.335
-0.176
0.385**
0.024
0.169
0.004
NA
0.308*
0.240
-0.146
0.476**
0.433*
0.772*
Neighborhood
Population density (M2)
Socio demographics
Female (ref=male)
Having children (ref=no children)
Children unknown
Education (15=high)
Age
Income €0-2000 (ref=income>4000)
Income €2000-4000euro's
Income unknown
12
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
Critical on regional car accessibility (<5)b
NA
NA
-0.523
Regional access by public transport
NA
NA
-0.028
( 17=very good)b
>40min travel time work(ref=<40min)b
NA
NA
0.282
Hindrance and accessibility during road adjustment: (discussed in section 4.3.2)
Road adjustment planned
-0.089
0.301*
0.499**
High air exposure area *adjustment
NA
-0.451*
-0.789**
High noise exposure area * adjustment
NA
0.283*
0.443*
Seeing highway * adjustment
NA
0.491
1.142*
0-300m till highway * adjustment
NA
-0.258
-0.287
Perceived high noise hindrance * adjustment
NA
-0.144
-0.190
Perceived high air hindrance * adjustment
NA
0.188
0.311
Perceived high visual hindrance* adjustment
NA
-0.171
-0.042
Use, often in traffic jam * adjustment
NA
0.318
0.957**
High preference to live near highway* adjustment NA
-0.269
-0.415*
Critical on local accessibility * adjustment
NA
-0.544**
-1.684***
>40min travel time workb * adjustment
NA
NA
-0.264
Critical on regional car accessibilityb *adjustment NA
NA
0.677
Constant: Residential satisfaction=1
NA
-2.385**
NA
Constant: Residential satisfaction=2
NA
-0.206
-0.176
Constant: Residential satisfaction=3
-3.462***
1.239**
1.139
Constant: Residential satisfaction=4
-2.141***
2.715***
2.740***
Constant: Residential satisfaction=5
-1.028**
4.028***
4.202***
Constant: Residential satisfaction=6
0.463
6.000***
6.471***
1,230
1,230
762
Total N
CLOGLOG
Link
116.49***
921.02***
738.59***
Chi square
3,054.06
2,253.83
1,017.94
-2 LL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
a Model
A Only objective variables, Model B/C objective and subjective variables
Involves home-work travel
(>..) Some of the subjective measures were measured on a scale from 1 to 7. For the inclusion of interaction
effects, these measures were recorded into two groups; (>..) or (<..) indicates where the split is made.
b
4.3 Factors related to the highway and residential satisfaction
Residents living near highways experience both hindrance and accessibility benefits at the same time.
Therefore, we analyzed the influence of several hindrance characteristics, and of local and regional
accessibility (see Table 2). In section 4.3.1 we focus on general findings whereas section 4.3.2
concentrates on the situation where a highway adjustment has been planned.
4.3.1 Hindrance, accessibility and residential satisfaction
With respect to hindrance we tested the influence of noise annoyance, air pollution hindrance and the
impact of perceived visual and barrier effects of the highway. Perceived noise annoyance turns out to
have a strong statistically significant negative relationship with residential satisfaction; if noise
hindrance is higher, residents are less satisfied. For perceived air pollution a slightly less strong, but
still significant negative relationship with satisfaction is found (model B). However, if the model is
estimated for employed respondents only (model C), unexpectedly significance fades away.
Employed respondents, in their turn, seem to be bothered more by visual annoyance and by barrier
effects caused by the highway compared to the total sample; they have a relatively lower residential
satisfaction. We checked whether this also means that unemployed people are less annoyed by visual
design (i.e. with visual annoyance as dependent variable) but did not find support for that.
In addition to perceived hindrance, model calculations for noise and air pollution, which are
used in Dutch planning practice, were included in our statistical models. Table 2, model A, indicates
that only calculated noise exposure has significant relationship with satisfaction with an expected
negative coefficient sign. Moreover, actually being able to see the noise mitigation screen from home
13
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
appears to result in a slightly lower satisfaction. Nevertheless, both effects appear to diminish when
perceived hindrance characteristics are added (i.e. models B and C). This is not directly counterintuitive because it may imply that the hindrance calculations do not directly reflect reality or at least
the perception of reality. However, in contrast, Kroesen et al. (8), who tested objective hindrance and
perceptions of aircraft noise, did find a relationship between measured exposure and residential
satisfaction.
Can accessibility benefits of living near a highway (partly) compensate for the negative
externalities? We tested three categories of explanatory characteristics: 1) characteristics related to
actual use of, and, preference for the highway, 2) regional accessibility, and, 3) accessibility of the
origin/residential location. Regarding the first category, we find that residents who hardly use the
highway are less satisfied. This variable is only statistically significant in model B. Also, we find
strong positive relationships between having a preference for living near a highway and the residential
satisfaction in models B and C. Selectivity because of highway interest may play a role here.
Furthermore, Table 2 shows that respondents who live slightly further from an access lane (i.e. further
than 300 meters) are more satisfied than respondents who live within a radius of 300 meters. This
indicator may partly act as proxy indicator for air and noise hindrance, which are higher in the close
vicinity of roads. Finally, we checked whether people’s satisfaction with their jobs and home
accessibility affects their total residential satisfaction but found no clear effects. Some other studies on
neighborhood satisfaction, however, do find a relationship between satisfaction and access to jobs (for
instance 15, 23, 26). This slight discrepancy may relate to us having corrected for people’s highway
use.
4.3.2 Planned road adjustments and residential satisfaction
In section 1 we hypothesized that residential satisfaction would be an interesting concept for
measuring the impact of distortions such as planned road adjustments. This is why we added a dummy
characteristic to our explanatory model, which relates to whether or not highway adjustments are
planned in the near future. In our study, two out of five case locations can be linked to imminent
change. These highway sections are located near Utrecht and Groningen (see Figure 1), two regional
cities within the Netherlands. Table 2 indicates that respondents living near these highways seem to
have a slightly higher residential satisfaction compared to those living near the other case locations. A
potential reason could be that respondents near Groningen and Utrecht believe the current situation to
improve once the adjustments have taken place, for instance by increased accessibility. However,
there may also be other reasons related to unobserved underlying explanatory characteristics.
To gain greater insight into what drives observed differences between Utrecht/Groningen and
the other case locations, we included interaction effects between planned road adjustments on the one
hand, and hindrance and accessibility on the other. Table 2 shows several statistically significant
interaction effects. First of all, for Utrecht and Groningen the negative effect of high air exposure on
residential satisfaction appears to be stronger, which may be caused by people living in the
neighborhood of these projects expecting adjustments to cause deterioration of air quality. Moreover,
this interaction effect may act as proxy for opposing the road adjustment plan, or may be a reaction
towards unexpected impacts of change in general. However, if this were true, it is surprising to find a
slightly stronger positive effect on satisfaction for residents perceiving high noise exposure in the
current situation or for employed respondents who actually see the highway. The difference between
air pollution and noise and visual hindrance is that the sensory perception of the latter two is higher;
air pollution is often imperceptible. However, this still makes the observed changing coefficient signs
hard to explain. Maybe it has to do with transport planners in the Netherlands having invested
considerably in well-designed noise mitigation barriers, which may result in respondents expecting
that the adjustment will improve the current situation.
Intuitively more logical is the finding that employed respondents who are frequently stuck in
traffic jams and who live near a future highway adjustment are more satisfied, potentially because
they expect the highway adjustment to improve accessibility. Moreover, respondents who are critical
about the current accessibility of their residential location and who live in Utrecht or Groningen are
more negatively influenced in their residential satisfaction. They possibly expect accessibility of the
area to decrease because of a potential chaotic situation during the road adjustment. Finally, we found
some indication of working respondents living in Utrecht or Groningen, and, at the same time, having
14
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
a high preference for living near the highway being more negatively influenced in their residential
satisfaction than those living at other locations. A potential explanation is that people who have a
preference for living near a highway may fear a decrease in accessibility during the road adjustment.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Residential satisfaction is an important proxy for people´s overall wellbeing and for people’s moving
intentions and relocation behavior. In this paper we focused on gaining insight into household’s
residential satisfaction near highways based on survey data collected in the Netherlands in 2011. We
aimed to study the effect of both accessibility and negative externalities, alongside other contextual
factors, on the residential satisfaction of households living near highways. Moreover, the objective
was to gain first insight into the extent to which plans for road infrastructure adjustments influence
residential satisfaction.
Results indicated that, on average, respondents are satisfied with living near a highway.
Approximately ninety percent reported to be satisfied. Regarding explanatory characteristics for
residential satisfaction, we conclude three things. First of all, with respect to hindrance, subjective
evaluations and perceptions appear to have stronger explanatory power for residential satisfaction
than more objective characteristics like calculated exposure levels. However for accessibility,
objective characteristics such as the frequency of highway use were found to be more important than
people’s perceived accessibility. Secondly, negative externalities slightly outweigh accessibility
related aspects. Thirdly, although both externalities have their influence, residents living along
highways do not seem to deviate much from residents at other locations when it comes to explanatory
characteristics for residential satisfaction (see e.g. 15-16, 19).
This article also explored if potential future road adjustments influence residential satisfaction
and whether external effects are traded off differently in such circumstances. We found that
respondents living at locations where a road adjustment is announced are marginally more satisfied
than residents at other locations. A reason could be that respondents expect the current situation to
improve once the adjustments take place, for instance by increased accessibility. Regarding the tradeoff of external effects around those adjustment locations, we found mixed results for air and noise
exposure. Respondents living in a high air exposure zone were found to be more negatively
influenced in their residential location. Surprisingly, for noise the opposite was found. Intuitively
more logical is the finding that people who are frequently stuck in traffic jams are often more
satisfied, potentially because they expect the highway adjustment to improve accessibility.
This study may have several practical implications. First of all, the overall positive residential
satisfaction evaluations near highways may imply that, generally speaking, problems regarding living
near highways may be somewhat overstated. Of course self-selection effects may enact here, because
people who are hindered may have moved or will never choose to locate near a highway. Moreover,
the notion that the explanatory power of subjective hindrance outperforms calculated exposure levels,
which are often used in transportation planning practice, may give reason for being cautious when
making decisions based on calculated measures.
With respect to implications for road infrastructure adjustments, we have to be careful as well.
Our finding that respondents who live near planned road adjustment indicate a higher residential
satisfaction is not directly what one would expect. Why are these respondents more positive? Do they
expect the road adjustment to improve the current situation? Or does it relate to underlying
unobserved characteristics of the cases in our survey where road adjustments are planned? And, how
should we explain the contrasting findings for air pollution and noise hindrance? More in-depth
research is needed to answer such questions. One way to do this is to perform separate analysis on the
data collected near road adjustment projects on the one hand, and on data from neighborhoods in a
state of equilibrium on the other. Moreover, in-depth interviews among survey respondents may help
to gain additional information on the specificity of the local context. From a transportation planner’s
perspective, it may also be interesting to gain greater insight into people’s reaction to adjustments, for
example by analyzing residential satisfaction both before and after a change, and to study how
information supply or mitigation measures could alleviate perceived hindrance. Finally, whereas in
this study we focused on people living near highways only, it may be worthwhile to also include a
15
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
control group of people that do not live near highways to define whether people living near highways
behave differently.
REFERENCES
1. Bovy, P.H.L. Traffic flooding the low countries: how the Dutch cope with motorway congestion,
Transport Reviews, Vol.21, 2001, pp. 89-116.
2. Dora, C. and M. Phillips. Transport, environment and health. Publication WHO Regional
Publications, European Series, No. 89, 2000.
3. Stansfeld, S.A., M.M. Haines, M. Burr, B. Berry and P. Lercher. A review of environmental
noise and mental health. Noise and Health, Vol.2, No.8, 2000, pp. 1-8.
4. Lecher, P., R. Schmitzberger and W. Kofler. Perceived traffic air pollution, associated behavior
and health in an alpine area. The science of the total environment, Vol. 169, 1994, pp. 71-74.
5. Bateman, I., B. Day, I. Lake and A. Lovett. The effect of road traffic on residential property
values: a literature review and hedonic pricing study. Scottish Executive & Stationery Office,
Edinburgh, 2001.
6. Wardman, M. and A.L. Bristow.Traffic Related Noise and Air Quality Valuations: Evidence
from Stated Preference Residential Choice Models. Transportation Research D, Vol. 9, 2004, pp.
1-27.
7. Eliasson, J., J. Lindqvist Dillén and J. Widell. Measuring intrusion valuations through stated
preference and hedonic prices: a comparative study. In: European Transport Conference, PTRC,
London, 2002.
8. Kroesen, M., E. Molin, H. Vos, S. Janssen & B.van Wee, B. Estimation of Effects of
Transportation Noise Annoyance on Residential Satisfaction. Transport Research D, Vol. 15,
2010, pp. 144–153.
9. Lu, M. Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs regression models. Growth and
Change, Vol. 30, 1999, pp. 264–287.
10. Tillema, T., M. Hamersma, J.M. Sussman and E.J.M.M. Arts. Extending the scope of highway
planning: accessibility, negative externalities and the residential context. Accepted for: Transport
reviews.
11. Galster, G. and G.W. Hesser. Residential satisfaction. Compositional and contextual correlates.
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 13, 1981, pp. 735–758.
12. Marans, R.W. and W. Rodgers. Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In: Hawley,
A.H. and V.P. Rock (Eds.). Metropolitan America in Community Perspective. Wiley, New York,
1975.
13. Sabagh, G., M. van Arsdol, Jr. and E. Butler. Some Determinants of Intrametropolitan Residential
Mobility: Conceptual Consideration. Social Forces, Vol. 48, 1969, pp. 88-98
14. Speare, A. Jr. Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility.
Demography, Vol. 11, 1974, pp. 173–188.
15. Hur, M. and H. Morrow-Jones. Factors that influence residents' satisfaction with neighborhoods.
Environment and Behavior, Vol.40, 2008, pp. 619-635.
16. Lovejoy, K., S. Handy and P.L. Mokhtarian. Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus
traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California
neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.97, 2010, pp. 37–48.
17. Morris, E.W., S.R. Crull and M. Winter. Housing Norms, Housing Satisfaction and the
Propensity to Move. Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 38, No.2, 1978, pp. 309-320.
18. Buys.L. and E. Miller. Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia:
role of dwelling design, neighbourhood and neighbours. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, Vol. 55, No.3, 2012, pp. 319-338.
19. Parkes, A., A. Kearns and R. Atkinson. What makes people dissatisfied with their
neighbourhoods? Urban Studies, Vol.39, 2002, pp. 2413–2438.
20. Onibokun, A.G. Social System Correlates of Residential Satisfaction. Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 8, No.3, 1976, pp.323-344.
21. Campbell, A., P.E Converse and W.L. Rodgers. The quality of American life: perceptions,
evaluations and satisfaction. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, 1976.
16
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
22. Kasarda, J.D. and M. Janowitz, . Community Attachment in Mass Society. American sociological
review, Vol. 39, No.1, 1974, pp. 328-339.
23. Howley, P., M.Scott and D. Redmond. Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of
neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of environmental planning and management, Vol.52, No.6,
2009, pp. 847–864.
24. Cook, C.C. Components of neighborhood satisfaction: responses from urban and suburban singleparent women. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1988, pp.115–149.
25. Mohan, J. and L. Twigg. Sense of place, quality of life and local socioeconomic context: evidence
from the Survey of English Housing, 2002/03. Urban Studies, Vol.44, No.10, 2007, pp. 2029–
2045.
26. Savasdisara, T. Residents’ Satisfaction and Neighbourhood Characteristics in Japanese Urban
Communities. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 15, No. 20, 1988, pp. 20 l-2 10.
27. Theebe, A. J. Planes, Trains and Automobiles: The Impact of Traffic Noise on House Prices.
Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 28, 2004, pp. 209-234.
28. Schreckenberg, D., B. Griefahn and M. Meis. The associations between noise sensitivity, reported
physical and mental health, perceived environmental quality, and noise annoyance. Noise Health,
Vol. 12, No.46, 2010, pp. 7-16.
29. Miedema, H.M.E. & H. Vos. Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from
transportation noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 6, 1999, pp.
3336-3344.
30. Nijland, H., S. Hartemink, I. van Kamp and B. van Wee. The influence of sensitivity for road
traffic noise on residential location: does it trigger a process of spatial selection? Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 122, 2007, pp. 1595–1601.
31. Dratva, J., E. Zemp, D.F. Dietrich, P.O. Bridevaux, T. Rochat, C. Schindler and M.W. Gerbase.
Impact of road traffic noise annoyance on health-related quality of life: results from a populationbased study. Quality of Life Research, Vol. 19, 2010, pp. 37-46.
32. Bangjun, Z., S. Lili and D. Guoqing. The influence of the visibility of the source on the subjective
annoyance due to its noise. Applied Acoustics, Vol. 64, 2003, pp. 1205–1215.
33. Aylor, D.E. and L.E. Marks. Perception of noise transmitted through barriers. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 59, 1976, pp. 397-400.
34. Zimmer, K. and W. Ellermeier. Psychometric properties of four measures of noise sensitivity: A
comparison. Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19, 1999, pp. 295–302.
35. Job, R.F.S. Community response to noise: A review of factors influencing the relationship
between noise exposure and reaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol.83, No. 3,
1988, pp. 991-1001.
36. Coensel, B. de, D. Botteldooren, T. de Muer, B. Berglund, M.E. Nilsson, and P. Lercher. A model
for the perception of environmental sound based on notice-events. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, Vol. 126, No. 2, 1999, pp. 656-665.
37. Handy, S., X. Cao and P.L. Mokhtarian, Correlation or causality between the built environment
and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research D, Vol. 10,
2005, pp. 427–444.
38. Manaugh, K., L.F.Miranda-Moreno and A.M. El-Geneidy. The effect of neighbourhood
characteristics, accessibility, home-work location and demographics on commuting distances.
Transportation, Vol.37, 2010, pp. 627–646.
39. Van Ommeren, J., P. Rietveld, P. Nijkamp. Job Moving, Residential moving, and commuting: A
Search Perspective. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 46, 1999, pp. 230-253.
40. Blije, B. The impact of accessibility on residential choice: Empirical results of a discrete choice
model. In: Proceedings International Housing Conference of the ENHR, Reykjavik:
ENHR/Sigillum Universitatis Islandiae, 2005, pp. 1-25.
41. Hur, M., J.L. Nasar and B. Chun. Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness
and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol.30, 2010, pp. 52–59.
42. Kearney, A.R. Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction:impacts of density
and nearby nature. Environment and Behavior, Vol.38, No.1, 2006, pp.112–139.
17
Hamersma, Tillema, Sussman and Arts
1
2
3
43. Lee, S.W., C.D. Ellis, B.S. Kweon, S.K. Hong. Relationship between landscape structure and
neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 85, No.1,
2008, pp. 60–70.