THEORIES OF HOUSING STUDIES

1. Marxist Housing Theory

The Marxist theory emerged in the period from1844 to 1848 as a theory of social change. Its creators
were KarlMarx and Friedrich Engels, and their goal was to help theproletariat to resume control over
their lives in every respect. Although the theory is based on economic aspects of human life,it has also
been used in housing satisfaction studies, where theanalyses of land use, rented housing and worsening
of housingconditions, etc. were in research focus.Marxist theory is considered one of the first housing
theories andstarts from the assumption that every human has the right toquality housing irrespective of
economic status, i.e. that theeconomic differences between the rich and the poor in terms ofhousehold
incomes should be least visible. Since Marxism rests

on the “destruction” of capitalist views on housing satisfaction,

Marx and Engels have written that the economic differencesbetween the bourgeoisie and the proletariat
should be reduced,which would also result in a reduction in the differences inhousing satisfaction.
Opponents of this theory were S. E.Barton(1977), A. Skarburskis and M. Moos (2008), who sidedwith the
capitalist housing theory, explaining that the proletariatunder the capitalist regime would become aware
of its deprivedposition and that it would be a driver of change in that class ofsociety.Namely, to make
things better, first it must be less developed toget a sense of progress in the individual.Marxist housing
theory was most dealt with by A. M. Soliman inhis works, in which he gave several definitions of housing
thatwere later cited in many works, especially by geographers. TheMarxist view defines housing in terms
of three fundamentaldimensions (Soliman, 2

004). “1) Housing is a necesary good, a

means of subsistence that is necessary for the reproduction ofthe labor force and is therefore a good
whose cost enters directlyor indirectly into the production of all commodities. This meansthat housing in
a capitalist social formation is of interest toclasses of people other than those who immediately consume

it.” 2) “Housing is a fixed good. A material precondition for

producing a house is that it has to occupy land in a specificlocation. Land is a limited product and the
right to use it is

preserved by legal regulations (Soliman, 2004). “3) In a capitalist

social formation, housing not only has a use but also anexchange value; it is, or can become, a
commodity whoseconsumption can only be realized by those with a housing need

and who can afford to purchase it” (Soliman, 2004). According

to this theory, the purpose of economic activities is thesatisfaction of basic human needs, which include
both housingand its quality. Supporters of liberal theory gave different

definitions of housing. “Living for them is a dynamic process that

takes place in accordance with the needs of the residents, andthe connectivity and interactivity with the
members of thecommunity. In addition, housing is a vital component of life that,because Of the
materials, elements and services it uses, followseconomic, social and cultural changes, and the dwelling
unitreflects the life of the residents, the customs and backgrounds

of every social group” (Soliman, 2004). A particular emphas

is ofliberal theory is on the socioeconomic differences of the family,on which both the housing needs
and the different views onhousing satisfaction depend. Marxist theory was the startingpoint for the
development of new theories whose postulatescontributed to the development of the concept of
housingsatisfaction.

2. The Positivists Housing Theory

The originator of positivism is Auguste Comte, and thefundamental premise of positivism is that a
certain phenomenoncan be measured, i.e. the theory includes all phenomena forwhich the cause and
effect can be determined, while emotionalattitudes are not particularly important. According to A.
M.Soliman (2004), Positivists defined housing by threedimensions: 1) the economic status on which the
physicalimprovement of the dwelling unit depends, and with which thedwelling unit increases its
economic value; 2) the healthsituation within the dwelling units that can be measured; i.e.individuals
should live in health-friendly facilities for the furtherdevelopment of the community as a whole, and 3)
thecontribution of the government in ensuring dwelling units wherethe authorities should ensure the
availability of adequatehousing for each individual (Soliman, 2004). Positivist theory

primarily rests on an “objective” approach to evaluating certainphenomena but in housing satisfaction

studies, the “subjective”

component is also important, that is, the perceptions andfeelings of individuals. Numerous authors
(Campbell et al.,1976; Mattika, 2001; Bhada, Hoor

nweg, 2009; Šiljeg, 2016)

have written about the synergy of objective and subjectivemeasures in housing satisfaction studies
aimed at obtaining ascomplete a picture of housing reality as possible. This theory isimportant precisely
because of the element

of “objectiveindicators” that were often excluded in

some other theories. Theimportance of objective measures was also discussed in theconcept of the
quality of life that in some way encompasseshousing satisfaction. Thus, housing satisfaction studies
cannotbe based solely on positivist theory, but the concept ofsatisfaction should include some other
theories that also includethe subjective component.

3. Functionalist Housing Theory

Functionality as a social paradigm emerged in Americansociology in the 1940s and 1950s and
emphasizes socialharmony and its preservation. It focuses on the harmony of partswithin a system,
based on the principles of economy, simplicity,townscape adaptation and functionality. The functionalist
theorywas most widely used in urban geography, especially indetermining the hierarchy of functioning
cities (both apparentand underlying). The functionalist theory of living was based onthe statement

that “the form always follows the function”,

whichwas particularly applied in architecture. According to thispremise, the function of the dwelling unit
should be the basis ofall other features (the size of the building, the floor area ratiowithin the building,
etc.), and when the form and function of thedweling unit were satisfied, housing satisfaction would be

greater. I. Rogić (1990) criticized the functionalist

approach to

housing because of the idea of “mass

housing” where, within the

urban and housing reform, the aim was to increase housingsatisfaction by constructing a larger number
of residential units.He

argued that flats in the “mass housing” concept were

conceived only as objects that serve to satisfy the functions ofnutrition, protection and sleep, while
other functions are housedoutside the dwelling unit. This

concept is called “protectivedwelling” by the

author of the concept (Rogić, 1990). Thereby,

the author does not refute the reforms that arise from thefunctionalist theory of housing, which refer to
the improved levelof public health and hygienization of

the city. “Both concepts are

based on the assumption that man is solely a being of necessity,and therefore none of the above
concepts are well accepted inthe scientific sphere. This is why there is disagreement over theview of
housing as a practice in which only the need for shelterand security is fulfilled, since from the standpoint
of need, boththe cave and

the house are authentic” (Rogić, 1990). The main

disadvantage of this theory would be the lack of socialinteractions and relationships in the residential
neighbourhoods,while the new building technology solutions (particularly in civilengineering and
architecture) would be the advantage, the free

formation of the inner space that would affect housingsatisfaction. There is a question of whether
housing indicatorsof individual dwelling units or those of the residentialneighbourhoods are more
relevant for housing satisfaction. According to the functionalist theory, this would be housingindicators,
while some

authors (Šiljeg, 2016) claimed exact

ly theopposite in their studies, namely that indicators of the quality ofthe residential neighbourhoods
have a greater impact onhousing satisfaction due to more complex socio-economic andenvironmental
phenomenon. That is why new theories onhousing satisfaction are emerging to complement the
existingones.

4. Housing Mobility Theory

The theory of housing mobility was presented in

1955 in Rossi’s book “Why Families Move”. Rossi

developed the theory based on Reiner’s idea of family

home-based irregularities that trigger the relocationof a family (household), and also relied on the con-
cept of a family life cycle for different housing needs.He studied housing mobility in the United States be-
cause it was precisely the foundation of changes inurban areas and emphasised in his studies the typol-
ogy of housing and the features of the immediate so-cial and economic environment. These variables
were alsomentioned in the work of S. Weidemann and J. Anderson (1985), who observed relatively early,
theimportance of the impact of the housing environ-

ment. They state that “the residential value of a flat

does not depend only on the size of the flat and thefacilities of the premises, but also on the services
andfacilities that enable social communication and suffi-cient provision of transport, education,
informationand recreational opportunities, as well as the possibil-

ity of the flat being supplied with goods and services”

(Seda, 1972), in a wider area (i.e. neighbourhood,urban zone or district). This is confirmed by the the-sis
that neighbourhood features are extremely impor-tant predictors that will affect housing mobility.
Allvariables affecting housing mobility are summed upin three factors according to A. C. Brummell
(1977),which are aspirations, usability of space and stress.The concept of aspiration in the process of
mobilitywas introduced by J. Wolpert (1965) who based thetheory of mobility on the approach that
individualsdo not react to the environment but to an evalua-tion of the state of the environment.
Namely, thatan individual or a family possesses limited rationalityreflecting the limitation of human
decision-making.

Therefore, “individuals facing complex decisions are

constrained or prevented from making optimal choic-es because of imperfect knowledge of the changes
andconsequences, imperfect predictions of consequencesand imperfect powers to calculate the relative
value of

housing” (Simon, 1957). This means that each indi

-vidual possesses a threshold of tolerance with respectto dissatisfaction with housing needs and when
thatthreshold is passed, housing mobility occurs. L. A.Brown and E. G. Moore (1970) attempted to broad-
en this theory by proposing that households definethe lower and upper limits of their housing needs,on
the basis of which to pinpoint more preciselythe moment of housing mobility, and that mobilitycould be
viewed as a process of adaptation to a newhousing location. Another important factor is the us-ability of
space that corresponds as a measure of threlative value associated with the residence of a house-hold,
and if the residence is adequate it means thatcertain household aspects are satisfied in the percep-tion
of satisfaction with housing. The term usabilityof space was described by the geographer J. Wolpertin his
works in 1965 and can be expressed as a posi-tive or negative amount of space that satisfies or doesnot
satisfy the individual at the location. Accordingto J. W. Simmons (1968), the usability of the spacewould
mean the attractiveness or unattractiveness ofa place in relation to alternative locations perceivedby a
particular decision-maker. In a similar manner,L. A. Brown and D. B. Longbrake (1970) refer to ameasure
of relative value based on past experiences,achievements and future expectations in housing sat-
isfaction. This factor emphasizes the synergy of thelocation variables and usability of areas with dwelling

units that are often the primary variables in subjectiveestimates of living satisfaction. The third factor in
thetheory of housing mobility is the stress first appliedby J. Wolpert in 1965 and defined as a measure
ofinequality or discrepancy between the household and theenvironment. According to this definition,
stresswould depend solely on the local dwelling unit environment andwould act as an incentive factor in
mobility. But it can also be afactor of attraction in someplace, depending on the factors that the living
spaceoffers. Therefore, such kind of stress can be calledhousing stress that in the theory of housing
mobilitycan be a push or pull factor. The push factor is basedon the current housing discontent with a
dwellingunit in which an individual lives and the pull factoron the place in which an individual thinks he
or shewill satisfy his or her housing wishes and needs. Thus,W. A. V. Clark and M. Cadwallader (1973)
definedstress as a measure of inequality between satisfactionin the present place of residence and
potential satisfaction in apossible place of residence and named

this stress “local stress”. Housing stress in the theory

of housing mobility could be defined as psychologicalstress resulting from the interaction between the
individual andthe environment, and the best example ofthis are the interactionist theory of stress or the
theoryof assessment (Cox, Ferguson, 1991; Hobfoll etal., 1998). The basic contribution of this theory
isthe introduction of three fundamental factors: aspi-ration, usability of space and housing stress with
aspecial emphasis on the housing environment.

5. Theory of Housing Satisfaction

The originators of this theory were G. C. Galsterand G. W. Hesser who developed one of the first
definitions ofliving satisfaction in order to evaluate the judgment of an individual or household
regardingthe extent to which their current situation coincideswith their ideal living situation and future
expectations. Theirsatisfaction or dissatisfaction with housing depends on thecurrent situation as does
the needfor permanent changes. Housing satisfaction stuies are mainlyfocused on the analysis of the
dwelling unit and itsneighbourhood. However, in suchresearch, it is difficult to define the concept of
theneighbourhood because there is no firm geographic

boundary, so it depends on the individual’s perception of the

space to which he or she belongs and withwhich he or she is identified (Amerigo, Aragones1997).
Therefore, the perception of the neighbourhood dependssolely on the individual. Housing satisfaction is
determined bythree factors: the objectivecharacteristics of the household, the objective features of
thehousing environment and the subjectivewell-being defined by their own perceptions, valuesand
aspirations (Galster, 1987; Diaz-Serrano,2006). Objective features can include the dwellingunit size,
number of rooms, spatial organization, anso on, while objective features of the housing sur-roundings
can be access to the dwelling unit, number of parkingspaces, proximity and the size of greenareas, social
services, etc. The focus of satisfactionwith all the authors of this theory is directed at thesubjective
housing satisfaction that contrasts amonghouseholds or different family life cycles. Therefore,

Charlotte Büchler’s theory of hu

man developmenton the model of the psychological development ofhuman life could be incorporated
into this theorybecause the housing needs of an individual or family are not thesame in the culmination
period as inthe period of decline, the achievement of goals orthe feeling of failure. If there is housing
dissatisfaction in aparticular life cycle, there arises a need tochange the housing characteristics or to
change thehousing opportunity. In this segment, the housingsatisfaction theory could be li

nked to Morris’s theory

of housing adjustment, which also stems from housingdiscontent, and is based on cultural standards
ofliving, unlike the theory of housing satisfaction that1 The model of psychological development of
human life takesgrowth, 15-25years of reproduction, 25-45 years of culmination, 45-65 yearsof decline in
reproduction, 65 years and more of the period ofdecline, achievement goals or a sense of failure.is based
on housing attributes that do or do not con-tribute to the satisfaction of an individual or familyin the
housing segment. Consequently, in this theo-

ry, the elements of neighbourhood and environmentare secondary indicators of achievement,

althoughthey could be crucial. That is, the lower the housingsatisfaction, the more likely the move to
another res-idential unit or type. The correlation between thesetwo variables was noted by L. Diaz-
Serrano (2006),who in his research came to the conclusion that sat-isfaction in individuals, increased by
moving to amore adequate and attractive dwelling unit, whileM. Lu (1999) got different results. His
research es-tablished that there is no significant change in sat-isfaction after relocation, and even if there
is, it isvery short term. The results of the above-mentionedresearch confirm that housing satisfaction is
only asubjective category of judgment, that it is not con-stant and that it is not applicable to all
demographiccohorts. The conclusion is that housing satisfactionresearch in the future will be equally
attractive in alldisciplines, from psychology to geography, because alarge number of professions touch
upon the dimen-sions of housing that affect the overall quality of lifeof an individual or a family. The
premises of this the-ory are somehow the basis for developing a theory ofhousing adjustment whose
authors are E. W. Morrisand M. Winter.

6. The Theory of Impression Formation

This theory was introduced by S. Asch in 1964,in a research that introduced an experimental meth-od for
investigating the forming of impressions. Hefound that the earlier information that an individualhas,
influences the forming of the first impressionand he called this phenomenon, the primacy effect.
Although the theory was basically focused on form-ing impressions of a person, in later research it
wasalso applied in housing satisfaction studies. That is,if an individual was looking for a new dwelling
unitand had some information about it, even thoughhe or she did not personally see it, this
informationwould affect his or her first impression when seeingthe new dwelling unit. L. A. Brown and D.
B. Long-

brake (1970) supplemented Asch’s contention that

forming impressions depends on past experiencesand that the process of forming the first
impressiohappens so quickly that an individual cannot at thistime see the advantages or disadvantages
of the ob- ject he or she is looking at. In the case of housing, itis certainly better not to rely on the first
impression,that is, the individual should be aware and shouldnot rely on a selective observation
concerning thetendency to see on or in the housing object onlythe attributes that are in accordance with
the needsand values of the individual (Pennington, 2004).Particularly important, is the information
whetherthe earlier information that the individual has aboutthe object is correct or not, or where the
informationcomes from, because it is possible that a false first im-pression may be caused by misleading
information. Therefore,in this theory, emphasis is placed on the accuracy of theinformation received by
an individual, since it is scientificallyproven that people believe in the first impression. The theory
ofimpression formation is often applied in architecture and interiordesign for the purpose of spatial
organization that affects humanbehaviour and satisfaction in a space. In housing satisfactionstudies, it is
most commonly used in examining impressions ofthe physical as-pects of the housing environment and
the physicalstructure of buildings/ houses/urban furniture; i.e. inassessing personal satisfaction with
housing and itsadjacent fetaures. These two variables can affect thelifestyle of individuals and thus make
them satisfiedor dissatisfied, so it can be said that the formationof impressions includes cognitive and
perceptive, aswell as affective processes of forming an impressionof an object (Fidzani et al., 2015).

7. Behavioural Housing Theory

The behavioural approach to housing research wasformed in the mid-1960s as a reaction and criticism

of the positivists’ approach. Advocates of the behav

ioural theory were particularly critical of positivist

geography studies, to understand man’s behaviour

as a set of rational decisions of the “economic man”

(Jackson, Smith, 1984). The behaviour of individ-uals in within the geographical context of space
hasbeen dealt with the most by behavioural geographersin the sub-field of social urban geography. Their
re-search focused on the choice of housing location inrelation to geographic conditions, and the results
ofsuch studies were models of housing choices. Thechoice of location and type of housing of individu-als
was based on personal assessments and subjectivedecisions, and behavioural geographers attemptedto
incorporate them into an application system. According to their assumptions, it has been estab-lished
that there are two types of pressures withineach household: internal pressures pertaining to theneeds,
desires and values of the household and exter-nal pressures that include the importance of housingand
the neighbourhood level (Figure 1), and the re-
sult of the “contact” of both types of pressures is the

“place utility” (Carter, 1995).

According to H. Carter (1995), the use of spacerepresents an individual level of satisfaction or dis-
satisfaction with a certain dwelling and location,

and if there is a disagreement between “space use”

and household needs, a new location is desirable.Since the behavioural theory of housing is partly
acontinuation of the economi c approach to hous-

ing, D. Rebernik (2002) has supplemented Carter’s

concept and emphasized the importance of familyand socio-economic status o n household

changes(Rebernik, 2002). L. A. Brown and E. G. Moore(1970) have also

written about the “use of space”, i.e.

the benefits offered by a place of residence, and theymeasured housing satisfaction based on the
dwellinglocation and found that if there is no satisfaction withthis variable, another more attractive
location is mostoften sought. Differences only occur in the needs andpreferences of individuals or
households about whatthey expect from their place of residence. Advocatesof the behavioural approach
have based their researchon housing relocation as a result of dissatisfactionwith housing, i.e. they h ave
questioned differentgroups of people about their perception of the placeand the reasons that influence
decisions regarding lo-cation, all because of the fact that the location mostinfluences the perception of
housing satisfaction. Intheir approach, they tried to dispute mathematicalmodels of society, par ticularly
econometric tech-niques for assessing housing satisfaction, and besidesthe location they also addressed
the characteristics of thehousing enviro

nment based on the respondents’

perceptions. These perceptions included social andpsychological factors , as well as the current moodof
the respondents that may vary, just as individualperceptions vary regarding the impact of the envi-
ronment and the received information. Namely, thebehavioural theory of housing is based on the
studyof finding an attractive residential location in a neigh-bourhood and a housi ng environment that
meetsthe criteria of an individual or a family and that thecosts are within the limits of the expected. The
fac-tors that influence housing satisfaction by these var-

iables, are called social geographic filters by M. Špe

(1998) and they include age structure, educationalsystem, economic power and financial situation,
levelof attachment and dependence on nature, cultural,religious and national origin and personal
motives,

feelings and politi cal commitment (Špes, 1998).

These criteria were complemented by D. Rebernik(2002), particularly in the area of satisfaction withthe
housing environment. His criteria are: order andcleanliness of the housing environment,
ecologicalconditions, supply and services, security, traffic andneighbourly relati ons (Rebernik, 2002),
and theyare particularly important for successful planning ofsettlement development, especially for the
planningand development of residential zones. He pointed

out the importance of knowledge about the socialcomposition of the population for the particular so-cial
geographic development of settlements, as wellas knowledge about preferences regarding
housingconditions, types and the housing environment, pre-dictions of future migration flows and
possible trans-formation of settlements in the sense of improvingthe environment (R ebernik, 2002). The
attitudesof individuals concerning housing conditions are thebasic starting point for behaviourists, and
these atti-tudes should be the cornerstone of urban planning

because without “insight” into the needs and wishes

of a certain place, its development and progress willbe constrained. Housing satisfaction is
distinguishedas a priority, since it directly reflects the quality of lifeof an individual or a family, and can
cause negativeprocesses (demographic, migratory, economic, etc.).

8. The theory of the hedonistic ergometer

P. Brickman and D. T. Campbell are the authorsof this theory found in their research in the early1970s of
the 20th century. The promotion of thistheory is based on the happiness and well-being ofthe individual
by the subjective approach, while the

key term is “adaptation”. The theory is often used to

explain the weak impact of the domain of living con-ditions on the well-being of an individual (Brick-
man, Campbell, 1971; Diener et al., 2006). Theauthors of this theory clai

m that people’s happiness,

well-being or pleasure alters when there is a signifi-cant change in their life (e.g. relocation to
anotherdwelling unit, better neihgbourhood) but that thischanges, after the adaptation period when
emotionsand feelings return to neutral. Thus, N. Nakazato etal. (2010) provided an example of moving
from aone-bedroom apartment to a three-bedroom housewith a garden. They explain that after the
relocation,the individuals were much happier, but the period ofhappiness was not long-lasting because
their happi-ness declined in the adaptation period. The theoryof the hedonistic ergometer is the most
commonlyused theory for the explanation of the adaptationphenomenon in contemporary research. It
includesseveral theories: being used to recurring events, dis-regarding constant stimuli and the
sensitivity of theaffective system to changes in the environment whilesimultaneously ignoring the
constant stimuli (Di-ener et al., 2006; Wilson, Gilbert, 2008). Thistheory is also referred to as the
homeostatic modelin the works of R. A. Cummins (2000) and D. A.Vella-Brodrick (2007). In its beginnings,
this theo-ry explained emotional reactions to life events (e.g.partner deaths), but within a short period
of time itspread to more scientific professions. Thus, P. Brick-man and D. T. Campbell (1971) wrote about
howpeople respond briefly to the good and bad that ishappening to them in different periods of life
andthat they return very quickly to neutrality. With thedevelopment of the theory, numerous authors
havemade contributions. Thus, E. Diener et al. (1995)found that most people are actually happy most of
the time, and that even the “neutrality” period is a

positive period rather than a negative one. The theo-ry was supplemented by Michel Eysenck, who
addedthe element of genetic predispositions on which hap-piness depends. That is, that happiness is
partiallygenetically inherited. But then the question arises,what is happiness and how it differs as a
conceptamong different people. R. Veenhoven (2006) divid-ed the theory of happiness into cognitive,
affective,dispositional and mixed. Affective theories definehappiness as a balance between positive and
negativeeffects, where neutrality is considered more positive,suggesting that people are more happy
than unhap-py (Wessman, Ricks, 1966; Fordyce, 1972; Kah-neman, 2000). According to the cognitive
theory,

happiness is the result of the evaluation of individ-ual life dimensions compared with some
objectivestandards or with other persons possessing the samecharacteristics as the individual who is
evaluating thedomains of his or her life. The dispositional theo-ry of happiness begins with the
assumption thatindividuals have predispositions for happiness thatmay be genetic, while the mixed
theory of happinessencompasses all three approaches (Diener, 2004).There are numerous examples of
happiness, e.g. peo-ple who are materially less well-off are not necessarilymore unhappy than those
who have more, and evenin some psychological research it has been proventhat those with big problems
are often happier than

those who do not have them because “those with

problems” are going through a difficult time and

hope they will not be worse, while “those

without

problems” are not aware of what can happen to them

and are often unhappy about little things. What hasbeen confirmed is that material circumstances
affecthuman happiness, but happiness will decrease evenif material circumstances are positive. On the
oth-er hand, recent research (Diener et al., 1993) hasfound that income and happiness are not
correlated.If this assumption was applied to housing satisfac-tion, this could mean that the person who
movedfrom a two-bedroom rented flat to his own studioflat with less square meters is happier than the
per-son living in a villa with 400 square meters. It is im-portant to mention that the theory of the
hedonisticergometer is a theory of affects, and not a theory of

cognitive evaluation of one’s li

fe and assessment oflife satisfaction. This means that when the existingbalance is disturbed, an
adaptation process occurs,after which the level of satisfaction returns to the in-itial level. A somewhat
more convincing explanationfor the theory of the hedonistic adaptation effecttention will be drawn by
some new advancement orincentive, but they will lose their uniqueness if theyrecur frequently. In this
way, they will attract less at-tention and contribute less to the hedonistic equilib-rium of the individual
(Diener et al., 2005). Thebasic critique of this theory by various scholars fromdifferent backrounds is that
it is based on subjectiveassessment, and subjective assessments of satisfactionremain the same despite
objective improvement. Also, there is the inevitable previous experience,because if it was worse, then
the slightest progresssignifies satisfaction and vice versa. In addition, thistheory is not well organized
because the concept ofadaptation is used only as a description of the pat-tern of empirical findings, and
cannot even explainwhy there is no long-lasting positive shift in housingsatisfaction, if the improved
objective indicators arepermanent (Nakazato et al., 2010), but the theoryis certainly a contribution to
the development of un-derstanding of housing satisfaction, especially in thesubjective segment.

9. The Theory of Housing Adjustment

The theory of housing adjustment is the most cit-ed theory in housing satisfaction studies.
Numerousauthors have also used it in works on housing prefer-ences, housing mobility and decision-
making of dif-ferent age groups. T. C. Keller et al. (1997) appliedthis theory in their discussion of the role
of housingnorms in shaping housing satisfaction, while J. Krof-ta et al. (1994) used it in studying housing
decisionsamong older age groups. E. W. Morris and M. Win-ter (1975) are the founders of this theory
which as-sess housing satisfaction based on cultural and familynorms, and starts from maintaining the
housing bal-ance in the household. This balance marks the cur-rent housing satisfaction that is in line
with certainnorms. The focus of satisfaction in this theory is on

housing norms that include the housing structure,the type and quality of dwelling unit, the allocationof
space, the expenditure resulting from the use ofhousing and satisfaction with the neighbourhood.This
means that the theory is closely related to thesubjective experience of an individual or a familyabout
their own housing satisfaction. If one or moreof the norms are not met, then the so-

called “housing

deficit” occurs. E. W. Morris and M. Winter (1966)

defined this “deficit” as a set of conditions that were

subjectively defined as undesirable in comparison tothe norm that marks the balance in the
household.The basic question is whether the housing normsare the same for all age, ethnic, cultural and
othergroups. Equality / inequality of the norms makesthis theory incomplete. That is, it would be appli-
cable if some general norms were used, for example,

that having a roof over one’s head is a fundamen

-tal human right. The theory of housing adjustmentrests on the concept of family life cycle, meaningthat
satisfactory norms are not constant, that is, theychange in different family cycles. For example, in acycle
where there are small children in the family thespatial deficit in the quality of housing may be
thatchildren of different sex share the same bedroom orthat the housing space does not correspond to
theprescribed standards. Such a deficiency can indicate
an individual’s current or permanent dissatisfaction.

If it is a current dissatisfaction balance, it is possible

to achieve the “compensation” of the space in an

-other residential segment, e.g. the lack of anotherbedroom can be compensated by a large balconyor
large yard. In this case, housing adaptation oc-curs, which has been defined by C. D. Steggell et al.(2001)
as one of the main corrective measures in thetheory of housing adjustment. Housing adaptationmay also
include alterations within a living spacesuch as a partitioning of the bedroom so that themale and female
child each has their own sleepingarea. These adjustments can be: normative (changeof household
norms), compositional (introductionof new members into the household or departure ofsome) and
organizational (change in style of man-agement) (Steggell et al., 2001). Thus, the normsthat should be
met upon adaptation apply to the ad- justment of the housing space, the type of dwellingand the quality
of the dwelling unit. If, on the otherhand, there is long-lasting dissatisfaction where oneor more deficits
cannot be compensated by a greatersatisfaction with another norm, a desire for changeis provoked that
promotes residential mobility. Thenanother corrective measure appears, according to C.D. Steggell et al.
(2001), a housing adjustment thatresults in finding another, more suitable, dwelling unit. Thismeasure
encouraged E. W. Morris andM. Winter (1975) to extend the research area toresidential mobility. The
theory of housing adjust-ment, which is defined as the so-called supplementto the theory of housing
satisfaction, was extendedby S. R. Crull et al. (1991) who have incorporatedthe element of housing
mobility. In addition to in-troducing a new element, the norms have also beenexpanded as a criterion for
assessing housing satis-faction. This applies in particular to the architecturaland urban design norms,
specifically to the numberof rooms according to the composition of the family,but also to the type of
dwelling unit. The housingmobility theory has been expanded with the addi-tion of property variables
and quality norms accord-ing to which the dwelling unit is to be in a pleasantand safe neighbourhood,
close to schools and otherpublic institutions, with adequate and maintainedinfrastructure, but also a
neighbourhood populationthat is homogeneous with regard to class, race, and

ethnicity. As part of this theory, a new term “quali

ty of living” emerges, which the authors in lat

er re-search have defined differently. So, for C. Bucken-

berger (2009), the quality of housing is what “rises”

above the physical quality of buildings. Thus, this

theory does not only cover the assessment of hous-ing satisfaction, but also the quality that accordingto
L. F. Amao (2012) encompasses various factors,from the physical state of the building to servicesthat
benefit life in a particular urban area. It mustmeet the minimum health conditions and be availa-ble to
all categories of the population (Amao, 2012).Therefore, the key premise of this theory is that dis-
satisfaction with housing is conditioned by housingcharacteristics, leading to corrective processes,
andthe implementation of these processes depends onhousehold options that may be restrictive (e.g.
lowincome). Although this theory offers a solution forhousing dissatisfaction with its postulate, if there
arehousehold restrictions it is almost unachievable.

10. The Housing Price Theory

The housing price theory emerged in the 1980s ofthe last century and begins with the assumption
thathousing satisfaction increases proportionally to costgrowth (Stokols, Shumaker, 1982) and their caus-
al-consequential relationship (higher costs - greatersatisfaction with housing, lower costs - less satisfac-
tion with housing). This theory has both positiveand negative sides. The positive side of the theoryrelies
on the fact that the achieved housing satisfac-tion is to be sustained and in that case the objective
justifies the means, that is, if the higher allocatedcosts mean continual housing satisfaction then
thetheory is justified. In case the satisfaction with theother components of the quality of life decreases
dueto the domain of housing, the question is how muchthe quality of life has increased or decreased
overall.Thus, E. Diener et al. (2009) gave an example of abetter and more beautiful home, which may
meana longer journey to work, which could be a driverof additional stress, a decrease in leisure time and
atthe same time an increase in costs (due to prolongedtransportation). On the other hand, the process
maybe reverse. Perhaps a better location means shortertravel time, saving leisure time and reducing
costs.Numerous authors have written about the nega-tive effect on social relations after the
resettlementprocess (Fried, 1966; Brett, 1982; Diener, Se-ligman, 2004). Social relations are particularly
animportant indicator of the quality of life, and theydecline with more frequent moving. According tothe
classical economic theory, there should be equi-librium between the positive effects of moving to
abetter dwelling unit and the associated costs. Thereal estate market should take on the fundamen-tal
role and increase the real estate prices when thedemand is high and vice versa. Therefore, N. Na-kazato
et al. (2010) concluded that the novelty incost theory is the assumption that moving does notlead to
changes in the quality of life, because housingsatisfaction is associated with costs in other life do-mains.
In this theory, of particular importance is thedirect influence of age, education, income and otherfactors
on which the possibility of moving to betterhousing conditions depends. Although the logicalassumption
would be that more educated individu-als have more income and can afford better housing,this does not
always have to be the case. Thus, in her

research, S. Šiljeg (2016) found that individuals of

better educational and economic status are not nec-essarily more satisfied with housing, i.e.
educationaland economic status are not correlated with housingsatisfaction. The same can be seen from
the aspectof the age structure. The logical sequence would bethat individuals who are older can afford
better liv-ing conditions, i.e. those who have acquired certainfinancial means during their lifetime as
compared tothe young people who are just beginning their ca-reer. But the opposite may also be the
case, wherea younger individual, for example, inherits a largeamount of money and lives in a better
dwelling unitthan someone with a longer working life. Therefore,

this theory, as the ones explained earlier, has draw-backs and so it cannot be applied in all professions.

11. The Theory of the Aspiration Spiral

Although the notion of “aspiration” is first men

-

tioned in the theory of mobility, Wolpert’s definition

has been supplemented by other authors (Easter-lin, 1974; Diener 2006; Nakazato et al., 2010),which
have contributed to the development of thetheory of the aspiration spiral. This theory is rela-tively new,
so there is not a lot of research in whichit was used. A special contribution to the theory wasmade by A.
Stutzer (2004), who explained it as an

“improvement, after which one aspires to improve”.

Namely, if an individual improved his/her housingconditions and thus achieved the desired satisfac-tion,
after a certain period, he or she could raise thehousing expectations bar up a notch. On the exam-ple of
housing, this would mean that someone wholived in a one-bedroom flat had the desire to buy atwo-
bedroom flat and when the goal was achieved,then all the energy would be focused towards achiev-ing
the dream of living in a three-bedroom flat. Indiscussing housing satisfaction, Chombart de Lau-we
(1959) wrote about the needs-aspirations-needscycle. The positive side of this theory is that it doesnot
have to include social comparisons, so there isno comparison with norms or with groups of peoplewho
have the same or similar housing conditions, asthey strive for their own goal. In this theory of hous-ing
satisfaction, assessment will refer to what peopledo not have, and not what they have (Nakazato etal.,
2010). The theory of the aspiration spiral, by itsprediction, is similar to the theory of the hedonis-tic
ergometer of housing satisfaction. The main dif-ference is that in the theory of the aspiration
spiral,cognitive assessments change, i.e. the hedonistic ergometerpredicts a continual increase in
housing satisfaction, and theaspiration spiral anticipatesThe premiseof this theory is that satisfaction
does notnecessarily increase with the increase in income and betterliving conditions, although R. A.
Easteriln (1974)claimed the opposite.

Since it is a “spiral” of aspira

-tions on which satisfaction depends, it can be saidthat this theory is also based on satisfaction
cycles.When a goal is achieved after a certain aspiration, atemporary satisfaction follows that marks the
end ofa cycle. Then emerges a new aspiration to improvethe housing conditions and this is the beginning
ofa new cycle that can be divided into several phas-es. The first phase would be the phase of
aspirationregarding housing conditions, the second phase theachievement of the goal, followed by a
phase of tem-porary satisfaction, whose duration may vary, andthe last stage would be marked by
stagnation and adecline in satisfaction after which a new cycle beginsin which the same phases are
repeated. In doing so,the individual would ascend the aspiration spiral ofhousing satisfaction. This
theory, although havingmany similarities to the aforementioned theories, is

still distinguished by the fact that it relies on “what

an individual does not have” as opposed to ot

hers

which centre on “what they have” and whether they

are satisfied or not with it.