Pertanika J. Soc Sci. & Hum. 11(1): 1-10 (2003) ISSN: 0128-7702© Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Residential Satisfaction and Social Integration inPublic Low Cost Housing in Malaysia

AHMAD HARIZA HASHIMDepartment of Resource Management and Consumer Studies

Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Keywords: Public low cost housing, residential satisfaction, residential attachments, communityinvolvement, social integration

ABSTRAKKajian ini menilai perkaitan di antara integrasi sosial dan kepuasan perumahan di kalanganpenghuni rumah kos rendah di Malaysia. Dua kawasan bandar dan luar bandar di Selangor telahdipilih dalam kajian ini dan melibatkan seramai 472 responden. Responden ini terdiri daripada58% Melayu, 22% China dan 20% India. Hasil kajian mendapati bahawa penghuni yangmempunyai kejelekitan tempat tinggal yang kuat serta tahap kepuasan yang tinggi adalah lebihaktif terlibat dengan aktiviti komuniti di kawasan tempat tinggal mereka. Kajian juga menunjukkanbahawa faktor seperti keadaan struktur rumah yang rosak, persekitaran sosial dan fizikal yangtidak baik memberi kesan kepada integrasi sosial di kawasan kejiranan. Oleh itu satu projekperumahan yang dirancang dengan mengambil kira aspek kepuasan perumahan adalah pentinguntuk dipertimbangkan kerana dapat membantu proses sosialisasi penghuninya ke dalam komuniti.

ABSTRACTThe research examined the relationship between social integration and residential satisfaction ofresidents in low cost housing in Malaysia. Two urban and non-urban areas in Selangor werechosen for this study involving 472 respondents. 58% of the respondents are Malay, 22% Chineseand 20% Indians. It was shown that residents with strong residential attachments and high levelsof satisfaction are actively involved in the community activities held in their neighbourhood. Itwas also found that factors such as default in the physical structures of the house and poor socialand physical environments could affect the social integration in the neighbourhood. Thereforeproperly planned residential projects with attention given towards residential satisfaction need tobe considered because they can help foster the process of socializing people into communities.

INTRODUCTIONOne of the important factors that will affectsocial integration is the resident's feeling ofsatisfaction with his residence. Satsangi andReams (1992) stated that the satisfaction scorein housing studies has been deemed as anindicator of service quality or organisationalsuccess and effectiveness. Satisfaction has alsobeen heralded as an important means of listeningto consumers, and thus a necessary componentof organisations becoming more demand-responsive. Pacione (1990:18) points out thatresidents who cannot attain the desired level ofsatisfaction through modification of their current

setting, will suffer 'residential stress', and thismay eventually lead to migration. Basset andShort (1980:188), said that the provision ofhousing is not only a quantitative problem, butalso a qualitative problem in the sense that:a) housing contributed to the reproduction ofdifferent components of labour power withdifferent incomes and housing needs, andb) housing also contributed to the reproductionof social relations through correspondencebetween signs of residential status and positionwithin a social hierarchy, based on class divisions.

Drakakis-Smith (1980:305) also agrees withthe above ideas of using housing to build up or

Ahmad Hariza Hashim

to control the community, either by helping toencourage social interaction between differentsocial classes or by dispersing them into variouscommunities and interacting among themselves.This is because, from numerous studies, it wasshown that a strong correlation exists betweenbad housing and disease, delinquency, and otherpersonal and community disorders. Properlyplanned residential projects have been seen tohelp foster good relationships among people inthe community and also help raise theiraspirations. In addition to its high social utility,better housing will contribute to political stabilityby moderating people's impatience with the slowtempo of improvement in their living conditions.

Those who are against total heterogeneity,for example Gans (1968:129) argued that peoplederived more satisfaction from their residentialarea when they have neighbours who have similarbackgrounds and interests. The argument is thatpeople tend to choose friend on the basis ofsimilarities in background such as age and socio-economic level; values, such as those with respectto privacy or child-rearing; and interests, such asleisure-activity preferences. This finding suggeststhat social relationships are influenced andexplained by people's homogeneity with respectto a variety of characteristics. Other research hasshown that having neighbours similar to oneselfin terms of various characteristics is directlyrelated to satisfaction with the residentialenvironment (Weideman and Anderson1985:163). Cohen (1986:115) argues that "theattitudes of people toward their neighbourhoodcould serve as an indication of the degree towhich the neighbourhood is measured byattitudes towards it and particularly by attitudesthat reflect residential satisfaction from a dwellingand its principal surroundings". Therefore itcan be assumed that a neighbourhood wheremost of the population is satisfied with itsresidential conditions, is a stable neighbourhood.However, a neighbourhood where the majorityof its population is dissatisfied with the residentialconditions, is a less stable neighbourhood thatdoes not serve as a protection against thepressures of social change. A less stableneighbourhood is a place where its populationdoes not possess an informal social network andthis indicates that those who lived there are notprotected against the pressures of the widersociety to which they belong. It could well serveas an indication of alienation, anomie, and

apathy. In another study done in the Republicof Ireland, it was found that anomie wassignificantly related to dissatisfaction withneighbours. This is not surprising given thatanomie measures alienation from society andthe lack of social integration (Davies and Fine-Davies 1981:483). In conclusion, it can be saidthat people who are satisfied with their residentialarea will also be satisfied with their neighbours.This is then followed by an attachment to theneighbourhood, creating a strong social cohesionin the neighbourhood. This is because residentialareas serve as an area for social interaction, anagent for socialization, a component of socialstatus, a source of opportunities and services, anenvironment for self-fulfillment, and a protectedarea for inhabitants (Menahem and Spiro1989:29).

Therefore in this study 'residentialsatisfaction' encompasses both housingsatisfaction and neighbourhood satisfaction. Thefocus is on satisfaction because:1) A failure to meet low cost housing targets

means that housing demand cannot besatisfied. This, in turn, means that choice islimited. The government allocation policiesdetermine which house an applicant gets,and such restrictions may affect residentialsatisfaction.

2) Low cost housing implies a lower standardof housing. Compact design and lowerquality material may be used. This mightaffect the satisfaction of the residents (Peng1981:49-50) who discussed the poor qualityof housing construction, especially in lowcost housing. In trying to provide affordablehousing the standard of houses is alwaysbeing compromised. The finishing of thehouses, the material used, the design andsize of houses are among the majorcomplaints received about low cost housing.Other than the physical aspects, people whoare allocated low cost housing have no sayin choosing who their neighbours are, andif it involves squatters' allocation then thelocation of the area is also identified by theauthorities. All these factors influencepeople's evaluation of their housing andneighbourhood and will also influencepeoples' behaviour, especially in theirrelationships with others in the community.

3) Satisfaction is always being associated withthe residential environment, and is especially

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Residential Satisfaction and Social Integration in Public Low Cost Housing in Malaysia

used as a predictor for migratory or movingbehaviour (Marans and Rodgers 1975). Withregard to mobility, in a community wherethe residents keep changing due to peopleoften moving in and out of the area, theintegration in the community will be lowcompared with an area where the residentsare less mobile. New residents take time toadjust to the new environment and tosocialise with the community. Therefore theassumption is that if satisfaction is shown toinfluence peoples' thoughts about movingor moving behaviour then it will alsoinfluence social integration in thecommunity.

The other important factor is ethnic groups.A study done in Singapore shows that peoplefrom different ethnic backgrounds live togetherpeacefully and harmoniously in public estates(Tai 1988). Tai also found out that living togetherbrings a greater opportunity for inter-ethniccontacts and living together in the sameresidential area harmoniously. Therefore, theinteractions and acceptance among the majorethnic groups living closely together in a housingarea is an important variable to study.

METHODOLOGYIn this paper the term 'estate' was used duringall interviews with the residents. In order toensure that the term 'estate ' would beunambiguous, the name of the housing estatewas mentioned when ever referring to theneighbourhood. For example, Taman Shah Java'was used in referring to the neighbourhood.Taman' here means housing estate, while 'ShahJaya' is the name of the estate. As for socialintegration, 'having more friends here ascompared to the previous place' is used asmeasurement (St. John, Austin and Baba 1986).A household was defined as two adults with orwithout children living together.

In terms of location, Selangor was chosenbecause of its high urbanization rate and becauseit is also among the earliest states that built lowcost houses. The other reason is that theproportion of the three major ethnic groups inSelangor is quite similar to that of Malaysia.There are nine administrative districts inSelangor. They are Gombak, Klang, KualaLangat, Kuala Selangor, Petaling, Sabak Bernam,Sepang, Ulu Langat and Ulu Selangor. For the

purposes of the research, these districts weregrouped into two categories: those surroundingKuala Lumpur (Malaysia's capital city) and thosefurther away. One district from each categorywas selected for this study. The housing estateschosen in Ulu Langat are located in or nearKajang, a town situated 20 km south of KualaLumpur. The three housing estates chosen inKuala Langat are in or near Banting town, located60 km southwest of Kuala Lumpur.Comparatively, Ulu Langat has a higherpopulation than Kuala Langat. In terms of ethniccomposition, there is not much differencebetween the two districts.

From each district a list of public low costhousing programmes was obtained. From thelist, housing estates which were less than fiveyears old and those with less than 100 houseswere removed before the random sample wasmade. From those remaining, three public lowcost housing estates in each of the two districtswere chosen randomly. For every housing estate,respondents were chosen at random by usingsystematically random sampling. The totalnumber of respondents involved in the surveysis shown in Table 1.

The first part of this analysis examinesdescriptively the household and housingcharacteristics of the respondents. The paperalso discusses the relationship between residentialsatisfaction and social integration. It then looksat whether the sets of structural variablessignificantly add to the social integration, overand above satisfaction. If indeed these variablesonly affect social integration as they affectsatisfaction, their inclusion will not addsignificantly to the fit of the model. Finally,both sets of structural variables are addedsimultaneously, and test the fit of the completemodel against each of the less inclusive models.At each step in the analysis, the relativemagnitude and direction of the effects of variousspecific factors are evaluated by looking at thelogistic regression coefficient (Landale and Guest1985).

Household and Housing CharacteristicsOf the total sample of 472 households, 58%were Malay, 22% were Chinese and 20% Indians.All the Malays in the survey are Muslim, with55% male, 31% between 41 to 50 years of age.52% received less than six years of formaleducation and 25% work in the public sector

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Ahmad Hariza Hashim

TABLE 1Total number of respondents

Ethnic Groups District

Ulu

n

1565036242

Langat

%

642115100

Kuala

n

1185359232

Langat

%

51232599

Total

n

27410395472

%

582220100

MalaysChineseIndiansTotal

with monthly incomes of RM500 or less, whilethe wives are mostly housewives. 39% have oneor more children still living with them.

Most of the Chinese households (80%) areBuddhist but other religions are also represented.There are more female respondents as thehusbands were out at work when the interviewwas done. The Chinese surveyed are within theage range of 31 to 50 years and nearly half(45%) have received more than nine years offormal education. This is considerably higherthan for both the Malay and the Indianrespondents. In terms of husbands' occupations,50% are self-employed, in contrast to 14% Malayand 5% Indians. Perhaps not surprisingly, quitea high proportion of Chinese (56%) earn morethan RMl,000 per month. 68% have three ormore children living with them, again higherthan for the other two groups.

Most Indians (88%) are Hindu and themajority of the Indian respondents are male. Aswith the other ethnic groups, the majority (58%)belongs to the age group of 31 to 50 years. 57%received nine years or less of formal education.30% of the husbands work in the public sectorand 45% in the private sector. Householdincomes tend to be lower than those of Chineserespondents but higher than those of the Malays.

For housing characteristics, the majority ofthe respondents are homeowners (71%). Beforemoving here many of them rented a house(44%) and the rest either lived with their ownfamilies or in quarters provided by theiremployers. The house that they lived in at presentis a two-bedroom terrace house, with onebathroom and a separate toilet. There is onlyone small kitchen available and shared space forthe lounge and dining room.

EMPIRICAL RESULTS

The results of the logistics regression arepresented in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 shows thatindependent variables which are significant asshown in column 1, Table 2 were omitted inturn to see its effect and significance on thesocial integration value in the neighbourhoodthrough the chi-square statistics (see column 2to column 7, Table 2). The results are discussedin detail below.

Individual and Household CharacteristicsIt is expected that individual and householdcharacteristics would influence social integration.Results show that only the age of respondents isconsistently significant at least at p<0.05. To bespecific, only residents in the age group of 30and below show significance at p<0.05. Thenegative coefficient for age indicates thatresidents who are 30 years and below were onefifth as likely as residents older than 30 years tointegrate into the community (see column 1,Table 2). The other variables did not show anysignificant relationship at the level of 0.05 (Table2). In the process of integration, especially inmaking new friends, occupational status,educational attainment, and income areimportant factors (Jackson 1977:59). Carey andMapes (1972:14-15) also point out that age, lifestage, and job status are among the characteristicsof individuals that are shown to affect the visitinglevel among the neighbours. Since this studyfocussed on the residents of low cost housing,these criteria are not so important, and are notmajor criteria influencing social integration. Thereason for this is that residents living in publiclow cost housing tend to be similar in terms ofeducational attainment, occupational status andincomes, because the allocation policy for publichousing is for people with incomes of RM750 or

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. 8c Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Residential Satisfaction and Social Integration in Public Low Cost Housing in Malaysia

ColumnVariable

Residential EducationalAttainment

5 years and below6 to 10 years

Household Incomes(RM)750 and below751 to 1250

No. of Children LivingTogether

1 to 23 to 45 and above

Age of Respondents30 and below31 to 45 years

Length of ResidenceIn Years

5 years and below6 to 10 years

Ethnic Group

Location

Residential SatisfactionHousing satisfactionNeighbourhoodSatisfaction

ResidentialAttachments

Tenancy Status

Constant

(-2) Log likelihoodd.f.

Chi-square valued.f.

Logistic

1

-0.18020.3450

0.01150.2596

-0.62530.28500.0894

-0.5921*-0.0678

-0.27180.0221

0.7124**

TABLE 2regression for social i

2

-0.6130**-0.0110

0.7153**

0.8669*** 0.8919***

0.7082**

0.9215**

0.6030*

-0.1118

-3.5875

0.6566**

0.8539**

0.4835

-3.9425

integration

model3 4

-0.7958**0.1240

0.6390**

1.0145***

0.4520

-2.4744

479.686 497.282 530.533379 394 42070.650 59.968 59.42717 7 5

-0.5556*0.0375

0.8068**

0.5703*

0.6700*

0.5861*

-2.7119

510.587397

49.8596

5

-0.5653-0.0639

0.6077**

0.8510***

0.6637**

1.0796***

0.4360

-2.2061

511.084 i396

46.1676

6

0.6702**

0.8719***

0.5963*

0.7689*

0.6920**

-3.0973

511.084396

46.165

7

-0.6940**-0.0040

0.7666**

0.6334**

0.8585**

3.0973

500.897395

56.3546

p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** P<0.001

less per month. This is the reason why thesevariables are not significant in this study.

Location

It was assumed that the more urbanised thearea, the less integrated its community, as therelationships were more formal and neighbour-

hood functions were subsumed by other societalinstitutions, while the less urbanised areassuggested a high degree of social integrationand interaction among their residents. Resultsshow that location is consistently significant, tothe extent that it manifests the strongestrelationship with social integration at level 0.001,

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Ahmad Hariza Hashim

except in column 4 when ethnic group is leftout (Table 2). The significance of this variableis also evident from the fact that its omissionfrom the equation reduces the chi-square statisticand the fit of the equation substantially. Thechi-square statistic falls from 59.97 (column 2,Table 2) to 43.66 (column 5, Table 2). Thissignificance indicates that residents in Ulu Langat(an area which is more urbanised and is alsosituated nearer to the business centre, KualaLumpur, the capital city of Malaysia) showshigher integration compared to Kuala Langat(an area with small towns, situated further awayfrom Kuala Lumpur). The table also shows thatresidents of public low cost housing in UluLangat are 2.4 times (eO8919=2.4, see column 2,Table 2) more likely to integrate into theirneighbourhood than residents in public low costhousing in Kuala Langat. Therefore thesefindings do not agree with Wirth's (1938) theorywhich argued that the primary relationshipbetween the residents has changed to a moreformal or secondary relationship as a result ofurbanisation. The results of this study haveparticular implications for social integrationprogrammes. Many of the programmes to induceamong members in a community have beenfocussed in urban areas, and the results indicatethat these programmes have been relativelysuccessful.

Ethnic Groups

Ethnic groups prefer to stay in areas where theyare the majority because they feel more secureand are more likely to integrate with each otherin this kind of community (Nuzhat Ahmad 1993).The results from this study show that theassumption holds true for the ethnic groups inMalaysia. In Table 2, the ethnic group's variableis consistently significant at p <0.01. This impliesthat the Malays are more fully integrated in thecommunity as compared to other ethnic groups,and this is not surprising as the majority of diepopulation living in public low cost housing isMalay. This is due to the housing allocationratio set up by the government for low costhousing. The ratio is 7:2:1, 7 for Malays, 2 forChinese and 1 for Indians. From the table it canbe seen that the Malays in public low cost housingare 2 times (ea715s=2.0, see column 2, Table 2)more likely than the other ethnic groups tointegrate into the community. In addition, theoccupation of the respondents also shows that

the Malays, many of whom work in the publicsector, spend more time in the neighbourhoodcompared to the Chinese, many of whom areoccupied in their businesses. Normal workinghours for public servants are from 8.00 in themorning until 4.30 in the afternoon. Those whoare involved in business or private firms willtend to spend more time at work. The Malaysalso participate more in local organisations ascompared to the other ethnic groups. All thesefactors influence the Malays' level of integrationin the community especially among themselves,positively. This is not surprising because as statedby Mohd Razali (1992) the ethnic groups inMalaysia are more comfortable in their ownethnic groups and they sometimes, especiallythe Malays, demand that they should be allocatedtogether in a block or area with their own ethnicgroup. However, he also stated that the Malaycan more easily accept other ethnic groups to bewith their community as compared to Chineseor Indians.

Community Attachments

Oropesa (1989) argued that there are residentswho participate in local organisations because ofpersonal, social or economic interests.Specifically, residents who own valuable propertyhave an incentive to participate because of theireconomic interest in the state of the propertymarket. Homeownership is seen as the mostsecure form of housing tenure. One of thebenefits claimed for homeownership is that itcan enhance democracy through creatingincentives for greater community involvementand social attachment (Carlson 1989). Saunders(1990) also argued that homeowners have higherincentives to participate in local organisations.This would suggest that the same argument canbe used for social integration where it might beassumed that homeowners will integrate moreinto the community than tenants. But this is notthe case in this study. Table 2 shows that tenureis not a significant factor in social integration (atlevel 0.05). Homeownership or renting makesno difference to social integration among theresidents of the low cost housing sector in Selangor.

Length of residence has also been regardedas a good indicator for social integration. Thelonger the length of residency, the higher thepossibility for these people to integrate into thecommunity where they live. But this analysisreveals that length of residence is not an

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. 8c Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Residential Satisfaction and Social Integration in Public Low Cost Housing in Malaysia

important factor for social integration. However,the negative coefficient value for residents offive years or less shows that they are less likely tointegrate into the neighbourhood as comparedto the other residents who have lived therelonger (Table 2).

Many studies have shown the existence of arelationship between local friendships,neighbourhood and residential attachments. Itwas also found that attachment was generated byinformal and formal participation in the localarea (Woolever 1992:99-104). The analysis showsthat residential attachment is not consistentlysignificant with social integration. It is significantonly in column 4 at level 0.05 when ethnicgroups were left out and in column 6 at level0.01 when the age of respondents was left out(Table 2). What can be concluded from thesefindings is that residents who are attached totheir residence are 2 times more likely tointegrate into the community (eO692O=2.O, seecolumn 6, Table 2). Attachment towardsresidence may also be due to ethnicity. Sincemost of the neighbourhoods involved in thisanalysis are a Malay majority, it is not surprisingto see that attachment is a variable for socialintegration in this study. The findings also showthat households are more attached to aneighbourhood if the majority of the populationis of a similar ethnic group as theirs, giving riseto a reluctance to move out of thatneighbourhood. The implication of the findingis that in the future, there is likely to be anincrease in the segregation of people by ethnicbackgrounds in the public low cost housingsector.

Residential Satisfaction

This study shows that both housing andresidential satisfaction are constantly significantwith social integration (p<0.05, see Table 2).Residents who are satisfied with theirneighbourhoods are 2.4 times (e

08539=2.4 seecolumn 2, Table 2) more likely to integratecompared with residents who are not satisfiedwith their neighbourhoods. Residents who aresatisfied with their housing are 1.9 times(eo.6566=1 9 s e e c o i u m n 2, Table 2) more likely tointegrate than residents who are not satisfied.The finding implies that those who are satisfiedwith their residence are more likely to stay longerand be more integrated into the community ascompared to those who are not satisfied. Razali

(1991) stated that one of the reasons peoplemove is because they are not satisfied with theirexisting house and neighbourhood. If theturnover rate of residents is high in the area, itcan affect the style and strength of relationshipsin the area. This study also shows that withoutconsidering residential satisfaction (see column3, Table 2) age, ethnic groups and location aresignificantly related to social integration. Whenthe satisfaction variables are included as variable(column 2, Table 2), all the three statisticalvariables from column 3, which are significantlyrelated to social integration, continue to havethe same quality. Some of the coefficients arereduced in size, but the reduction is generallysmall. What can be concluded here is that allthe variables, which show significant values,operate in an independent manner to predictsocial integration. Therefore satisfaction is animportant variable in predicting socialintegration. In trying to solve housing demand,the government has introduced many standardsand designs for low cost housing. There areeven suggestions that size and quality should besacrificed to ensure that housing targets can beachieved This study suggests that for publichousing to be used as an instrument to achievesocial integration, subjective measurements, thatis the feelings, perceptions and attitudes of thepeople, should be taken into consideration.

Table 3 compares the two districts, UluLangat and Kuala Langat, and also Malays andnon-Malays. For residents in Ulu Langat, thevariable residential satisfaction has a significantrelationship with social integration at p<0.05(see Table 3). The other variables such as age,residential attachment and ethnic group did notshow any significant relationship. Therefore inUlu Langat, respondents who are satisfied withtheir houses are two times more likely(eo.679o=1 97 T a b l e 3 ) t o integrate into thecommunity than residents who are not satisfied.Residents who are satisfied with theirneighbourhood are 3 times (e11829=3.3, Table 3)more likely to integrate into the community.

For Kuala Langat, housing satisfaction, ageand ethnic group variables have a significantrelationship with social integration. Residentswho are satisfied with their houses are two timesmore (eo7192=2.O5, Table 3) likely to integrateinto the community compared with residentswho are not satisfied. The Malays here are threetimes (e1 °°32=2.7, Table 3) more likely to integrate

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Ahmad Hariza Hashim

as compared with the non-Malays. The negativecoefficient indicated that the age group of 30years and less are one-quarter more likely toparticipate in social integration as comparedwith respondents of more than 30 years of age.

A comparison of the two districts shows thatin Ulu Langat there is no difference betweenethnic groups for social integration, while inKuala Langat there is a difference. The Malaysin Kuala Langat integrate more than the non-Malays. Residents in both areas feel that housingsatisfaction is an important predictor of socialintegration, as both show a significantrelationship with social integration at level 0.05(Table 3). Between the two districts, there areno significant differences for the relationshipbetween social integration and housingsatisfaction. This means that for both districts,housing satisfaction is a very important predictorfor social integration. One of the main reasonsfor this is that the majority of the respondents inboth districts are Malays. For the Malays, housingsatisfaction shows a strong significant relationshipwith social integration at level 0.001 (Table 3).The Malays who are satisfied with their housesare three times (eL175=3.2, Table 3) more likelyto integrate as compared with Malays who arenot satisfied with their houses. Residentialattachment and district are also importantpredictors, for the Malays, for social integration.Both these variables show a significant

relationship with social integration at level 0.05(Table 3).

Lastly, looking at the non-Malays column itcan be seen that none of the variables show asignificant relationship at level p<0.05 with socialintegration (Table 3). This is one of the majordifferences between the Malays and non-Malays.The reason for this difference is that for thenon-Malays, residential aspect is not an importantfactor in determining their behaviour for socialintegration. But for the Malays it is an importantaspect and may be due to the probability of theMalay obtaining other low cost housing beinghigher as compared to the non-Malays.

CONCLUSIONTo summarise the above findings, age ofrespondents, ethnic group, location, residentialattachment and residential satisfaction are majordeterminants of social integration in public lowcost housing in Selangor, Malaysia. The resultof this study shows that social integration amongresidents here is driven by considerationsdifferent from those found in other studies inthe developed countries. Even among the ethnicgroups in Malaysia, it is shown that socialintegration is driven by different considerations.This is not surprising as the different ethnicgroups have different cultures and ways of life.

The factors which could have a significantimpact on social integration, and implications

TABLE 3Logistic regression for social integration by ethnic groups and areas

Variables

Housing SatisfactionNeighbourhoodSatisfactionAge

30 years and lessmore than 30 years

Residential AttachmentEthnic GroupsDistrictConstant

-2 Log Likelihoodd.f.

Chi square valued.f.

Ethnic

Malay

1.1749***

0.7025

-0.4482-0.09140.7563*

1.2268***-3.5791

258.08923751.2

6

Groups

Non-Malay

-0.2208

0.9261

-0.87270.17580.2747

0.5760-2.3035

201.156151

15.86

District

Ulu Langat

0.6790*

1.1829**

-0.4095-0.10230.74310.3853

-2.7158

257.25920023.1

6

Kuala Langat

0.7192*

-0.0485

-0.7788*0.07780.49931.0032***

-1.1053

235.924188

25.76

* p<0.005,** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Residential Satisfaction and Social Integration in Public Low Cost Housing in Malaysia

for the restructuring policy of the governmentare location, ethnic group and residentialsatisfaction.

The significance of location suggests thatthe focus of the national unity programmesshould be widened to include both urban andnon-urban areas.

For ethnic groups, the results show thatthey prefer to live in an area where they are themajority. The results also suggest that the Malaysare more likely to stay in their own communityand the non-Malays are more receptive to livingamong other ethnic groups. This may be due tothe Malays being the majority while the otherethnic groups are the minority. Therefore, toensure the success of social integrationprogrammes in public housing, the allocationratio set by the government should be revisedand a more balanced allocation introduced. Onlythen can the feeling of living together in onearea be built up.

The significance of residential satisfactionin determining social integration also suggeststhat it may have wider implications for thenational integration programmes. The introduc-tion of a social integration policy for the residentsin low cost housing should be in line with housingpolicy designed to maximise residentialsatisfaction. The results suggested that residentswith a strong residential attachment and highlevel of residential satisfaction are more willingto participate in community activities, whichmay in turn enhance social integration. Factorswhich could affect residential satisfaction, suchas defects in the physical structure of the housing,lack of well-maintained public facilities, and poorsocial and physical environment could alsoadversely affect the achievement of greater socialintegration.

REFERENCESBASSET, K. andj. SHORT. 1980. Housing and Residential

Structure, London: Routledge and Kegan PaulLtd.

CAREY, L. and R MAPE. 1972. The Sociology of Planning.London: B.T.Batsford Ltd.

CARLSON, J. 1987. Appendix B: a note on UnitedStates experience on security of tenure andshelter. In Shelter, Settlement and Development,ed. L. Rodwin, Allen and U.S.A. Unwin.

COHEN, Y. S. 1986. Attachment to place and socialnetworks in times of change. In Planning inTurbulence, ed. D. Morley and A. Shachar.

Jerusalem: The Magness Press HebrewUniversity.

DAVIES, E. E., and M. FINK-DAVIES. 1981. Predictorsof satisfaction with housing and neighbourhood:a nationwide study in the Republic of Ireland.Social Indicators Research 9: 477-494.

DRAKAKIS-SMITH, D. 1980. The role of the privatesector in housing the urban poor in PeninsularMalaysia. In Issues in Malaysian Development, ed.J. C.Jackson and M. Rudner, p. 305-337. KualaLumpur: Heinemann Education Books (ASIA)Ltd.

GANS, H. 1968. People and Plans: Essays on UrbanProblems and Solutions. New York: Basic Books.

HUSNA, S. and Y. NURIZAN. 1987. Housing provisionand satisfaction of low-income households inKuala Lumpur. Habitat International 11(4):27-38.

LANDALE, N. S. and A. M. GUEST. 1985. Constraint,satisfaction and residential mobility: Speare'smodel reconsidered. Demography 22(2):199-222.

MARANS, R. W. and W. RODGERS. 1975. Towards anunderstanding of community satisfaction. InMetropolitan America, ed. A. H. Hawley andV. P. Rock. National Academy of Science.

MENAHEM, G. and S. SPIRO. 1989. Urbanneighbourhoods and the quest for community:implications for policy and practice. CommunityDevelopment Journal 24(1): 29-40.

MOHD. RAZAU AGUS. 1992. Pembangunan Perumahan,Isu dan Prospek. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasadan Pustaka.

New Straits Times. 1992. July 29.

NUZHAT AHMAD. 1993. Choice of neighbourhoodsby mover households in Karachi. Urban Studies30(7):1257-1270,

OROPESA, R. S. 1989. Neighbourhood associations,political repertoires and neighbourhood exits.Sociological Perspectives 32(4): 435-452.

PACIONE, M. 1990. Urban liveability: a review. UrbanGeography 11(1): 1-30.

PENG, K. K. 1982. The housing crisis and FourthMalaysian Plan. Development Forum 12(1).

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Ahmad Hariza Hashim

RAZALI, I. 1991. The residential mobility of the

Malay middle class in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Thesis submitted to the University of Sheffield,Department of Town and Regional Planning,Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. June.

SAUNDERS, P. 1990. A Nation of Homeowners. London:Unwin Hyman Ltd.

SATSANGI M. and A. KFARNS. 1992. The use and

interpretation of tenant satisfaction surveys inBritish social housing. Government and Policy,Environment and Planning C 10(3): 317-331.

ST. JOHN, C , M. D. AUSTIN and Y. BABA. 1986. The

question of community attachment revisited.Sociobgical Spectrum 6: 411-431.

TAI, C. 1988. Housing Policy and High Rise Living. AStudy of Singapore's Public Housing. Singapore:Chopmen Pub.

WEIDEMANN, S. and J. R. ANDERSON. 1985. A

conceptual framework for residentialsatisfaction. In Human Behaviour andEnvironment ed. I. Altman and C. Werner, 2:153-182. New York: Plenum Press.

WIRTH, L. 1938. Urbanism as a way of life. AmericanJournal of Sociology 44 July: 1-42.

WOOLKVER, C. 1992. A contextual approach toneighbourhood attachment. Urban Studies29(1): 99-116.

(Received: 24 April 2001)

10 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003