| Literature DB >> 35565060 |
Abstract
Flats/houses in the COVID-19 pandemic era became the central place for living, working, learning, studying and entertainment. According to Maslow's pyramid, all the basic needs had to be satisfied within a single space, which caused a change in the importance of certain locational and physical features of the flat/house. This study aimed to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic changed the perception of the environmental features and the physical features of flats/houses. The research material was obtained from a questionnaire study disseminated through different online channels. The study was conducted in Poland, and citizens' preferences are linked to the prevailing spatial and socio-economic determinants. A group of respondents were presented with 23 features describing the location and 17 features describing the physical features of flats/houses. They were also asked questions about the level of satisfaction with the current location and housing features. The results were analysed, and the statistical significance of the difference in the perception of the location features and the physical features of the flat/house was verified using a Chi-squared test. The results demonstrated a change in the importance of certain attributes concerning both external and internal factors. The physical features of the flat/house appeared to be more important (from the respondents' perspective) than the features related to the location, as most changes occurred in that group. The respondents indicated that access to medical care facilities had gained importance (+8%), while good access to public transport had declined (-9%). For the physical features of flats/houses, respondents from other countries also indicated the importance of other attributes, i.e., the floor area (+12%), number of rooms (+14%), additional rooms (+14%), and access to broadband Internet and digital platforms (+28%). The study showed that over 30% of respondents would change their flats/houses if their financial means permitted.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; changing preferences; external and internal factors of property; housing location
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35565060 PMCID: PMC9104742 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095665
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Map indicating the number of COVID-19 infections worldwide and in Poland (by voivodeships). Source: [1,4].
Figure 2Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Source: [13,14,15].
Figure 3The study design.
Test sample description.
| Socio-Demographic Variables |
| (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | man | 84 | 42.0 |
| woman | 115 | 57.5 | |
| no response | 1 | 0.5 | |
| Age group | 18–24 | 50 | 25.0 |
| 25–34 | 48 | 24.0 | |
| 35–44 | 49 | 24.5 | |
| 45–54 | 38 | 19.0 | |
| 55–64 | 11 | 5.5 | |
| above 65 | 4 | 2.0 | |
| Employment status | employee/worker | 159 | 79.5 |
| student/schoolchild | 40 | 20.0 | |
| non-working | 1 | 0.5 | |
| Education | primary/vocational | 1 | 0.5 |
| secondary | 56 | 28.0 | |
| higher | 143 | 71.5 | |
| Marital status | single | 47 | 23.5 |
| single/child/children | 4 | 2.0 | |
| in a relationship/no children | 69 | 34.5 | |
| in a relationship/with children | 80 | 40.0 | |
| Place of residence region (voivodeship) | Kujawsko-Pomorskie | 10 | 5.0 |
| Dolnośląskie | 4 | 2.0 | |
| Lubelskie | 4 | 2.0 | |
| Lubuskie | 3 | 1.5 | |
| Łódzkie | 7 | 3.5 | |
| Małopolskie | 12 | 6.0 | |
| Mazowieckie | 26 | 13.0 | |
| Opolskie | 4 | 2.0 | |
| Podlaskie | 4 | 2.0 | |
| Podkarpackie | 29 | 14.5 | |
| Pomorskie | 10 | 5.0 | |
| Śląskie | 6 | 3.0 | |
| Świętokrzyskie | 4 | 2.0 | |
| Warmińsko-Mazurskie | 34 | 17.0 | |
| Wielkopolskie | 33 | 16.5 | |
| Zachodniopomorskie | 12 | 6.0 | |
| Characteristics of the place of residence location | city | 95 | 47.5 |
| urban periphery | 59 | 29.5 | |
| suburban area | 23 | 11.5 | |
| village | 7 | 3.5 | |
| rural periphery (dispersed mode of settlement) | 16 | 8.0 | |
| Housing type | a rented flat | 17 | 8.5 |
| flat/1 room | 15 | 7.5 | |
| flat/2 rooms | 43 | 21.5 | |
| flat/3 rooms | 46 | 23.0 | |
| flat/4 rooms and more | 13 | 6.5 | |
| terraced house | 7 | 3.5 | |
| semi-detached house | 9 | 4.5 | |
| detached house | 52 | 26.0 | |
| other | 4 | 2.0 | |
Source: own study.
External factors of location and internal factors of the flat/house.
| Symbol | Factor Description |
|---|---|
| E1 | close proximity to the workplace |
| E2 | trendy location (prestige of the place) |
| E3 | easy access to small service facilities (greengrocer’s, grocer’s, chemist’s) |
| E4 | lots of greenery, squares, lawns |
| E5 | easy access to public transport (tram/bus/train) |
| E6 | close proximity to entertainment facilities (restaurants, pubs, etc.) |
| E7 | close proximity to school/kindergarten |
| E8 | safety of the neighbourhood/district |
| E9 | type of development |
| E10 | sentimental attachment to the neighbourhood |
| E11 | friends’/family members’ opinion on the location of the city/village/district |
| E12 | information on the planned development of the neighbourhood (investments) |
| E13 | proximity to a primary healthcare centre (outpatient clinic) |
| E14 | access to supermarket/hypermarket |
| E15 | access to parking spaces |
| E16 | access to leisure and sports facilities (e.g., football pitches) |
| E17 | appearance/aesthetics of the surrounding buildings |
| E18 | proximity to playgrounds, outdoor gyms, skateparks, etc. |
| E19 | accessibility of landscape architecture (benches, rubbish bins, fountains, monuments) |
| E20 | the condition of pavements, curbs, driveways, roadways |
| E21 | noise levels in the area |
| E22 | dispersed development |
| E23 | other |
| I1 | floor area of the flat |
| I2 | number of rooms |
| I3 | appearance/aesthetics of the building/façade |
| I4 | building construction technology (quality, lifespan) |
| I5 | building location (zone, district, etc.) |
| I6 | technical condition of the room/flat/house (utility systems, walls, floors, windows) |
| I7 | arrangement of rooms in the flat/house |
| I8 | presence of additional rooms (balcony, loggia, winter garden, shed, etc.) |
| I9 | good access to broadband Internet |
| I10 | brightness of rooms |
| I11 | the attractiveness of the view from the window |
| I12 | good thermal insulation of the building/flat/residential unit |
| I13 | good acoustic insulation of the building/flat/residential unit |
| I14 | access to digital platforms |
| I15 | energy-efficient equipment |
| I16 | running cost of the flat/apartment/house/residential unit |
| I17 | other |
Source: own study on [2,26,27,31,32,59,62,63,64,65,66].
Figure 4Changes in preferences in the residential location attributes after two years of COVID-19. Source: own study.
Figure 5Differences in the perception of external factors, broken down by gender. Source: own study.
Figure 6Differences in the perception of external factors, broken down by age groups. Source: own study.
Post-COVID-19 changes in external and internal factors (for the entire population).
| Description | Factor Symbol | Differences (%) | t |
|---|---|---|---|
| close proximity to the workplace | E1 | −2.5 | 1.58 * |
| trendy location (prestige of the place) | E2 | −1.5 | 1.22 * |
| easy access to small service facilities (greengrocer’s, grocer’s, chemist’s) | E3 | −1.0 | 1.0 * |
| lots of greenery, squares, lawns | E4 | 6.0 | 2.46 * |
| easy access to public transport (tram/bus/train) | E5 | -9.0 | 3.0 ** |
| close proximity to entertainment facilities (restaurants, pubs, etc.) | E6 | −1.5 | 1.22 * |
| close proximity to school/kindergarten | E7 | −3.5 | 1.87 * |
| safety of the neighbourhood/district | E8 | −1.0 | 1.0 * |
| type of development | E9 | −3.5 | 1.87 * |
| sentimental attachment to the neighbourhood | E10 | −7.0 | 2.65 * |
| friends’/family members’ opinion on the location of the city/village/district | E11 | 2.5 | 1.58 * |
| information on the planned development of the neighbourhood (investments) | E12 | 2.5 | 1.58 * |
| proximity to a primary healthcare centre (outpatient clinic) | E13 | 8.0 | 2.83 ** |
| access to supermarket/hypermarket | E14 | −1.0 | 1.0 * |
| access to parking spaces | E15 | −1.0 | 1.0 * |
| access to leisure and sports facilities (e.g., football pitches) | E16 | 3.5 | 1.87 * |
| appearance/aesthetics of the surrounding buildings | E17 | −1.0 | 1.0 * |
| proximity to playgrounds, outdoor gyms, skateparks, etc. | E18 | −1.0 | 1.0 * |
| accessibility of landscape architecture (benches, rubbish bins, fountains, monuments) | E19 | 1.5 | 1.22 * |
| the condition of pavements, curbs, driveways, roadways | E20 | −1.5 | 1.22 * |
| noise levels in the area | E21 | -3.5 | 1.87 * |
| dispersed development | E22 | 6.5 | 2.55 * |
| other | E23 | 2.0 | 1.41 * |
| flat’s floor area | I1 | 12.0 | 3.46 ** |
| number of rooms | I2 | 14.5 | 3.80 ** |
| appearance/aesthetics of the building/façade | I3 | −6.5 | 2.56 * |
| building construction technology (quality, lifespan) | I4 | −3.0 | 1.73 * |
| building location (zone, district, etc.) | I5 | −4.5 | 2.12 * |
| technical condition of the room/flat/house (utility systems, walls, floors, windows) | I6 | −2.0 | 1.41 * |
| room arrangement | I7 | −1.0 | 1.0 * |
| presence of additional rooms (balcony, loggia, winter garden, shed, etc.) | I8 | 14.0 | 3.74 ** |
| good access to broadband Internet | I9 | 28.0 | 5.29 * |
| brightness of rooms | I10 | 7.0 | 2.65 * |
| the attractiveness of the view from the window | I11 | 7.0 | 2.65 * |
| good thermal insulation of the building/flat/residential unit | I12 | 5.0 | 2.24 * |
| good acoustic insulation of the building/flat/residential unit | I13 | 2.5 | 1.58 * |
| access to digital platforms | I14 | 9.5 | 3.08 ** |
| energy-efficient equipment | I15 | 3.5 | 1.87 * |
| running cost of the flat/apartment/house/residential unit | I16 | −4.5 | 2.12 * |
| other | I17 | −8.5 | 2.92 ** |
| df | 1 | ||
| 2.7055 | |||
| 3.8415 | |||
* confidence interval 0.90; ** confidence interval 0.95.
Figure 7A change in preferences in the housing type attributes after two years of COVID-19. Source: own study.
Figure 8Differences in the perception of internal factors, broken down by gender. Source: own study.
Figure 9Differences in the perception of internal factors, broken down by age groups. Source: own study.
Figure 10The level of satisfaction and the declaration of willingness to change the current residential location or housing type. Source: own study.