Provision of quality housing is tied to meeting end-user values. In the context of housing development in Iran, a lack of understanding of user values in dwelling space design has contributed to the creation of incongruent living environments. This study aims to develop a deeper understanding of user psychological perception on value creators in housing design. An empirical study adopting the means-end chain model utilizing soft laddering techniques was conducted among occupants of mass housing built in Bushehr, Iran. The perception of value creators among southwestern inhabitants of Iran covers a wide range of subjects. It involves the provision of aesthetic environments, utilization of natural attributes and the provision of spacious, effective, well-organized environments that meet occupants' needs for privacy and comfort. Furthermore, accommodating attributes for strengthening the integrity and intimacy of the family was imperative. The provision of healthy environments for pleasure and subsistence include other value creators. Identifying perceptions on value creators among occupants provides valuable insight into the desired quality aspects of housing design. It assists designers to align their thought processes with future would-be users, enhancing the design quality to deliver a congruent living environment for occupants.
ÅslundABäckströmI. Creation of value to society – a process map of the societal entrepreneurship area. Total Qual Manage Bus Excel2015; 26: 385–399.
2.
KowaltowskiDCCKGranjaAD. The concept of desired value as a stimulus for change in social housing in Brazil. Habitat Int2011; 35: 435–446.
3.
SiuKWM. Users' creative responses and designers' roles. Des Issues2003; 19: 64–73.
4.
GibsonJJThe theory of affordances. In: GibsonJJ (ed). The ecological approach to visual perception, Classic edition. New York, USA: Psychology Press, 2015.
5.
Moore GT. Environment-behavior studies. In: Snyder JC and Catanese AJ (Eds) Introduction to architecture. New York, USA: McGraw Hill, 1979, pp.46–71.
6.
AsadiMTahirMM. The social relationship of contemporary residents in Iranian housing. e-BANGI2012; 7: 8–8.
7.
Jääskö V and Mattelmäki T. Observing and probing. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 23–26 2003; ACM pp.126–131.
8.
Forlizzi J and Ford S. The building blocks of experience: an early framework for interaction designers. In: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, New York City, New York, USA, August 17–19, 2000: ACM, 2000, pp.419–423.
9.
MorrisEWWinterM. A theory of family housing adjustment. J Marriage Family1975; 37(1): 79–88.
10.
VoelkerCBeckmannJKoehlmannSKornadtO. Occupant requirements in residential buildings: an empirical study and a theoretical model. Adv Build Energy Res2013; 7: 35–50.
11.
Seneviratne T, Amaratunga RDG and Haigh RP. Post conflict housing reconstruction: housing needs and expectations of conflict affected communities. In: International conference on building resilience 2011: interdisciplinary approaches to disaster risk reduction, and the development of sustainable communities and cities, Kandalama, Sri Lanka, July 19–21 2011.
12.
Devine-Wright H, Thomson DS and Austin SA. Matching values and value in construction and design. In: Craig T (ed.) Crossing boundaries: the value of interdisciplinary research: proceedings of the third conference of the EPUK (Environmental Psychology in the UK) network, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, June 23–25 2003; Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland; pp.42–51.
13.
HentschkeCSFormosoCTRochaCGEchevesteMES. A Method for proposing valued-adding attributes in customized housing. Sustainability2014; 6: 9244–9267.
14.
JansenSJT. Different values, different housing? Can underlying value orientations predict residential preference and choice?Hous Theor Soc2014; 31: 254–276.
15.
JusanMBM. Means end chain, person environment congruence and mass housing design. Open House Int2010; 35: 76–86.
16.
AlarajiKAMHJusanMBM. Assessment of perceived flexibility in house design using conjoint analysis (CA). Int J Appl Eng Res2014; 9: 2473–2486.
17.
FlanaganMHoweDNissenbaumHEmbodying values in design: theory and practice. In: van den JovenMJWeckertJ (eds). Information Technology and Moral Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 322–353.
18.
Van den Hoven J. ICT and value sensitive design. In: Goujon P, Lavelle S, Duquenoy P, Kimppa K and Laurent V (eds) The information society: innovation, legitimacy, ethics and democracy in honor of Professor Jacques Berleur SJ. Boston: Springer, 2007, pp.67–72.
19.
KujalaSVäänänen-Vainio-MattilaK. Value of information systems and products: understanding the users' perspective and values. J Inform Technol Theory Appl2009; 9: 4–4.
20.
Van de Poel I. Translating values into design requirements. In: Michelfelder DP, McCarthy N and Goldberg DE (eds) Philosophy and engineering: reflections on practice, principles and process. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2013, pp.253–66.
21.
Kahle LR and Xie G-X. Social values in consumer psychology. In: Haugtvedt, CP Herr, PM and Kardes, FR (eds) Handbook of consumer psychology. New York, NY: Routledge Handbooks Online, 2008, pp. 575–585.
22.
RokeachM. The nature of human values1973Free press New York.
23.
MaslowAHFragerRFadimanJMcReynoldsCCoxR. Motivation and personality, New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
24.
KahleLR. Social values and consumer behavior: research from the list of values, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, pp. 135–151.
25.
RokeachM. Beliefs, attitudes and values: a theory of organization and change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.
26.
SchwartzSH. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?J Social Issues1994; 50: 19–45.
27.
CoolenHHoekstraJ. Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. J Hous Built Environ2001; 16: 285–306.
28.
SchwartzSHBilskyW. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J Person Soc Psychol1987; 53: 550–562.
29.
SchwartzSH. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol1992; 25: 1–65.
30.
KotlerP. Marketing management: the millennium edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Series in marketing, 2000.
ZeithamlVA. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Market1988; 52: 2–22.
33.
BoztepeS. User value: competing theories and models. Int J Des2007; 1: 55–63.
34.
AllenMWNgSH. The direct and indirect influences of human values on product ownership. J Econ Psychol1999; 20: 5–39.
35.
HolbrookMB. Consumer value: a framework for analysis and research, London: Psychology Press, 1999.
36.
GilmoreJPineJ. The experience economy: work is theatre and every business a stage, Paris: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.
37.
CaganJVogelCM. Creating breakthrough products: innovation from product planning to program approval, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Ft Press, 2002.
38.
MurrayHA. Some basic psychological assumptions and conceptions. Dialectica1951; 5: 266–292.
39.
GrunertSCScherlornG. Consumer values in West Germany underlying dimensions and cross-cultural comparison with North America. J Bus Res1990; 20: 97–107.
JolibertABaumgartnerG. Values, motivations, and personal goals: revisited. Psychol Market1997; 14: 675–688.
42.
BaumgartnerH. Toward a personology of the consumer. J Consumer Res2002; 29: 286–292.
43.
KroppFLavackAMSilveraDH. Values and collective self-esteem as predictors of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence among university students. Int Market Rev2005; 22: 7–33.
44.
IbemEO. Residents' perception of the quality of public housing in urban areas in Ogun State, Nigeria. Int J Qual Reliab Manage2012; 29: 1000–1018.
45.
Sherif NH, Shehayeb DK and El-Nachar EA. TheoreticalL model of “Home” the Case of the contemporary Egyptian context. In: The appropriate home IAPS – 3rd Symposium XXll UIA world congress of architecture. Istanbul, July 3–7 2005; pp. 145–154.
46.
RapoportA. The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal communication approach, Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1982.
47.
RapoportA. Theory, culture and housing. Hous Theor Soc2000; 17: 145–165.
48.
POPD. Space perception and its implication in architectural design. Acta Tech Napocensis: Civil Eng Archit2013; 56: 211–221.
49.
López-MosqueraNSánchezM. The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: an application of the means-end chain theory. Tourism Manage2011; 32: 875–889.
50.
GutmanJReynoldsTJAn investigation of the levels of cognitive abstraction utilized by consumers in product differentiation. In: EighmeyJ (ed). Attitude Research Under the SGAS, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1979, pp. 128–150.
51.
SchwartzSHBilskyW. Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. J Person Soc Psychol1990; 58: 878–878.
52.
GasperDR. Needs and basic needs: a clarification of meanings, levels and different streams of work, The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University (ISS), 1996.
53.
Max-NeefMElizaldeAHopenhaynMDevelopment and human needs. In: EkinsPMax-NeefM (eds). Real-life economics: understanding wealth creation, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 197–213.
54.
Mäkelä A and Fulton Suri J. Supporting users’ creativity: design to induce pleasurable experiences. In: International conference on affective human factors design, Singapore, 27–29 June 2001; pp.387–394.
55.
VenturaAKWorobeyJ. Early influences on the development of food preferences. Curr Biol2013; 23: R401–R408.
56.
GutmanJ. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. J Market1982; 46: 60–72.
57.
ReynoldsTJGutmanJ. Advertising is image management. J Advertising Res1984; 24: 27–37.
58.
Nylund A. Consumers’ attitudes towards differently branded and processed pork products. PhD Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Alnarp, Skara, Umeå, Sweden, 2009.
59.
LeeW-IChangC-YLiuY-L. Exploring customers’ store loyalty using the means-end chain approach. J Retail Consumer Serv2010; 17: 395–405.
ZinasBZJusanMBM. Housing choice and preference: theory and measurement. Proc – Soc Behav Sci2012; 49: 282–292.
62.
BonneKVerbekeW. Muslim consumer’s motivations towards meat consumption in Belgium: qualitative exploratory insights from means-end chain analysis. Anthropol Food2006; 5: 1–21.
63.
PhillipsJMReynoldsTJ. A hard look at hard laddering: a comparison of studies examining the hierarchical structure of means-end theory. Qual Market Res2009; 12: 83–99.
64.
VossRGruberTSzmiginI. Service quality in higher education: the role of student expectations. J Bus Res2007; 60: 949–959.
65.
WalkerBAOlsonJC. Means-end chains: connecting products with self. J Bus Res1991; 22: 111–118.
66.
Ter HofstedeFAudenaertASteenkampJ-BEMWedelM. An investigation into the association pattern technique as a quantitative approach to measuring means-end chains. Int J Res Market1998; 15: 37–50.
67.
ChiuC-M. Applying means-end chain theory to eliciting system requirements and understanding users perceptual orientations. Inform Manage2005; 42: 455–468.
68.
TabatabaeiTKarbassiARMoatarFMonavariSM. Geospatial patterns and background levels of heavy metal in deposited particulate matter in Bushehr, Iran. Arab J Geosci2015; 8: 2081–2093.
JohnWC. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications, 2012.
71.
Baker SE and Edwards R. How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper, NCRM, University of Southampton, Southampton, 2012, pp.1–43.
Carney K. Affordable housing: a holistic design approach to the domestic environment. Master Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 2007.
75.
MoghimiVJusanMBM. Priority of structural housing attribute preferences: identifying customer perception. Int J Hous Market Anal2015; 8: 36–52.
76.
Peacock CL. Dwelling well: an application of Christopher Alexander's theory of wholeness to investigate occupant affective responses to homes incorporating renewable natural resources. Master Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 2005.
77.
UlrichRSSimonsRFLositoBDFioritoEMilesMAZelsonM. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol1991; 11: 201–230.
78.
CapaldiCADopkoRLZelenskiJM. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Front Psychol2014; 5: 1–15.
79.
BertoR. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. J Environ Psychol2005; 25: 249–259.
80.
LohrVIPearson-MimsCH. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environ Behav2006; 38: 667–688.
81.
MacKerronGMouratoS. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environ Change2013; 23: 992–1000.
82.
BrownLEcopsychology and the environmental revolution. In: Theodore Roszak, MaryE GomesKannerAD (eds). Ecopsychology: restoring the earth, healing the mind, San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1995.
83.
StampsAE. On shape and spaciousness. Environ Behav2008; 41: 526–548.
84.
FranklinBJ. Discourses of Design: Perspectives on the meaning of housing quality and? Good? Housing design. Hous Theory Soc2001; 18: 79–92.
85.
Bharucha-ReidRKiyakHA. Environmental effects on affect: density, noise and personality. Popul Environ1982; 5: 60–72.
86.
NagarDPandeyJ. Affect and performance on cognitive task as a function of crowding and noise1. J Appl Soc Psychol1987; 17: 147–157.
87.
LangeHMuellerCWDonnersteinE. The effects of social, spatial, and interference density on performance and mood. J Soc Psychol1979; 109: 283–287.
88.
LeeJ-HYoonYBaikY-KKimS. Analyses on human responses to illuminance variations for resident-friendly lighting environment in a small office. Indoor Built Environ2013; 22: 535–550.
89.
AriesMBCVeitchJANewshamGR. Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J Environ Psychol2010; 30: 533–541.
90.
MakCMLuiYP. The effect of sound on office productivity. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2011; 33: 339–345.
91.
MarksLBWoodwellJE. Planning for daylight and sunlight in buildings, Cleveland: Illuminating Engineering Society, 1914.
92.
EdwardsLTorcelliniPA. A literature review of the effects of natural light on building occupants, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2002.
93.
HolickMF. Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr2004; 80: 1678S–1688S.
94.
HwangTKimJT. Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20(1): 75–90. 1420326X10392017.
95.
Al-TamimiNAMFadzilSFSHarunWMW. The effects of orientation, ventilation, and varied WWR on the thermal performance of residential rooms in the tropics. J Sustainable Dev2011; 4: p142–p142.
96.
MaslowAH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev1943; 50: 370–370.
97.
HershbergerR. Architectural programming and predesign manager, Columbus: McGraw-Hill Professional, 1999.
98.
Mauro HSDSE and Santos CDEO. The meaning of comfort in residential environments. CADERNOS PROARQ 18; Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2011: 13–151.
99.
MadanipourA. Public and private spaces of the city, New York: Routledge, 2003.
100.
SchmidAL. A idéia de conforto: reflexões sobre o ambiente construído, Curitiba: Pactoambiental, 2005.
101.
RybczynskiWvon StaaB. Casa: pequena história de uma idéia, Mexico: Record, 1996.
102.
BenediktM. Human needs and how architecture addresses them, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2008.
103.
Choi S. The relationships among indoor environmental quality, occupant satisfaction, work performance, and sustainability ethic in sustainable buildings. PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2011.
104.
AltmanI. The environment and social behavior: privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding, Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co., 1975.
105.
ShabaniMMTahirMMShabankarehHArjmandiHMazaheriF. Relation of cultural and social attributes in dwelling, responding to privacy in Iranian traditional house. e-BANGI2011; 6: 15–15.
106.
Van VoordtTJM. Quality of design and usability: a vetruvian twin. Ambiente Construído2009; 9: 17–29.
107.
Reisner-Cook Y. The troubled relationship between architecture and aesthetic: exploring the self and emotional beauty in design. PhD Thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, 2009.
108.
AlarajiKAMHJusanMBM. Flexible house attributes as perceived by the end-users. Int J Appl Eng Res2015; 10: 18313–18324.
109.
OpokuRAAbdul-MuhminAG. Housing preferences and attribute importance among low-income consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat Int2010; 34: 219–227.
110.
RyanRMDeciEL. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Ann Rev Psychol2001; 52: 141–166.
111.
Bar S. Iran: cultural values, self images and negotiation behavior. Institute for Policy and Strategy, The Launder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy IDC, Herzliya, Israel,www.herzliyaconference.org/_Uploads/2614Iranianself.pdf (2004, accessed 10 November 2015).
112.
PirniaMKMemarianG. The study of styles in Iranian architecture, Iran: Soroush Danesh, 1992.
113.
TanT-H. Meeting first-time buyers’ housing needs and preferences in greater Kuala Lumpur. Cities2012; 29: 389–396.
