I would have never dream of i) going to Cyprus and ii) giving a keynote address in an International Conference in Cyprus. And yet that was what happened in December 2011. There were a total of 5 keynote speakers and I was the speaker representing UiTM. Of course I am grateful to Allah Al Mighty for this opportunity, it was such an honour and I personally thank Prof. Yusof Abbas as the conference head.
The title of the address is Low Cost Housing Environment: Compromising Quality of Life. I will insert some of the excerpts from the keynote address for this post. The full paper can be found in "Karim, H.A., Low Cost Housing Environment: Compromising Quality of Life?, Elsevier’s Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 35, 2012, Pages 44-53, ISSN 1877-0428.
Quality of Life in Housing Environment
Findings from researches on the quality of low cost housing runs a familiar tune or similar trend where numerous complaints of dissatisfaction with the dilapidated condition of the buildings, the poor conditions of services, the recurrent problems of clogged drains and toilets, dull facade, poorly maintained lifts and playgrounds and others. Anyone would question the existence of QOL for people who lived in this housing on a daily basis. Mackensen (1986) advocates that the physical environment as part of the material setting people live in, is both a condition and a consequence of the pattern of the social relations in an area’. As a `condition’ he meant that it allows for social contacts, or makes them difficult sometimes even impossible. As a consequence, the physical environment is being shaped partly by the patterns of social relations, their content, intensity and frequency. On the other hand, Zapf (1984) had shown in Table 1 that there are 4 types of results that can be caused by the combination of objective living conditions and subjectivewell-being such as i)well-being ii) dissonance iii) adaptation and iv) deprivation.
The rich and wealthy that lived in luxurious accommodation and feel happy about it will generally produce a sense of well-being. Those who lived in an unfortunate living condition yet have some perception of satisfaction has somehow adapted to that type of environment. This goes to show that `well-being’ is highly subjective that even when the living conditions are acceptable, there will be some people who will feel dissatisfied (dissonance). On the other hand, there are people who will feel satisfied with their living conditions even though the conditions are quite inadequate (adaptation).
Housing Domains
[Figure 1 refused to be copied]
Figure 1 shows the four housing environment domains that exist in a city. The housing unit is within the other domains inside the city. Once the resident steps out of the house, he/she will encounter the neighbor and community domain, and then will continue to do their daily activities in the community facilities environment such the school, to the shops or others.
The relationship between these four domains produces the perception and the experience of the residents. A fresh and clean physical environment will produce satisfied residents. On the other hand, a responsible community will take care of their housing blocks where they have a low tolerance level for dirty and unpleasant surroundings. And the whole setting result in the existence of quality of life which can be advantageous, deficient or just fair. Therefore, the housing environment is made up of several domains and the summation of satisfaction of residents for each domain will make up for the overall quality of life.
Conclusion
There are four domains in the housing environment and it was found that the respondents in Shah Alam were most satisfied with the community facilities domain. Shah Alam is planned as a new town provided with sufficient facilities for its residents regardless of their socio-economic background. The planning of the city of Shah Alam has taken into consideration the location and accessibility of the community facilities for each residential sections of the city. This planning concept is called the neighborhood concept. This shows that the physical planning aspect and the characteristic of the city play pivotal roles in contributing towards the QOL of the residents in Shah Alam. In second place is the family domain, third is the physical environment and lastly is the neighboring and community domain. It is a fact that the population of Shah Alam comprises mainly of migrants and they came from all over Malaysia even from Sabah and Sarawak. There are also foreigners and a large student’s population. Although the social domain in Shah Alam has the least score amongst the four domains but this does not mean that there is a social crisis brewing in Shah Alam.
Nevertheless, everyone wants to be happy with their life, their family, career and home but it is not possible to get everything in life. People with money have little difficulty in selecting the suitable home to fit to their taste and preferences. Even then that might not necessarily make them happy. There is no limit to the list of things that we want in life that we believe can make us happy. Then again, referring back to the definitions and interpretations of happiness, happiness can occur for those who do not have many. Residents of a low cost flat may have their quality of life improved if they have a bigger and more beautiful house than their own flat. Yet that perception is not true because as was found from their list of preferred values, many did not want to have a bigger house or have their own land instead they chose to have happiness, health and safety. They seem quite contented with their life, their home and their housing area. Their acceptance of their life is quite humbling.
The title of the address is Low Cost Housing Environment: Compromising Quality of Life. I will insert some of the excerpts from the keynote address for this post. The full paper can be found in "Karim, H.A., Low Cost Housing Environment: Compromising Quality of Life?, Elsevier’s Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 35, 2012, Pages 44-53, ISSN 1877-0428.
Quality of Life in Housing Environment
Findings from researches on the quality of low cost housing runs a familiar tune or similar trend where numerous complaints of dissatisfaction with the dilapidated condition of the buildings, the poor conditions of services, the recurrent problems of clogged drains and toilets, dull facade, poorly maintained lifts and playgrounds and others. Anyone would question the existence of QOL for people who lived in this housing on a daily basis. Mackensen (1986) advocates that the physical environment as part of the material setting people live in, is both a condition and a consequence of the pattern of the social relations in an area’. As a `condition’ he meant that it allows for social contacts, or makes them difficult sometimes even impossible. As a consequence, the physical environment is being shaped partly by the patterns of social relations, their content, intensity and frequency. On the other hand, Zapf (1984) had shown in Table 1 that there are 4 types of results that can be caused by the combination of objective living conditions and subjectivewell-being such as i)well-being ii) dissonance iii) adaptation and iv) deprivation.
The rich and wealthy that lived in luxurious accommodation and feel happy about it will generally produce a sense of well-being. Those who lived in an unfortunate living condition yet have some perception of satisfaction has somehow adapted to that type of environment. This goes to show that `well-being’ is highly subjective that even when the living conditions are acceptable, there will be some people who will feel dissatisfied (dissonance). On the other hand, there are people who will feel satisfied with their living conditions even though the conditions are quite inadequate (adaptation).
Housing Domains
[Figure 1 refused to be copied]
Figure 1 shows the four housing environment domains that exist in a city. The housing unit is within the other domains inside the city. Once the resident steps out of the house, he/she will encounter the neighbor and community domain, and then will continue to do their daily activities in the community facilities environment such the school, to the shops or others.
The relationship between these four domains produces the perception and the experience of the residents. A fresh and clean physical environment will produce satisfied residents. On the other hand, a responsible community will take care of their housing blocks where they have a low tolerance level for dirty and unpleasant surroundings. And the whole setting result in the existence of quality of life which can be advantageous, deficient or just fair. Therefore, the housing environment is made up of several domains and the summation of satisfaction of residents for each domain will make up for the overall quality of life.
Conclusion
There are four domains in the housing environment and it was found that the respondents in Shah Alam were most satisfied with the community facilities domain. Shah Alam is planned as a new town provided with sufficient facilities for its residents regardless of their socio-economic background. The planning of the city of Shah Alam has taken into consideration the location and accessibility of the community facilities for each residential sections of the city. This planning concept is called the neighborhood concept. This shows that the physical planning aspect and the characteristic of the city play pivotal roles in contributing towards the QOL of the residents in Shah Alam. In second place is the family domain, third is the physical environment and lastly is the neighboring and community domain. It is a fact that the population of Shah Alam comprises mainly of migrants and they came from all over Malaysia even from Sabah and Sarawak. There are also foreigners and a large student’s population. Although the social domain in Shah Alam has the least score amongst the four domains but this does not mean that there is a social crisis brewing in Shah Alam.
Nevertheless, everyone wants to be happy with their life, their family, career and home but it is not possible to get everything in life. People with money have little difficulty in selecting the suitable home to fit to their taste and preferences. Even then that might not necessarily make them happy. There is no limit to the list of things that we want in life that we believe can make us happy. Then again, referring back to the definitions and interpretations of happiness, happiness can occur for those who do not have many. Residents of a low cost flat may have their quality of life improved if they have a bigger and more beautiful house than their own flat. Yet that perception is not true because as was found from their list of preferred values, many did not want to have a bigger house or have their own land instead they chose to have happiness, health and safety. They seem quite contented with their life, their home and their housing area. Their acceptance of their life is quite humbling.
Low cost flats are the standard form of housing the lower income people in Malaysia. Residents are hard working and proud of their family and home. They are a valuable asset to the country and towards nation building. They are the human resources that can be capitalized for the social capital in the country. The residents of the low cost flats should not be side-lined for a better living environment. There should not be any compromise on a better living condition for the lower income group in the low cost flats. Planning policies and design of low cost housing environment with quality of life in mind will create an environment that is comfortable for people to live in, safe and convenient.
Photos from the conference:
The five keynote speakers with the organizing leaders.
This group include the board members and the organizing committee.
Trying my best to be calm and collected.
Receiving a momento from Prof. Yusof Abbas
The Q&A session with all the Keynote speakers and Prof. Yusof as the chairperson.
