IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9321-d875371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-Economic Drivers of Community Acceptance of Sustainable Social Housing: Evidence from Mumbai

Author

Listed:
  • Mahesti Okitasari

    (United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan)

  • Ranjeeta Mishra

    (Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai 400 001, India)

  • Masachika Suzuki

    (United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan
    Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo 102-8554, Japan)

Abstract

The impact of socio-cultural outlooks on the acceptance of sustainability measures in a low-income context should be complemented by better understanding of socio-economic drivers to bridge the gaps between policy expectation and acceptance in social housing projects. The study attempts to explore the different aspects of well-being in determining the housing satisfaction of the residents of social housing under the slum rehabilitation schemes in Mumbai. Social housing offers considerably improved social and environmental sustainability components compared to slums; however, social acceptability remains low due to their location disadvantages. Using primary data collection from the sample of 298 households in Mumbai, the paper explores the varying levels of their housing satisfaction. The study found that economic opportunity is low in slum rehabilitation, mostly reflected in the job loss of the second earner, exacerbated by the change of work after shifting to social housing. Among other factors, location, accessibility of the building, household size and opportunity for social engagement play the most critical role in deciding the households’ perceived housing satisfaction with social housing compared to slums.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahesti Okitasari & Ranjeeta Mishra & Masachika Suzuki, 2022. "Socio-Economic Drivers of Community Acceptance of Sustainable Social Housing: Evidence from Mumbai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9321-:d:875371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9321/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9321/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhao, Dong-Xue & He, Bao-Jie & Johnson, Christine & Mou, Ben, 2015. "Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1594-1609.
    2. Ravijanya Chippagiri & Hindavi R. Gavali & Rahul V. Ralegaonkar & Mike Riley & Andy Shaw & Ana Bras, 2021. "Application of Sustainable Prefabricated Wall Technology for Energy Efficient Social Housing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    4. Liu, Wenling & Wang, Can & Mol, Arthur P.J., 2013. "Rural public acceptance of renewable energy deployment: The case of Shandong in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1187-1196.
    5. Barbara H. Wixom & Peter A. Todd, 2005. "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-102, March.
    6. Yuan, Xueliang & Zuo, Jian & Ma, Chunyuan, 2011. "Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in China--End users' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1031-1036, March.
    7. Piyush Tiwari & Hiroshi Hasegawa†, 2004. "Demand for Housing in Tokyo: A Discrete Choice Analysis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 27-42.
    8. Aliyu Ibrahim Saidu & Chunho Yeom, 2020. "Success Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable and Affordable Housing Model: A Case for Improving Household Welfare in Nigeria Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    9. McCabe, Annie & Pojani, Dorina & van Groenou, Anthony Broese, 2018. "The application of renewable energy to social housing: A systematic review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 549-557.
    10. Bangkim Kshetrimayum & Ronita Bardhan & Tetsu Kubota, 2020. "Factors Affecting Residential Satisfaction in Slum Rehabilitation Housing in Mumbai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohsen Nazari & Iman Mostashar Nezami & Ali Asgary, 2024. "Mapping social innovation impact evaluation: a comprehensive literature review and prospects for future research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 4505-4532, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karytsas, Spyridon & Theodoropoulou, Helen, 2014. "Socioeconomic and demographic factors that influence publics' awareness on the different forms of renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 480-485.
    2. Kosorić, Vesna & Huang, Huajing & Tablada, Abel & Lau, Siu-Kit & Tan, Hugh T.W., 2019. "Survey on the social acceptance of the productive façade concept integrating photovoltaic and farming systems in high-rise public housing blocks in Singapore," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-214.
    3. Bhowmik, Chiranjib & Bhowmik, Sumit & Ray, Amitava, 2018. "Social acceptance of green energy determinants using principal component analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 1030-1046.
    4. Ana María González & Harrison Sandoval & Pilar Acosta & Felipe Henao, 2016. "On the Acceptance and Sustainability of Renewable Energy Projects—A Systems Thinking Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    6. Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki & Zamanillo, Ibon & Laskurain, Iker, 2013. "Social acceptance of ocean wave energy: A case study of an OWC shoreline plant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 515-524.
    7. Fang, Xingming & Wang, Lu & Sun, Chuanwang & Zheng, Xuemei & Wei, Jing, 2021. "Gap between words and actions: Empirical study on consistency of residents supporting renewable energy development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    8. Du, Hua & Han, Qi & de Vries, Bauke & Sun, Jun, 2024. "Community solar PV adoption in residential apartment buildings: A case study on influencing factors and incentive measures in Wuhan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 354(PA).
    9. Baharoon, Dhyia Aidroos & Rahman, Hasimah Abdul & Fadhl, Saeed Obaid, 2016. "Publics׳ knowledge, attitudes and behavioral toward the use of solar energy in Yemen power sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 498-515.
    10. Arifa Tanveer & Shihong Zeng & Muhammad Irfan & Rui Peng, 2021. "Do Perceived Risk, Perception of Self-Efficacy, and Openness to Technology Matter for Solar PV Adoption? An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-24, August.
    11. Gabriela O. Chiciudean & Rezhen Harun & Felix H. Arion & Daniel I. Chiciudean & Camelia F. Oroian & Iulia C. Muresan, 2018. "A Critical Approach on Sustainable Renewable Energy Sources in Rural Area: Evidence from North-West Region of Romania," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, August.
    12. Lim, Xin-Le & Lam, Wei-Haur, 2014. "Public Acceptance of Marine Renewable Energy in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 16-26.
    13. Liu, Wenling & Wang, Can & Mol, Arthur P.J., 2013. "Rural public acceptance of renewable energy deployment: The case of Shandong in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1187-1196.
    14. Muhammad Aslam Mohd Safari & Nurulkamal Masseran & Alias Jedi & Sohif Mat & Kamaruzzaman Sopian & Azman Bin Abdul Rahim & Azami Zaharim, 2020. "Rural Public Acceptance of Wind and Solar Energy: A Case Study from Mersing, Malaysia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-24, July.
    15. Bishal Bharadwaj & Franzisca Weder & Peta Ashworth, 2023. "More support for hydrogen export than its domestic application in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Zhao, Dong-Xue & He, Bao-Jie & Johnson, Christine & Mou, Ben, 2015. "Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1594-1609.
    17. Xueliang Yuan & Xiaohan Fan & Jiaxin Liang & Mengyue Liu & Yuqiang Teng & Qiao Ma & Qingsong Wang & Ruimin Mu & Jian Zuo, 2019. "Public Perception towards Waste-to-Energy as a Waste Management Strategy: A Case from Shandong, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Shen, Shiran Victoria & Cain, Bruce E. & Hui, Iris, 2019. "Public receptivity in China towards wind energy generators: A survey experimental approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 619-627.
    19. Jiangyue Joy Ying & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2021. "A fair trade? Expert perceptions of equity, innovation, and public awareness in China’s future Emissions Trading Scheme," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1-23, February.
    20. Simón, Xavier & Copena, Damián & Montero, María, 2019. "Strong wind development with no community participation. The case of Galicia (1995–2009)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9321-:d:875371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.