Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Heterogeneous preferences for sustainable housing: evidence from Poland

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The literature on sustainable housing is becoming increasingly popular around the world. Empirical research, however, does not acknowledge the existence of a comprehensive and unified approach to sustainable housing goals. It is still unclear if the mindset toward sustainable housing is rooted enough among various stakeholder groups to allow going beyond the concept of energy-efficient developments. That is why the study focuses on examining the perception of sustainable housing goals among future home buyers. The analysis presented in this paper comprises two stages. First, the analytical hierarchy process is used to assess the relative importance of the three main dimensions of sustainable housing, which are: economic, ecological, and social dimensions. Secondly, based on the emerged clusters, willingness to pay for the improvement of the chosen parameters of the residential building is verified. Regarding the adopted research approach, four homogeneous groups of future home buyers have been identified, namely ecologically oriented, socially oriented, cost-saving oriented, and mixed. The results of the study also reveal that the most appealing to future home buyers are the ecological and economic aspects, while the social ones still require further research. The article contributes to a better understanding of the process of sustainable housing development among potential home buyers, and what may be relevant to different stakeholders engaged in the process of sustainable development. Each of the stakeholder groups, starting from households via developers and policy-makers to academia, plays a specific role in this process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: own study

Fig. 2

Source: own study

Fig. 3

Source: own study

Fig. 4

Source: own study

Fig. 5

Source: own study

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamec, J., Janoušková, S., & Hák, T. (2021). How to measure sustainable housing: A proposal for an indicator-based assessment tool. Sustainability, 13(3), 1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, T., & Thaheem, M. J. (2017). Developing a residential building-related social sustainability assessment framework and its implications for BIM. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alaie, A., Yazdanfar, S. A., Norouzian-Maleki, S., & Hosseini, S. B. (2022). Evaluation of studies in the field of social sustainability in housing: A systematic review. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(4), 2179–2214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alyami, S. H., Rezgui, Y., & Kwan, A. (2013). Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27, 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, J., & Bragança, L. (2016). Sustainability assessment of dwellings—A comparison of methodologies. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 33(2), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berardi, U. (2013). Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building. Sustainable Cities and Society, 8(2013), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2013.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breidert, C., Hahsler, M., & Reutterer, T. (2006). A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innovative Marketing, 2(4), 8–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandratilake, S. R., & Dias, W. P. S. (2013). Sustainability rating systems for buildings: Comparisons and correlations. Energy, 59, 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, R. L. (2003). Social sustainability, sustainable development and housing development. In Housing and social change: East-west perspectives (vol. 221). New Routledge.

  • Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eryürük, Ş, Kürüm Varolgüneş, F., & Varolgüneş, S. (2022). Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(1), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09855-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309–3322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawlik, R. (2019). Enhancing managerial decision-making through multicriteria modeling. Cracow University of Technology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawlik, R., Głuszak, M., & Małkowska, A. (2017). The measurement of housing preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 17(1), 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Głuszak, M., Gawlik, R., & Zięba, M. (2017). Smart and green buildings features in the decision-making hierarchy of office space tenants: An analytic hierarchy process study. Administrative Sciences, 9(3), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Głuszak, M., & Marona, B. (2011). Heterogeneity and clustering of housing demand: Case study. Journal of International Studies, 4(1), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golubchikov, O., & Badyina, A. (2012). Sustainable housing for sustainable cities: a policy framework for developing countries. UN-HABITAT.

  • Gurmu, A., Shooshtarian, S., Mahmood, M. N., Hosseini, M. R., Shreshta, A., & Martek, I. (2022). The state of play regarding the social sustainability of the construction industry: A systematic review. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(2), 595–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, C., Yu, S., Han, Q., & de Vries, B. (2019). How to attract customers to buy green housing? Their heterogeneous willingness to pay for different attributes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 709–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336–14345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A. K. (2010). Data clustering : 50 years beyond K-means. Pattern Recognition Letters, 31(8), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, S. K., Ozdemir, Y., & Dal, M. (2019). Home-buying behaviour model of generation Y in Turkey. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 13(5), 713–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, R. A. J., Thaheem, M. J., & Ali, T. H. (2020). Are Pakistani homebuyers ready to adopt sustainable housing? An insight into their willingness to pay. Energy Policy, 143(111598), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubba, S. (2012). Handbook of green building design and construction: LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes. Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. L. (2013). A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental assessment schemes. Energy and Buildings, 62, 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., Long, R., & Chen, H. (2018). Differences and influencing factors for Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housings: Evidence from five first-tier cities in China. Applied Energy, 229, 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Małkowska, A., & Uhruska, M. (2019). Towards specialization or extension? Searching for valuation services models using cluster analysis. Real Estate Management and Valuation, 27(4), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.2478/remav-2019-0033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meex, E., Hollberg, A., Knapen, E., Hildebrand, L., & Verbeeck, G. (2018). Requirements for applying LCA-based environmental impact assessment tools in the early stages of building design. Building and Environment, 133, 228–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondini, G. (2019). Sustainability assessment: From brundtland report to sustainable development goals. Valori e valutazioni, 23, 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickvance, C. (2009). The construction of UK sustainable housing policy and the role of pressure groups. Local Environment, 14(4), 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prochorskaite, A., Couch, C., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Housing stakeholder preferences for the “Soft” features of sustainable and healthy housing design in the UK. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian, Q. K., Chan, E. H., Visscher, H., & Lehmann, S. (2015). Modeling the green building (GB) investment decisions of developers and end-users with transaction costs (TCs) considerations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rid, W., & Profeta, A. (2011). Stated preferences for sustainable housing development in Germany—A latent class analysis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X10393952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi, M., Naghedi, R., Behzadian, K., Shamshirgaran, A., Tabrizi, M. R., & Maknoon, R. (2022). Customisation of green buildings assessment tools based on climatic zoning and experts judgement using K-means clustering and fuzzy AHP. Building and Environment, 223(May), 109473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7), 749–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tianyu, J., & Meng, L. (2020). Does education increase pro-environmental willingness to pay? Evidence from Chinese household survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipoe, E., Adams, A., & Crawford, I. (2022). Revealed preference analysis and bounded rationality. Oxford Economic Papers, 74(2), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpab018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomal, M. (2021). Housing market heterogeneity and cluster formation : Evidence from Poland. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 14(5), 1166–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHMA-09-2020-0114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tupenaite, L., Lill, I., Geipele, I., & Naimaviciene, J. (2017). Ranking of sustainability indicators for assessment of the new housing development projects: Case of the Baltic States. Resources, 6(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6040055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhetsel, A., Kessels, R., Zijlstra, T., & Van Bavel, M. (2017). Housing preferences among students: Collective housing versus individual accommodations? A stated preference study in Antwerp (Belgium). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32(3), 449–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-016-9522-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Węgrzyn, J., & Najbar, K. (2022). Condominium co-owners and their typology based on their engagement in the process of decision-making. Real Estate Management and Valuation, 30(2), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, N. (2009). Urban regeneration for sustainable development: The role of sustainable housing? European Planning Studies, 17(12), 1781–1796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, N. (2010). Regeneration for sustainable communities? Barriers to implementing sustainable housing in urban areas. Sustainable Development, 18(6), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

  • Zalejska-Jonsson, A. (2014). Stated WTP and rational WTP: Willingness to pay for green apartments in Sweden. Sustainable Cities and Society, 13, 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D. X., He, B. J., Johnson, C., & Mou, B. (2015). Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 1594–1609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Źróbek, S., Trojanek, M., Źróbek-Sokolnik, A., & Trojanek, R. (2015). The influence of environmental factors on property buyers’ choice of residential location in Poland. Journal of International Studies, 7(3), 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The research leading to these results received funding from the Cracow University of Economics under Grant Agreement No. 18/EEN/2023/POT.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cracow University of Economics, Kraków, Poland

    Joanna Węgrzyn & Katarzyna Kania

Authors
  1. Joanna Węgrzyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katarzyna Kania
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Węgrzyn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Węgrzyn, J., Kania, K. Heterogeneous preferences for sustainable housing: evidence from Poland. J Hous and the Built Environ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-023-10101-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-023-10101-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation