The added value of lifestyle variables: the search continues

Introduction: People’s preferences for residential environments have long been predicted on the basis of sociodemographic characteristics alone. Recently, however, some researchers argue that these variables no longer suffice to explain and predict preferences and that they should be supplemented with lifestyle variables. The current study explores this assumption for a number of housing preferences. For this purpose, a lifestyle typology has been developed that is based on universal requirements of human nature and interests (individualistic value-orientation versus collectivistic value-orientation). Methods: Data were collected though telephone interviews in January and February 2010. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of 29 values, such as pleasure, as a guiding principle in housing. Together, these values form two domains: an individualistic oriented value system and a collectivistic oriented value system. These were used to distinguish four lifestyle categories: 1) low in both individualistic and collectivistic value-orientation (n = 593, 38%), 2) mostly individualistic value-orientation (n = 262, 174%, 3) mostly collectivistic value-orientation (n = 174, 11%), and, 4) high in both individualistic and collectivistic valueorientation (n = 524, 34%). Results: The four lifestyle groups differ statistically significantly with regard to age, income, education, gender, having paid work and household type. Current housing characteristics (in respondents who are not willing to move) and preferred housing characteristics (in respondents that are willing to move) are compared between the four groups. A number of statistically significant differences in housing preferences between the four groups are observed. However, after correction for socio-demographic variables many of these differences disappear, indicating that they are a result of differences in socio-demographic variables and not of differences in actual housing preferences between the four groups. Conclusion: Values may have some additional worth for explaining and predicting housing preferences, especially in cases where socio-demographic variables alone fall short. However, their impact on housing preferences seems to be rather limited.