2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.05.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intra-urban residential mobility and tenants' workplace choices in Kinondoni municipality

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a result of these higher prices, those with less economic muscles tend to be pushed further to the urban fringe where they strategically adopt "frequent visitation" (VIS) or "effective occupation" (EO) on informal residential properties at a relatively lower price (Vincent, 2009). The utility from "ineffective occupation" (V S ) may be determined by the utility of "effective occupation" (V R ) and the redistribution consequences arising from diversities in Value of formal titles to land population, growth rate and construction cost across settlements within the same city (Tinsley, 1993;Hansen and Skak, 2008); variation in housing types (Takeuchi et al, 2006); relative proximity to physical and social networks, workplaces and the CBD (Rath and Routray, 1997;Alananga, 2015); neighbourhood and housing services, sanitation and pressures on schools (Tinsley, 1993;Manaster, 1968;Penrose et al, 2010;Rose, 2006;Field, 2003); and lot size (Friedman et al, 1988). Other factors for utility and price differences may include original land access modality (Durand-Lasserve et al, 2013), gender of household head as female household head often engenders less transfer uncertainty (Lanjouw and Levy, 1998), type of employment, household size, duration of residency and education level (Friedman et al, 1988).…”
Section: The Model Of Housing Informality With Strategic Occupationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…As a result of these higher prices, those with less economic muscles tend to be pushed further to the urban fringe where they strategically adopt "frequent visitation" (VIS) or "effective occupation" (EO) on informal residential properties at a relatively lower price (Vincent, 2009). The utility from "ineffective occupation" (V S ) may be determined by the utility of "effective occupation" (V R ) and the redistribution consequences arising from diversities in Value of formal titles to land population, growth rate and construction cost across settlements within the same city (Tinsley, 1993;Hansen and Skak, 2008); variation in housing types (Takeuchi et al, 2006); relative proximity to physical and social networks, workplaces and the CBD (Rath and Routray, 1997;Alananga, 2015); neighbourhood and housing services, sanitation and pressures on schools (Tinsley, 1993;Manaster, 1968;Penrose et al, 2010;Rose, 2006;Field, 2003); and lot size (Friedman et al, 1988). Other factors for utility and price differences may include original land access modality (Durand-Lasserve et al, 2013), gender of household head as female household head often engenders less transfer uncertainty (Lanjouw and Levy, 1998), type of employment, household size, duration of residency and education level (Friedman et al, 1988).…”
Section: The Model Of Housing Informality With Strategic Occupationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are however, limited evidence that such lower prices in informal housing is in any way associated with perceptions of the buyers about informality at the time of purchase. Similarly, some studies points to proximity consideration in purchase of plots and housing which may be motivated by social consideration (Limbumba, 2010) or economic opportunities (Eliwaha, 2011;Alananga, 2015). There is however no any study to date that has attempted to explain residential property demand in terms of perceived transaction failure risks due to questionable title or sellers qualities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation