Discussion Papers In Economics
And Business

Dissatisfaction withdwelling environments in an aging society:An empirical analysisof theKanto area in Japan

Noriko ISHIKAWA and Mototsugu FUKUSHIGE

Discussion Paper 13-17

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANDissatisfaction withdwelling environments in an aging society:An empirical analysisof theKanto area in Japan

Noriko ISHIKAWA and Mototsugu FUKUSHIGE

Discussion Paper 13-17
July 2013

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANDissatisfaction with dwelling environments in an aging society:An empirical analysis of the Kanto area in Japan*

Noriko ISHIKAWA
Faculty of Economics, Konan University
8-9-1, Okamoto, Higashi-Nada-ku, Kobe, 658-8501, JAPAN

Mototsugu FUKUSHIGE †Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University
1-7, Machikaneyama-cho, Toyonaka, Osaka, 560-0043, JAPAN

Abstract
We conducted a questionnaire survey in the Kanto area regarding people’s dissatisfaction withvarious aspects of their dwelling environment. Dissatisfaction with access to transportation,
shopping and medical facilities are important reasons for moving house. Probit model
estimation implies that economic wealth improves satisfaction with transportation, shoppingand medical facilities, but it does not reduce dissatisfaction with living costs whereas aging
increases not only the satisfaction with transportation, shopping and medical facilities, but alsowith living costs and family and acquaintances. The results also imply that Japan’s aging
population does not present crucial problems for housing in the Kanto area.
Keywords: moving, dissatisfaction, dwelling environment
JEL classification: R23, R21, D12*

The first draft of this paper was completed when Fukushige visited the College ofPopulation Studies at Chulalongkorn University. He is most appreciative of the hospitality
shown during this visit, especially by the Deputy Dean, Dr. Worawet Suwanrada. This
research was supported by JSPS, Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) 19330045 and (A)22243026.
†
Correspond to: Mototsugu FUKUSHIGE
Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University
1-7, Machikaneyama-cho, Toyonaka, Osaka, 560-0043, JAPANE-mail: mfuku@econ.osaka-u.ac.jp (M. Fukushige)

1. Introduction
In developed countries, few people live in the same house all of their life. Most people
move several times during their life for reasons such as entering university, getting a job, illness,aging and so on. This can be either intended or unintended. In particular, the decline in physicalstrength associated with aging can make the present dwelling environment inappropriate, requiring a
move to a new dwelling. If the effects of aging occur rapidly, the supply of suitable housing for theaged may not meet the demand, causing costs to increase. Japan’s aging population is likely tocause a large increase in dwelling changes in the near future. Additionally, some East Asian
countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and China (People’s Republic of China) are likely toexperience similar trends.
In response to this trend, we should examine the desired future movements of Japan’s
aging population. However, few studies have examined this issue. Of these, Seko (2001) foundthat size of house, income and coresidence with parent or parents are significant factors that affectmoving. Zorn (1988) and Henderson and Ioannides (1989) investigated the relationships between
types of dwellings and moving. In addition, Seko and Sumita (2007a, 2007b) considered theeffects of the reforms of the law and tax system on tenure choice behaviors3. These studies paid
attention only to the kind of housing type that people move to. They did not investigate the reason
why people moved or what type of dissatisfaction with the current dwelling environment makes
people move. Furthermore, none of these studies investigated the effects of aging on moving.
The aim of this paper is to investigate the determinants of households’ dissatisfaction with
their dwelling environments and what kinds of dwellings they wish to move to. This will clarify
the current types of dwelling environment dissatisfaction. Furthermore, we can propose somesuggestions regarding residential forms/structures, residential development and town planning inJapan’s aging society.
We conducted a questionnaire survey in the Kanto area to examine people’s dwelling
3

Boehm (1981) and Horioka (1988) also investigated tenure choice behaviors.
2

environment dissatisfaction if they want to move or satisfaction if they do not want to move.
Respondents range in age from 20 to 70 years old because it is difficult to identify people who havemade provisions for old age and when people move to their final home. Therefore, instead ofasking people whether or not they moved, we ask whether or not they want to move to makeprovision for their old age and their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their current dwelling
environment.
The paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we review the previous studies on elderly
migration and mobility. In Section 3, we describe the questionnaire survey used in this study andanalyze the survey results. We then apply Probit analyses to the dissatisfaction indexes in Section
4. Section 5 concludes and discusses directions for future research.

2. Literature survey
In this paper, we investigate households’ dissatisfaction with their current dwelling
environment through their desire to either move or not move. This is related to housing demand,
tenure choice and mobility or moving of households. Of course, housing demand or tenure choice
has been investigated by many authors.

Boehm (1981), Ioannides (1987) and Zorn (1988)

investigated household mobility, household moves, or both. In considering the reasons for moving,
Clark and Onaka’s (1983) classification is useful. They classify moving into three types: forced,
adjustment and induced. They also point out the three reasons for moving by adjustment: housing,neighbor and accessibility. Our approach in this paper concerns the three reasons for this type ofmoving. However, some researchers such as Winger (1963) examine upgrading as the reason formoving by adjustment. Morrow-Jones and Wenning (2005) also consider this type of moving,calling it the “housing ladder.” Some other researchers analyze moving from a lifecycle point ofview, e.g., Clark and Huang (2003), Clarke and Onaka (1985), Kendig (1984), Nelson (2008) andQuigley (1985). Studies on moving and health condition or diseases of the elderly could be
regarded as this type of approach, e.g., Clark and White (1990), Engelhardt and Greenhalgh-Stanley3

(2010), Longino et al (1991), Litwak and Longino (1987), Painter and Lee (2009) and Seko (2001).
From a tenure choice point of view, the types of houses or dwelling environment thathouseholds prefer are important. Boehm (1984), Kiel (1994), Palmquist (1984), Seko and Sumita(2007a), Börsh-Supan, Heiss and Seko (2001), Tiwari and Hasegawa (2004) and Seko, Sumita andNaoi (2010) investigated the characteristics of housing and dwelling environments. On the other
hand, moving is costly as Edin and Englund (1991) pointed out. Clark and White (1990) also
found that fiscal conditions were an important determinant of intra-urban moving for the elderly.
Seko and Sumita (2007a, 2007b) examined revisions to the law or tax system as other contributors
to the cost of moving. If the fixed cost of moving is not negligible, households do not move when
their dissatisfaction level is below the threshold point that balances the cost for moving and theutility gain from moving or new housing. Most previous studies focused on the chosen housing or
dwelling environment.

They did not investigate whether households were satisfied with the

housing or dwelling environment prior to moving. Some studies that analyzed the role of healthconditions or diseases in elderly people moving, however, could be thought of as exceptions. For
example, Litwak and Longino (1987) and Longino et al (1991) analyzed the second move by theresidents’ health condition changed. Following these discussions, in the following sections, we
aim to investigate whether or not households are satisfied with the dwelling environment that they
live in, according to their level of dissatisfaction and desire to move in the future.

3. Aggregated statistics of questionnaire survey
In this study, we conducted a questionnaire survey named “Survey of Dwelling
Environment” in the Kanto area by mail. The targeted sample is called the “Master Sample,”
which was originally gathered by Chuo Chosa-sha using a two-step random sampling from the
Basic Resident Registers for the Kanto area by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
The Kanto area (Figure 1), including the Tokyo Metropolitan area and Kanagawa, Saitama, Gunma,Tochigi, Chiba and Ibaragi prefectures, is located in central Japan and accounts for about one third4

of the national population. Its area is about 32,400 km² and its population density is about 1,300
persons per 1 km².

We selected 2,000 people from the Master Sample randomly, and sent

questionnaires by mail in February 2009. We received 1,118 responses. A summary of thequestionnaire results is shown in the Appendix.
In Table 1, we aggregate the results of the 860 valid survey responses, which had no
missing observations for any of the potential independent variables for the Probit analyses in thenext section. Table 1 shows a summary of the reasons to either want to move or not want to move.
In Table 1, only 23.1% of households want to move. Among the households who wish to move,the most common reason given is “Close to public transportation” (55.7%), while “Close to shops”
and “Close to medical facilities" are equal second (54.6%), followed by “Excellent natural
surroundings” (39.3%), “Living costs are low” (38.2%), “Good security” (37.7%) and “Close tofamily members” (33.3%). The other reasons were selected by less than 30% of the households.
For households not wishing to move, the most common reason was “House is comfortable” (59.3%),
followed by “Close to public transportation” (56.9%) and “Close to shops” (54.4%). These threereasons were selected by over 50% of the households. Furthermore, “Close to medical facilities”(39.7%), “Old acquaintances or friends living in the neighborhood” (34.7%), and “No money tospare for moving” (33.2%) were also commonly selected, while the remaining reasons were selectedby less than 30% of the households. We assume that “House is comfortable” is equivalent to there
being no reason to move and if we discard this from the list, “Close to public transportation”
becomes the most common reason not to move.
Now we summarize these results. One of the most important reasons as to whether or
not people want to move is their access to public transportation. Cheaper shopping and whether or
not people live close to medical facilities are also important reasons. Both “Living costs are low”
and “No money to spare for moving” mean that people want to move to places where living costs
are lower. In the next section, we categorize these reasons into seven dissatisfaction indexes.

54. Probit model estimation
We first propose a modified Probit model to analyze the dissatisfaction indexes in Section
4.1. An explanation of the dissatisfaction indexes is provided in Section 4.2 and the possible
explanatory variables and their construction are discussed in Section 4.3. In Section 4.4, we
discuss the estimation results.

4.1 Model of dissatisfaction
We next introduce a latent index of dissatisfaction containing J reasons (𝑦(𝑗)∗ , 𝑗 =
1,2, … 𝐽) and a linear regression model for jth y(j)∗𝑖 reason of ith person:𝑦(𝑗)∗𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖 ′ β + ε𝑖 .

This index is a latent variable that cannot be observed directly. Next, we consider the relationships
between this index and the observed variables. When a household wants to move in the future,
Mv𝑖 = 1, and selects one of the reasons for moving by jth reason, 𝑅𝑎1_𝑗𝑖 = 1, we assume that the
introduced dissatisfaction index is larger than a certain threshold d:𝑦(𝑗)∗𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖 ′ β + ε𝑖 > 𝑑,where β is a vector of coefficients for the vector of explanatory variables (𝑥𝑖 ) and d is assumed to
be positive. If the household wishes to move in the future, Mv𝑖 = 1, but does not select the jthreason for moving, 𝑅𝑎1_𝑗𝑖 = 0, we assume that the introduced dissatisfaction index is less than orequal to the threshold:𝑦(𝑗)∗𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖 ′ β + ε𝑖 ≤ 𝑑.

6

On the other hand, when a household does not wish to move in the future, Mv𝑖 = 0, and selects jthreason not for moving, 𝑅𝑎2_𝑗𝑖 = 1, we assume that the introduced dissatisfaction index is less thanor equal to zero:𝑦(𝑗)∗𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖 ′ β + ε𝑖 ≤ 0.

When the household does not wish to move in the future: Mv𝑖 = 0, but does not select the jthreason not for moving, 𝑅𝑎2_𝑗𝑖 = 0, we assume that the introduced dissatisfaction index is larger
than zero:𝑦(𝑗)∗𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖 ′ β + ε𝑖 > 0.

These assumptions imply the following about each household’s decision making as follows. First,
each household decides whether it chooses “Wish to move” (Mv𝑖 = 1) or “Do not wish to move”(Mv𝑖 = 0), considering levels of all the dissatisfaction indexes (𝑦(𝑗)∗ , 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝐽) simultaneously
and synthetically. Second, when the household decided to select the item “Wish to move in the
future,” they pick up one or some reasons for moving of which dissatisfaction levels exceed acertain level d. When the household decided to select the item “Do not wish to move in the future,”
they pick up one or some reasons of which dissatisfaction levels are below zero. In the latter case,the assumption that the threshold of the selection is set to zero is simply because of the identificationof the model. If we want to change this level from zero, we should make an additional assumption
on d.
If the reasons for moving when Mv𝑖 = 1 and for not moving when Mv𝑖 = 0 can beclassified into the same categories, for example “Close to shops”, we create a new observed
dissatisfaction index 𝑦(𝑗)𝑖 as follows:7𝑦(𝑗)𝑖 = 1 𝑖𝑓

𝑅𝑎1𝑖 = 1𝑜𝑟𝑅𝑎2𝑖 = 0,𝑦(𝑗)𝑖 = 0 𝑖𝑓

𝑅𝑎1𝑖 = 0𝑜𝑟𝑅𝑎2𝑖 = 1,

and we can then rewrite the model as follows:

𝑦(𝑗)𝑖 = 1

𝑖𝑓𝑦(𝑗)∗𝑖 = −d ∗ Mv𝑖 + 𝑥𝑖 ′ β + ε𝑖 > 0,𝑦(𝑗)𝑖 = 0𝑖𝑓𝑦(𝑗)∗𝑖 = −d ∗ Mv𝑖 + 𝑥𝑖 ′ β + ε𝑖 ≤ 0,

where Mv𝑖 is assumed to be a nonstochastic variable or this observational rule is constructed in aconditional situation after Mv𝑖 is observed. In Figure 2, we explain the relationships betweeny(j)∗, Ra1𝑗 and Ra2𝑗 . Hence, this observation rule favors a Probit model when the distributionof the error term ε𝑖 is standard normal. We can estimate this model with explanatory variables fordissatisfaction and a dummy variable for “Wish to move” (Mv𝑖 ).

4.2 Dissatisfaction indexes
In constructing the Probit model in the preceding subsection, we need to ask the reasonsfor “Wish to move” and “Do not wish to move, with the same list of the reasons. However, as we
investigated the reasons in Section 3, in our questionnaire survey, we do not ask the reasons formoving and not for moving with the same list. Furthermore, the reasons for “Wish to move” andthose for “Do not wish to move” are not also mutually paired. We need to couple the reasons for“Wish to move” and “Do not wish to move.” In this paper, we partially aggregate the reasons andconstruct dissatisfaction indexes for moving wish. To construct the dissatisfaction indexes, wecategorize the reasons into seven indexes: “Transportation”, “Living Cost”, “Nature”, “Shopping”,“Medical”, “Safety” and “Family & Acquaintances”. We assume that “Comfortable housing”
means that there is no reason to move, so we do not include this reason in the categorization. The
construction of the indexes is as follows.

8Transportation: The dummy variable of this dissatisfaction index y(1) is constructed using “Close
to public transportation” in AQ12-1 and “Close to public transportation” in AQ12-2. When “Close
to public transportation” in AQ12-1 is selected or “Close to public transportation” in AQ12-2 is notselected, we set y(1) = 1, otherwise y(1) = 0.

Living Cost: The dummy variable of this dissatisfaction index y(2) is constructed using “Living
costs are low” in AQ12-1 and “No spare money for moving” in AQ12-2. When “Living costs arelow” in AQ12-1 is selected or “No spare money for moving” in AQ12-2 is not selected, we set y(2)= 1, otherwise y(2) = 0.

Nature: The dummy variable of this dissatisfaction index y(3) is constructed using “Excellent
natural surroundings” in AQ12-1 and “Excellent natural surroundings” in AQ12-2.

When“Excellent natural surroundings” in AQ12-1 is selected or “Excellent natural surroundings” in
AQ12-2 is not selected, we set y(3) = 1 and y(3) = 0 otherwise.

Shopping: The dummy variable of this dissatisfaction index y(4) is constructed using “Close toshops” in AQ12-1 and “Close to shops” in AQ12-2. When “Close to shops” in AQ12-1 is selectedor “Close to shops” in AQ12-2 is not selected, we set y(4) = 1, otherwise y(4) = 0.

Medical: The dummy variable of this dissatisfaction index y(5) is constructed using “Close to
medical facilities” in AQ12-1 and “Close to medical facilities” in AQ12-2. When “Close to
medical facilities” in AQ12-1 is selected or “Close to medical facilities” in AQ12-2 is not selected,
we set y(5) = 1, otherwise y(5) = 0.

Safety: The dummy variable of this dissatisfaction index y(6) is constructed using “Good security”

9and “Fewer natural disasters” in AQ12-1 and “Good security” in AQ12-2. When “Good security”
or “Fewer natural disasters” or both in AQ12-1 are selected or “Good security” in AQ12-2 is notselected, we set y(6) = 1, otherwise y(6) = 0.

Family & Acquaintances: The dummy variable of this dissatisfaction index y(7) is constructedusing “Close to family members” and “To live with family members” in AQ12-1 and “Children areliving in the neighborhood,” “Old acquaintances or friends are living in the neighborhood,” and“Living with family members” in AQ12-2. Based on the reasons in AQ12-1, when the “Close tofamily members” or “To live with family members” or both are selected, we set y(7) = 1, otherwisey(7) = 0. As for the reasons in AQ12-2, when one or more of the following three reasons“Children are living in the neighborhood,” “Old acquaintances or friends are living in theneighborhood,” and “Living with family members” is selected, we set y(7) = 0, otherwise y(7) = 1.

In Table 2, the dissatisfaction indexes and their descriptive statistics are presented. The means of
all the variables are between 0.45 and 0.7, so there is no variable with extreme choice results.
These indexes also relate to the Clark and Onaka’s (1983) classification of reasons for moving, inthat “Transportation” and “Shopping” correspond to accessibility, and “Living Cost”, “Nature”,“Medical”, “Safety” and “Family & Acquaintances” correspond to neighbors.

4.3 Possible explanatory variables
Next, we consider the candidates for the explanatory variables in the dissatisfaction
function. First, according to Section 4.1, we adopt the dummy variable for wish for move or not(Mv), which is constructed using the answer to questionnaire Q12. Summary statistics of thisvariable are shown in Table 1. Other candidates can be divided into three broad categories
according to the question items in the questionnaire (see Appendix).
The first category contains variables that represent household characteristics.

10

The

number of household members of each age group (N0–N7) is calculated using the answers to SQ1and SQ2. Additionally, we construct this variable for households consisting only of aged people:
DN6 and DN7 are the number of household members for the age groups 60–70 years and 70 years
and over. This type of approach to dealing with the number of household members for each age
group as explanatory variables is similar to that of Mankiw and Wiel (1989) and Ohtake andShintani (1996). These studies decomposed housing demand into that of various age groups.
However, we add other explanatory variables in addition to the number of household members ineach age group. The age of the respondents (Age) from SQ1 and total household income (Income)from SQ4 are constructed as the midpoint value of each category and the dummy variables Duageand Duincome are introduced for open-ended categories: “70 or over” in SQ1 and “over 10 million
yen” in SQ4. These dummy variables are adjusted to prevent statistical bias by replacing theopen-ended categories with fixed values: “70 or over” in SQ1 is replaced by 75 and “over 10 million
yen” in SQ4 is replaced by 1250.
The second category contains variables that represent the characteristics of housing. We
first construct a variable for floor space (Floor) from the answer to Q2 by using its midpoint value
for each category and adding a dummy variable for “over 150 m2” (Dufloor) in a similar manner to
respondent’s age and household’s total income. Additionally, dummy variables for housing type:“Detached house” (House1) and “Renting apartment built of wood” (House3), constructed by Q1,
where tenement house and apartment or condominium are set to be a reference type. We add twodummy variables for “Owning land and house or apartment” (Dum1) and “Renting land and houseor apartment” (Dum2), which are constructed using AQ1-1. Then, we estimate housing costs per 1
m2 for all three cases: “Owning land and house or apartment” (Price1), “Renting land and house orapartment” (Price2) and “Renting land and have built a house on it” (Price3) using fixed propertytax (Estate taxes) payment (SQ5) and annual housing rent payment (SQ612) divided by the floor
space (Floor) according to the type of ownership of land and house (AQ2). This category of the
explanatory variables is related to “Housing” in the Clark and Onaka (1983) classification of reasons11

for moving.
The third category contains variables that represent the dwelling environment, which arelength of time at the current address, “10 to 20 years” and “over 20 years” (Year1 and Year2)
constructed using the answer to Q3, and commuting and commuting time (Commt2 and Commtt)
constructed using the answers to Q4 and AQ4–2. Additionally, for the variable for commuting
time, we add a dummy variable Ducommtt for the case in which commuting time is “over 120
minutes” as we introduced the dummy variables Duage for age, Duincome for income and Dufloor
for floor space cases.
A list of all the candidate explanatory variables except Mv is shown in Table 3 andsummary statistics for them are given in Table 4. In the estimation process, we use the squared
values of the candidate explanatory variables except for the dummy variables. The total number ofquestionnaires without missing observations for the candidate explanatory variables is 860.

4.4 Empirical results
We select a model by minimizing Akaike’s information criteria because, in the estimation
results with all independent variables, many variables have insignificant coefficients, which may
cause inefficient estimation. The results of the estimation are shown in Table 5.

Transportation: First, in the model selection process, the coefficient of Mv is positive andstatistically significant, although it is assumed to be negative in Section 4.1, so we remove thisvariable from the equation. The proportion of correct predictions of this estimated equation is0.603, which is high compared with the sample mean of 0.458. Families with children below theage of 20 years old often have a high level of dissatisfaction with transportation. However, family
members aged 40–49 or 60 or over are relatively satisfied with the availability of transportation.
When family income increases, the level of dissatisfaction decreases. When the family resides in a
detached house, their level of dissatisfaction is high, but when housing costs are high, their level of12dissatisfaction is low. When the family rents land and builds a house on it, housing costs increase
their level of dissatisfaction.

Living Cost: The proportion of correct predictions for this estimated equation is 0.672, which ishigh compared with the sample mean of 0.607. When family members are aged in their 20s, they
do not have a high degree of dissatisfaction with living costs. As family income or floor space
increases, their level of dissatisfaction with living costs increases.

Nature: The proportion of correct predictions for this estimated equation is 0.719, which is highcompared with the sample mean of 0.672. When family members are aged in their 30s, 40s or 60s,
they have a high level of dissatisfaction with the natural environment. When the family rents land
and house or land and builds a house on it, housing costs increase the level of dissatisfaction.

Shopping: In the model selection process, the coefficient of Mv is estimated to be positive andstatistically significant, although it is assumed to be negative in Section 4.1, therefore we remove
this variable from the equation. The proportion of correct predictions for this estimated equation is0.579, which is high compared with the sample mean of 0.476. When family income increases,
their level of dissatisfaction with shopping decreases. When a family rents land and a house, theirlevel of dissatisfaction is lower. When a family rents land and a house or land and builds a houseon it, housing costs increase the level of dissatisfaction. When the respondent does not commute,their dissatisfaction is low.

Medical: The proportion of correct predictions for this estimated equation is 0.619, which is nothigh compared with the sample mean of 0.590. When we apply a test for difference in means, wecannot reject the hypothesis that the estimated equation has equal prediction power as a prediction
with the simple mean at the 5% significance level, whereas we can reject this hypothesis at the 10%

13significance level. As age increases, the level of dissatisfaction with medical facilities increases.
When family income increases, their level of dissatisfaction decreases. When a family rents land
and a house, their level of dissatisfaction is lower.

Safety: The proportion of correct predictions for this estimated equation is 0.731, which is highcompared with the sample mean of 0.698. When a family has children below the age of 10 years
old, they have a high level of dissatisfaction with safety. On the other hand, family members over
60 years old do not have a high level of dissatisfaction with safety. When the family resides in a
detached house and housing costs are high, their dissatisfaction is higher.

Family & Acquaintances: The proportion of correct predictions for this estimated equation is 0.643,
which is high compared with the sample mean of 0.489. When family members are over 40 years
old, their level of dissatisfaction with family and acquaintances is low. When the family resides ina detached house, their level of dissatisfaction is high, but when housing costs are high, their level ofdissatisfaction is low. Floor space makes the level of dissatisfaction lower.

From an independent variable point of view, we can summarize the results as follows.
Families with small children are relatively satisfied with transportation but not satisfied with safety.
Families with members in their 30s or 40s are not satisfied with their natural surroundings, but aresatisfied with transportation, shopping and family and acquaintances.

As respondents’ age

increases, their level of dissatisfaction with medical facilities increases.

As families’ income

increases, their level of dissatisfaction with transportation, shopping and medical facilities decreases
but their level of dissatisfaction with living costs increases. When a family rents land and a houseor owns a relatively high priced house, they are satisfied with the shopping.
To summarize these findings, wealth is associated with a high level of satisfaction withtransportation, shopping and medical facilities, but the level of dissatisfaction with living costs is

14

high. On the other hand, as aging increases not only the satisfaction with the change in the living
environment, shopping, medical facilities, but also that of family and acquaintances.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we conducted a questionnaire survey in the Kanto area to examine people’s
wish to move and level of dissatisfaction with their dwelling environment.

From a simple

aggregation of the survey results, one of the most important reasons why people want to move or
not is related to their level of dissatisfaction with access to transportation. To make shopping
cheaper and to live close to medical facilities are also important reasons to move.
From the estimation results of a Probit model for each dissatisfaction equation, economic
wealth (high income or high-valued housing) improves satisfaction with transportation, shoppingand medical facilities, but it does not reduce dissatisfaction with living costs. On the other hand,aging increases not only the level of satisfaction with transportation, shopping and medical facilities,
but also with living costs and family and acquaintances. This means that wealth makes a family
move more quickly to more preferable areas, but such areas increase the level of dissatisfaction withliving costs, but aging makes a family move to more preferable areas slowly and increasesatisfaction with living costs and family and acquaintances.
The questionnaire survey and regression results imply that Japan’s rapidly aging
population is unlikely to create severe housing problems in the Kanto area because aging ofhousehold members does not seem to cause any type of dissatisfaction except with medical facilities.
However, because access to transportation and shopping are important factors in deciding to move,
town planning should focus on ease of transportation. The so-called “compact city” is a solution tothis problem and this may also reduce dissatisfaction with medical facilities.

Of course,

unanticipated changes caused by a society’s aging may create dissatisfaction with the dwelling
environment in the future. The impact of Japan’s aging population should be monitored.
In our questionnaire survey, we do not have information about the neighborhood where

15the respondents live, so we could not investigate neighborhood effects on the decision to move inthe future. These neighborhood effects have been investigated by many researchers and fromseveral aspects. van Ham et al (2013) survey this effect. Such neighborhood effects on people’s
moving should be investigated in the future. Finally, it is important to note the questionnaire
survey used in this paper was conducted before the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred. Thismassive disaster affected people’s attitude toward their dwelling environment including safety, so
we might reconsider the robustness of our empirical results after the earthquake occurred.

16

References
Boehm T P, 1981, “Tenure choice and expected mobility: a synthesis” Journal of Urban
Economics 10 375389.
Boehm T P, 1984, “Inflation and intra-urban residential mobility” Housing Finance Review 3
19–37
Börsh-Supan A, Heiss F, Seko M., 2001, “Housing demand in Germany and Japan” Journal of
Housing Economics 10 229–257
Clark W A V, Huang Y, 2003, “The life course and residential mobility in British housing
markets” Environment and Planning A 35 323–339
Clark W A V, Onaka J, 1983, “Life cycle and housing adjustment as explanations of residential
mobility” Urban Studies 20 47–57
Clark W A V, Onaka J, 1985, “An empirical test of a joint model of residential mobility andhousing choice” Environment and Planning A 17 915–930
Clark W A V, White K, 1990, “Modeling elderly mobility” Environment and Planning A 22
909–924
Edin P-A, Englund P, 1991, “Moving cost and housing demand: are recent movers really inequilibrium?” Journal of Public Economics 44 299–320
Engelhardt G V, Greenhalgh-Stanley N, 2010, “Home health care and housing and living
arrangements of the elderly” Journal of Urban Economics 67 226–238
Henderson J V, Ioannides Y M, 1989, “Dynamic aspects of consumer decisions in housing
markets” Journal of Urban Economics 26 212–230
Horioka C Y, 1988, “Tenure choice and housing demand in Japan” Journal of Urban Economics
24 289–309
Ioannides Y M, 1987, “Residential mobility and housing tenure choice” Regional Science and17Urban Economics 17 265–287
Kendig H L, 1984, “Housing careers, life cycle and residential mobility: implications forhousing market” Urban Studies 21 271–283
Kiel K A, 1994, “The impact of house price appreciation on household mobility” Journal of
Housing Economics 3 92–108
Litwak E, Longino Jr. C, 1987, “Migration patterns among elderly” The Gerontologist 27 266–
272
Longino Jr. C F, Jackson D J, Zimmerman R S, Bradsher J E, 1991, “The second move: healthand geographic mobility” Journal of Gerontologist Social Sciences 19 S218–224
Mankiw N G, Weil D N, 1989, “The baby boom, the baby bust, and the housing market”
Regional Science and Urban Economics 19 235–258
Morrow-Jones H A, Wenning M V, 2005, “The housing ladder, the housing life-cycle and the
housing life-course: upward and downward movement among repeat home-buyers in a
US metropolitan housing market” Urban Studies 42 1739–1754.
Nelson P B, 2008, “Life-course influence on nonearnings income migration in the United States”
Environment and Planning A 40 2149–2168
Ohtake F, Shintani M, 1996. “The effect of demographics on the Japanese housing market”
Regional Science and Urban Economics 26, 189–201
Painter G, Lee K O, 2009, “Housing tenure transitions of older households: life cycle,
demographic, and familial factors” Regional Science and Urban Economics 39 749–760
Palmquist R B, 1984, “Estimating the demand for the characteristics of housing” The Review of
Economics and Statistics 66 394–404
Quigley J M, 1985, “Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood and public services” Regional

18

Science and Urban Economics 15 41–63
Seko M, 2001, “Rehousing behavior of elderly’s households” Quarterly Journal of Housing andLand Economics 2001 Spring 10–18 (in Japanese)
Seko M, Sumita K, 2007a, “Japanese housing tenure choice and welfare implication after therevision of the tenant protection law” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 35
357–383
Seko M, Sumita K, 2007b, “Effects of government policies on residential mobility in Japan:
income tax deduction system and the rent act” Journal of Housing Economics 16 167–
188
Seko M, Sumita K, Naoi M, 2011, “Residential mobility decisions in Japan: effects of housing
equity constraints and income shocks under the recourse loan system” Journal of Real
Estate Finance and Economics, forthcoming (DOI 10.10007/s11146-011-9322-3).
Tiwari P, Hasegawa H, 2004, “Demand for housing in Tokyo: a discrete choice analysis”
Regional Studies 38 27–42
van Ham M, Manley D, Bailey N, Simpson L, Maclennan D, 2013, Understanding
Neighbourhood Dynamics: New Insights for Neighbourhood Effects Research, Springer;
BerlinWinger A R, 1963, “An approach to measuring potential upgrading demand in the housing
market” The Review of Economics and Statistics 45 239–244
Zorn P M, 1988, “An analysis of household mobility and tenure choice: an empirical study of
Korea” Journal of Urban Economics 24 113–128

19

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of reason to move
Reasons to move
Wish for moving (Mv)=1otherwise =0

Reasons to move

Questionnaire

Variable

Observations

Mean

Std. Dev.

Minimum

Maximum

Q12

x44

860

0.21279

0.40952

0

1

AQ12-1

1.

Close to public transportation

x45

183

0.55738

0.49806

0

1

2.

Cheap living cost

x46

183

0.382510.48733

0

1

3.

Excellent natural surroundings

x47

183

0.393440.4898501

4.

Close to shops

x48

183

0.546450.49920

1

5.

Close to medical facilities

x49

183

0.546450.49920

16.

Good security

x50

183

0.377050.485980

1

7.

Fewer natural disasters

x51

183

0.273220.44684

0

1

8.

Close to family members

x52

183

0.33333

0.47270

1

9.

To live with family members

x53

183

0.065574

0.2482101

10. House with 24 hour care service

x54

183

0.15847

0.3661801

11. Nursing home or care house

x55

183

0.18033

0.38552

0

1

x56

183

0.092896

0.2910801

12. Other reasonsReasons not to move

AQ12-2

1.

Close to transportation

x57

677

0.56869

0.495630

1

2.

Close to medical facilities

x58

677

0.39734

0.48971

0

1

3.

Close to shops

x59

677

0.54357

0.498470

14.

Children are living in the neighborhood

x60

677

0.14771

0.355080

1

5.

House is comfortable

x61

677

0.59380.49149

0

1

6.

Old acquaintances or friends are living in the neighborhood

x62

677

0.347120.476410

1

7.

Living with family members

x63

677

0.1226

0.328220

18.

Good security

x64

677

0.22304

0.41659

0

1

9.

Excellent natural surroundings

x65

677

0.25258

0.4348201

10. No money to spare for moving

x66

677

0.33235

0.47140

1

11. No place that we can move to

x67

677

0.24963

0.433120

1

12. Other reasons

x68

677

0.070901

0.25685

0

1

13. (

)

20

Table 2 Dissatisfaction indices for moving and descriptive statistics
Dissatisfaction index

Definition by the variables in Table 1

Variable

Observations

Mean

Std. Dev.

Minimum

Maximum

Transportationx45+(1–x57)

y(1)

860

0.458140.49853

01

Living Cost

x46+(1–x66)

y(2)

860

0.60698

0.4887101Naturex47+(1–x65)

y(3)

860

0.672090.46972

01

Shopping

x48+(1–x59)

y(4)

860

0.47558

0.49969

0

1

Medicalx49+(1–x58)

y(5)

860

0.590700.49199

01

SafetyMax（x50,x51)+(1–x64)

y(6)

860

0.69767

0.4595301

Family & Acquaintances

Max(x52,x53)+(1–Max(x60,x62,x63))

y(7)

860

0.489530.50018

0

1

21

Table 3 Explanatory variables
Variable
N0–N7

Description
Number of family members for xx years old:N0: under 10 years old, N1: 10–19 years old, N2: 20–29 years old,N3: 30–39 years old,N4: 40–49 years old, N5: 50–59 years old,N6: 60–69 years old, N7: over 70 years old
DN6 & DN7

Number of elderly in elderly families
SN6: 60–69-year-old elderly persons in elderly household,
SN7: over 70-year-old elderly persons in elderly household

Age

Age of respondent (SQ1 for Age)Age = 25 if Age = 20s, Age = 35 if Age = 30s , Age = 45 if Age = 40s
Age = 55 if Age = 50s, Age = 65 if Age
Age =

Duage

75 if Age

Duincome

70 or overDummy variable for age of respondents
Duage

Income== 60s,= 1 if Age= 70 over= 70 or over

& Duage=0 otherwise

Total family income
Income= 100 if SQ4= 1,

Income=300 if SQ4= 2

Income= 500 if SQ4= 3,

Income=700 if SQ4= 4

Income= 900 if SQ4= 5,

Income=1250 if SQ4= 6

Income= 0 otherwise

Dummy variable for total family income > 10 million yean
Duincome

=

1 if

SQ4

= 6

&

Duincome= 0= 40 if Q2= 2,otherwise
Floor

DufloorFloor space per dwelling
Floor

=

15 if Q2

= 1,

Floor

Floor

=

60 if Q2

= 3,

Floor =

85 if Q2

= 4,

Floor

=

125 if Q2= 5,

Floor =

175 if Q2

= 6

Floor

=

0 otherwise

Dummy variable for floor space > 150 m2
DufloorHouse1=&

Dufloor =0 otherwise= 1 if Q1= 1&

House1=0 otherwise

Dummy variable for renting apartment house built of wood
House3Dum1= 6

Dummy variable for detached house
House1

House3

1 if Q2

= 1

if Q1

= 3 &

House3=0otherwise

Dummy variable for owning land and house or apartment
Dum1= 1 if AQ1-1

22

= 3

&

Dum1

= 0

otherwiseTable 3 Explanatory variables: continued
Variable
Price1

Description
Estate tax per floor space (per 1 m2) for owning land and house orapartment
Price1= Etax / Floor

where

Dum2

if SQ5 = 1,

Etax = 2

if SQ5 = 2

Etax =

4

if SQ5 = 3,

Etax = 7.5

if SQ5 = 4

Etax = 12.5

if SQ5 = 5,

Etax = 17.5

if SQ5 = 6

Etax = 0otherwise

Dummy variable for renting land and house or apartment
Dum2

Price2

Etax = 0.5= 1 if AQ1-1

= 1

&

Dum2

= 0

otherwise

Housing rent per floor space (per 1 m 2) for renting land and house orapartment
Price2= Rent * 12 / Floor

where

Rent = 0.5

if

SQ6 = 1, Rent = 2

Rent = 4

if

Rent = 12.5 if
Rent = 0
Price3if

SQ6 = 2

SQ6 = 3,

Rent = 7.5 if

SQ6 = 4

SQ6 = 5,

Rent = 17.5 if SQ6 = 6otherwise

Estate tax plus housing rent per floor space (per 1 m 2) for
renting land and have built a house on it
Price3

Year1(Etax + Rent * 12) / Floor

Dummy variable for living over 10 years under 20 years
Year1

Year2

=

= 1

if

Q3

= 5 &

Year1

=

0

otherwise

Dummy variables for living over 20 years
Year2

= 1

if

Q3

= 6 &

Year2

=

0

otherwise
Commt2

Commt2

CommttCommuting time

Ducommtt= 1 if they do not commute & Commt2=

0 otherwise

Commtt = 15 if AQ4-2 = 1,

Commtt = 45 if AQ4-2 = 2

Commtt = 75 if AQ4-2 = 3

Commtt = 105 if AQ4-2 = 4

Commtt = 135 if AQ4-2 = 5

Commtt= 0otherwise

Dummy variable for commuting time > 120 minutes
Ducommtt = 1 if AQ4-2 = 5 & Ducommtt = 0 otherwise

23

Table 4 Descriptive statistics of the explanatory variables
Variable

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min

Max

N0

860

0.29186

0.67185

0

3

N1

860

0.36279

0.72121

0

3

N2

860

0.294190.60898

0

3

N3

860

0.4

0.69958

0

4

N4

860

0.515120.77113

0

3

N5

860

0.45465

0.71507

0

3

N6

860

0.54884

0.76822

0

3

DN6

860

0.14767

0.51997

0

3

N7

860

0.496510.75449

0

3

DN 7

860

0.136050.50039

0

3

Age

860

55.081414.08003

25

75

Duage

860

0.18140.38557

0

1

Income860

637.3837

332.067100

1250

Duincome

860

0.14535

0.35266

0

1

Floor

860

104.0756

41.02996

15

175

House1860

0.82558

0.37969

0

1

Dum1

860

0.74884

0.4339301Price1860

0.082848

0.08458601.16667Dum2

860

0.080233

0.2718101Price2860

0.167590.68034

0

6Price3860

0.027284

0.14864

0

2.3

Year1

860

0.3

0.45852

0

1

Year2

860

0.44767

0.49754

0

1

Floor

860

104.0756

41.0299615

175

Dufloor860

0.14535

0.35266

01Commt2860

0.374420.4842501Commtt860

30.97674

34.765630135

Ducommtt

860

0.020930

0.14323

0

1

24

Table 5 Results of Probit model estimation
ReasonTransportation

Living Cost

NatureShopping

MedicalDependent

y(1)

y(2)

y(3)

y(4)

y(5)

1.03967**(3.599)0.56355**(3.678)–0.66212**–1.13601**̶

(–5.986)(–9.603)

SafetyFamily &Acquaintances

y(6)

y(7)

0.97000**(9.619)1.35309**(6.912)–0.17797–1.12230**–0.72400**(–1.545)(–9.915)(–6.161)

0.132669(1.789)0.53532**(2.325)–0.14263(–1.881)

Variable
Constant
Mv

̶–0.14399(–1.848)N00.44349*(2.092)N02–0.16801

N1

0.15520*–0.11077(2.120)(–1.650)–0.22380*(–1.80)(–2.230)–0.17534*N2–0.1357(–2.218)N3N320.06106–0.13877(1.597)(–1.661)
0.41665*

0.345402–0.22997**(2.015)(1.822)(–3.133)–0.07596*–0.14178–0.18057(–2.230)(–1.457)(–1.953)N4
2

N4(–1.625)0.49034**(2.559)N50.140428(1.882)N52–0.16824**(–3.747)N6–0.40844(–1.956)–0.217205(–2.664)N62

0.211900.15337–0.07235**(1.860)(1.471)(–2.321)

DN6
DN62
N7
Age

Age2

–0.41268*(–1.998)–0.44746**(–5.440)

1.74551*(1.976)–0.15024**–0.67958(–2.765)(–1.557)–0.18666**(–2.936)0.16045(1.928)–0.29419**(–3.296)–0.01354–0.00975

0.042645**(–1.728)(–1.933)(4.339)0.00016–0.000545**(1.629)(–4.759)–0.45025**

Duage(–2.590)25

Table 5 Results of Probit model estimation: continued
ReasonTransportation

LivingNatureShopping

MedicalSafetyCost
Acquaintances
Incomey(1)y(2)–0.000269*(–2.044)

Family &Acquaintances

y(3)

y(4)

y(5)

0.00055**–0.000317*–0.00123*(3.578)(–2.152)(–2.054)

2

Incomey(6)y(7)

0.00000082*(2.088)

Floor
House10.00379**–0.00379**(3.271)(–3.002)

0.46656**(4.150)Dum1

0.45740**(3.180)Price1
2

Price1–3.1590**–2.88043**–3.30282*–1.55980*(–2.969)(–2.539)(–2.237)(–2.081)4.53855.77646*4.65124

10.36830(1.781)(2.220)(1.730)(1.897)

Dum2
Price2–0.54291**–0.37572*(–2.980)(–2.169)–0.30520(–1.728)

2

Price20.08252(1.793)

Price32

Price3–3.1038**

1.31424**–3.25814**

0.612108(–3.025)(2.492)(–2.801)(1.719)2.85693**

3.71770**(2.649)(2.530)–0.32408**

Year1(–2.509)Year2–0.18157–0.43455**(–1.672)(–3.304)–0.31331**

Commt2(–3.077)
Commtt20.0000204(1.603)AIC

577.1781

540.5209487.3096

585.4754

566.6706

479.9519

549.5103

0.603488

0.672093

0.718605

0.579070.61860

0.731395

0.643023–560.178–531.521–473.31–573.475–556.671–472.952–536.510

Proportionof Correct
Predictions
Log
Likelihood

Note: ** and * mean statistically significant at 1% and 5%, respectively.

26

Kanto Area

Tokyo

Figure 1 Location of the Kanto area and Tokyo27

Mv=0 caseRa2j=0Ra2j=1

Mv=1 caseRa1 j=1Ra1j=00dFigure 2. Relationships between y(j)*, Ra1j and Ra2j

28

y(j)*

Appendix
Summary of “Survey of Residential Environment”
The following is a summary of the questionnaire of our residential environment survey.

Q1. What type of house do you reside in?
1. detached house

2. tenement house

3. rental apartment house built of wood

4. apartment or condominium
AQ1-1 (Additional question 1). What kind of ownership applies to yourresidential land and housing?
1. renting land and house

2. renting land and have built a house on it

3. owning land and house
AQ1-2. How large is the residential area where you live?
1. under 50 m2

2. 50 m2 –99

3. 100 m2 –149 m2

4. 150 m2 –199 m2

5. 200 m2 –249 m2

6. over 300 m2

If you did not choose 3, please proceed to Q2.
AQ1-3. What type of apartment house do you live in?
1. a condominium

2. a rental apartment<Omitted>
Please answer all the following questions.
Q2. How large is the total floor space where you live? Please include occupied rooms, entrances, rest
rooms, and kitchen.
1. under 30 m2

2. 30 m2 –49 m2

3. 50 m2 –69 m2

4. 70 m2 –99 m2

5. 100 m2 –149 m2

6. over 150 m2

Q3. How long have you lived in your present house?
1. under 1 year

2. 1– less than 3 years

3. 3– less than 5 years

4. 5–less than 10 years

5. 10– less than 15 years

6. over 15 years

Q4. Does the head of household commute from home now?
1. yes (commuting)

2. working from home

< AQ4-1 is omitted>
29

3. not commuting

AQ4-2. How long does it take to commute from your house to the workplace?
1. under 30 minutes

2. 30–59 minutes

3. 60–89 minutes

4. 90–119 minutes

5. over 120 minutes

Please answer all the following questions.
Q5. How long does it take from your house to the nearest bus stop on foot?
1. under 5 minutes

2. 5–9 minutes

3. 10–19 minutes

4. 20–29 minutes

5. over 30 minutes

Q6. How long does it take from your house to the nearest train station on foot?
1. under 5 minutes

2. 5–9 minutes

3. 10–19 minutes

4. 20–29 minutes

5. over 30 minutes<Omitted>

Q12. When you lose your physical strength from aging in the future, do you want to move from thehouse that you reside in currently?
1. I wish to move to another house.

2. I do not wish to move.

If you chose 1, please proceed to AQ12-1. If you did not choose 1, please proceed to AQ12-2.

AQ12-1. If you wish to move, what type of place would you like to move to?
Please select the reasons why you want to move.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Close to public transportation
Cheap living costs
Excellent natural surroundings
Close to shops
Close to medical facilities
Good security
Fewer natural disasters
Close to family members
To live with family members
House with 24 hour care service
Nursing home or care house
Other reasons ()

30

AQ12-2. If you do not wish to move, select all the reasons why.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Close to transportation
Close to medical facilities
Close to shops
Children are living in the neighborhood
House is comfortable
Old acquaintances or friends are living in the neighborhood
Living with family members
Good security
Excellent natural surroundings
No money to spare for moving
No place that we can move to
Other reasons ()

The following are questions about household characteristics for all respondents.
SQ1. Identify the characteristics of the respondent.
Sex:

1. male2. femaleAge:

1. 20s2. 30s3. 40s4. 50s

5. 60s

6. 70 or over

SQ2. Provide the following numbers.
Total number of family members in your house except yourself
and family composition.
1. under 10 years old

2. 10–19 years old

3. 20–29 years old

4. 30–39 years old

5. 40–49 years old

6. 50–59 years old

7. 60–69years old

8. over 70 years old<Omitted>

SQ4. How much is your total annual family income, including annuities and taxes?
1. under 2 million yen

2. 2– less than 4 million yen

3. 4– less than 6 million yen

4. 6–less than 8 million yen

5. 8–less than 10 million yen

6. over 10 million yen

SQ5. How much fixed property tax do you pay annually?
1. under 10 thousand yen

2. 10–less than30 thousand yen

3. 30–less than 50 thousand yen

4. 50–less than 100 thousand yen

5. 100–less than 150 thousand yen

6. over 150 thousand yen

7. we do not pay it
31

SQ6. How much do you pay to rent land and/or a house monthly?
1. under 10 thousand yen

2. 10– less than 30 thousand yen

3. 30–– less than 50 thousand yen

4. 50–– less than 100 thousand yen

5. 100–– less than 150 thousand yen

6. over 150 thousand yen

7. we do not pay rent
SQ7. What is your monthly mortgage payment?
1. under 10 thousand yen

2. 10– less than 30 thousand yen

3. 30–less than 50 thousand yen

4. 50–less than 100 thousand yen

5. 100–less than 150 thousand yen

6. over 150 thousand yen<Omitted>

32