Table 4.
Predictive potential of residential satisfaction regression models; R-squared values of adjusted variance
| Not at risk of poverty | At risk of poverty | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| AT | 0.06*** | 0.13** | 0.15*** | 0.25*** |
| BE | 0.00** | 0.03** | 0.04** | 0.11*** |
| DE | 0.01** | 0.02** | 0.00 | 0.06*** |
| DK | 0.07 | 0.04* | 0.08 | 0.24*** |
| ES | 0.01*** | 0.05*** | 0.02** | 0.11** |
| FI | 0.05*** | 0.15** | – | – |
| FR | 0.10*** | 0.19*** | 0.10*** | 0.35*** |
| GR | 0.05*** | 0.30*** | 0.02* | 0.26*** |
| IE | 0.03*** | 0.07* | 0.05*** | 0.09*** |
| IT | 0.05*** | 0.13*** | 0.05*** | 0.15*** |
| LU | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.30** |
| NL | 0.05*** | 0.11** | 0.21** | 0.42*** |
| PT | 0.05*** | 0.12*** | 0.05*** | 0.28*** |
| SE | 0.10*** | 0.12** | 0.12* | 0.24* |
| UK | 0.05*** | 0.16*** | 0.05*** | 0.11*** |
Source EU-SILC (Wave 2007) Signification level: *** p < 0.000; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1
Model 1: Control variables (age, sex, health status, limitations ADL, living arrangements, tenure, housing cost as financial burden)
Model 2: Control variables + living conditions’ predictors: accessibility to community services, inadequate housing maintenance, basic dwelling facilities, environmental problems
Not possible to carry out binary logistic regression due to lack of cases
AT Austria, BE Belgium, DE Germany, DK Denmark, ES Spain, FI Finland, FR France, GR Greece, IE Ireland, IT Italy, LU Luxembourg, NL The Netherlands, PT Portugal, SE Sweden, UK United Kingdom