Income Research Paper Series
Satisfaction of Canadian households with their neighbourhood:
Highlights from the 2018 Canadian Housing Survey
by Jeannine Claveau
Skip to text
Text begins
Introduction
Location, Location, Location—this familiar adage emphasizes the importance of neighbourhood. In real estate, the importance is focused primarily on price effects, but the neighbourhood is as important in meeting housing needs of Canadians.
The neighbourhood is often the place where households access services or facilities to meet their needs. A household’s housing needs are affected by the neighbourhood when it facilitates or impedes access to items or services needed by the household. It can also affect a household’s decision to move or stay.
This article examines neighbourhood satisfaction of Canadian households based on the results of the 2018 Canadian Housing Survey (CHS). The neighbourhood satisfaction level of the principal decision maker (the ‘household reference person’) is examined alongside satisfaction with selected neighbourhood items—such as neighbourhood disorder, safety and services—and socio-demographic and household characteristics.
This article provides a high-level overview of CHS results on neighbourhood satisfaction and as such does not include detailed comparisons at the neighbourhood level. The intent of this article is to provide new information as a starting point for further research using the CHS.
Almost 9 in 10 Canadian households are very satisfied or satisfied with their neighbourhood
Data from the 2018 CHS showed that the majority (85.6%) of households are very satisfied or satisfied with their neighbourhood. The CHS found 43.0% of households are very satisfied with the neighbourhood and 41.0% are satisfied. About 9.8% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 3.7% of households are dissatisfied and 1.0% are very dissatisfied (Table 1).
Among the largest 10 census metropolitan areas, the neighbourhood satisfaction rate is highest in Québec
Across the 10 largest census metropolitan areas (CMAs), the proportion of Canadians households reporting they are satisfied (satisfied or very satisfied) with their neighbourhood ranges from 82.2% in Toronto to a high of 92.5% in Québec (Table 2).
Residents of Québec (92.5%) and Montréal (88.2%) had neighbourhood satisfaction rates above the national average of 85.6%. While Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo (85.5%), Ottawa-Gatineau (85.4%), Hamilton (85.4%), Winnipeg (83.8%), Calgary (82.5%), Edmonton (82.4%), Vancouver (82.3%), and Toronto (82.2%) had neighbourhood satisfaction rate below the national average.
Lower population density is associated with higher neighbourhood satisfaction
Variations in neighbourhood satisfaction are associated with population density. Households living in rural areas were more satisfied with their neighbourhood at 91.4% than households living in small, medium and large urban population centresNote of Canada. Moreover, households living in small population centres had a higher neighbourhood satisfaction rate (87.9%) than households living in medium (83.1%) and large urban population centres (83.8%) (Table 3).
Even within CMAs and census agglomerations, households in neighbourhoods with a low population density were more satisfied with their neighbourhood than households in neighbourhoods with a high population density. For the top quarter of the households in the densest neighbourhoods, neighbourhood satisfaction was 80.8%—compared to 88.7% for bottom quarter of households.Note
Households that do not feel safe or perceive issues in the neighbourhood have the lowest neighbourhood satisfaction
Among the aspects of the neighbourhood captured in the 2018 CHSNote , households that do not feel safe or perceive issues in the neighbourhood had the lowest neighbourhood satisfaction rate. About 13.7% of households indicated that they felt unsafeNote from crime walking alone after dark in their neighbourhood (Table 4). Among these households, 62.0% were satisfied with their neighbourhood—compared to approximately 90% among other households.
Similar differences in neighbourhood satisfaction are also observed when households perceive issues in their neighbourhood. About 14% of households reported at least one neighbourhood issue as a “big problem”Note . Among these households, 60.0% were satisfied with their neighbourhood compared to 89.9% for households that did not reported any big problems. These large differences in the neighbourhood satisfaction rate—of about 30 percentage points—are observed regardless of the type of problem reported.
Households in need of services that were not fulfilled in the neighbourhood have a lower neighbourhood satisfaction rate
Differences in neighbourhood satisfaction were also observed when households’ need for services were not met. About one-third of Canadian households indicated that they needed a service that was not met in their neighbourhoodNote (Table 5). Among these households, 79.0% were satisfied with their neighbourhood compared to 88.5% for other households.
Among the list of services enumerated in the 2018 CHS, medical services—such as community health centres and hospitals—were the services reported as unmet most often by Canadian households at 10.9%. Schools were the services reported least often by households as being unmet—with 1.9% of households reporting an unmet need for a school in their neighbourhood.
The neighbourhood satisfaction rate for households reporting an unmet need for a service ranges from 69.0% to 82.0%—which is consistently lower than the national neighbourhood satisfaction rate of 85.6% by about 17 percentage points or less depending on the service.
Sense of belonging to the community is related to satisfaction with neighbourhood
About three quarters of households rated their satisfaction with feeling as part of their community at 6 or more on a scale of 0 to 10. These households had a higher neighbourhood satisfaction rate (91.4%) than households that provided a lower rating (70.0%) (Table 5).
Interestingly, while a sense of belonging to the community is related to neighbourhood satisfaction, volunteering and participating in community groups were less related to neighbourhood satisfaction. About one-third of households reported doing volunteer work in the past 12 months and about 15% reported being a participant in a community group. However, these households did not have a neighbourhood satisfaction rate higher than the one for households that did not do volunteer work or were not participant in a community group in their neighbourhood. Households where the respondent did volunteering work in the past 12 months had a neighbourhood satisfaction rate of 87.1%—which is close to the rate of 84.8% for other households. Similarly, households where the respondent participated in a community group within the neighbourhood had a neighbourhood satisfaction rate of 89.0% versus a rate of 84.9% for other households.
Neighbourhood satisfaction is lower for renters younger than 55 years old in social and affordable housing
Since homeownership is strongly related to age, housing tenure and age are generally considered jointly.
Data from the 2018 CHS showed that neighbourhood satisfaction varies across age groups and housing tenures, which is a reflection of different circumstances and needs at different stages of life.
In general, owner households have a higher neighbourhood satisfaction rate (87.9%) than renters (80.4%) (Table 3). Renters in social and affordable housing have a lower neighbourhood satisfaction rate than other renters (75.0% versus 81.2%; Table 3).
Small differences in neighbourhood satisfaction are also observed when looking at the age of the reference person. A notable exception occurs among households in social and affordable housing. The neighbourhood satisfaction rate among these households is lower when the reference person is younger than 55 years old—around 63% to 66% compared to about 80% or more in other age groups and housing tenures (Table 6).
Neighbourhood satisfaction is lower for renters in social and affordable housing who have children
Among renter households, households with children have a lower neighbourhood satisfaction rate than other households. This is particularly true among households in social and affordable housing—where lone-parent households and couple households with children have a neighbourhood satisfaction rate of 65.0% and 64.0%, respectively (Table 6), which is about 16 percentage points lower compared to the neighbourhood satisfaction rate of renter households (80.4%).
Likelihood of being in a household that is satisfied with the neighbourhood is similar across most demographic groups
In this section, the characteristics of all persons in households—not just the reference person—are examined to see if certain population groups are more likely to be living in housing where the reference person is satisfied with their neighbourhood rather than dissatisfied.
The likelihood of being in a household that is satisfied with the neighbourhood is similar across many demographic characteristics. To elaborate, across categories of gender, marital status, level of education, aboriginal identity and veteran status the proportion of people in households that are satisfied with their neighbourhood falls in the narrow range of 84.3% to 87.7% (Table 7).
However, there are exceptions where certain population groups are less likely to be in households that are satisfied with their neighbourhood, population groups by age is one such exception. Across the different age groups, the proportion of households satisfied with their neighbourhood ranges from a low of 83.4% for persons aged 25 to 34 years and a high of 91.3% for persons aged 75 years and older.
Persons looking for a job are also less likely to be in households that are satisfied with their neighbourhood. Only 79.0% of them were in households that are satisfied with their neighbourhood.
Lastly, the likelihood of being in a household that is satisfied with their neighbourhood varied by visible minority status. About 80.8% of visible minorities were in a household that is satisfied with their neighbourhood—compared to 87.6% for persons that are not part of a visible minority.
It is important to note that while certain population groups are less likely to be in households that are satisfied with the neighbourhood, the relationship between the population group characteristics and the neighbourhood satisfaction is complex and can reflect many factors. For example, population groups where differences are observe tend also to be groups that may be in a period of housing transition. The lower neighbourhood satisfaction could be a reflection of housing instability or being new to a neighbourhood.
| Percentage of householdsTable 1 Note 1 | |
|---|---|
| Very satisfied or satisfied | 85.6 |
| Very satisfied | 43.0 |
| Satisfied | 41.0 |
| Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 9.8 |
| Dissatisfied | 3.7 |
| Very dissatisfied | 1.0 |
|
|
| Neighbourhood satisfaction (%)Table 2 Note 1 Table 2 Note 2 | |
|---|---|
| Canada | 85.6 |
| Census metropolitan area | |
| Québec | 92.5 |
| Montréal | 88.2 |
| Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo | 85.5 |
| Ottawa-Gatineau | 85.4 |
| Hamilton | 85.4 |
| Winnipeg | 83.8 |
| Calgary | 82.5 |
| Edmonton | 82.4 |
| Vancouver | 82.3 |
| Toronto | 82.2 |
|
|
| Neighbourhood satisfaction (%)Table 3 Note 1 Table 3 Note 2 | |
|---|---|
| Population centre | |
| Rural | 91.4 |
| Small population centre | 87.9 |
| Medium population centre | 83.1 |
| Large urban population centre | 83.8 |
| Neighbourhood population densityTable 3 Note 3 (number of persons per square kilometre) | |
| Lowest quartile of households (population density less than 1,344) | 88.7 |
| Second quartile of households (population density between 1,344 and 2,682) | 86.0 |
| Third quartile of households (population density between 2,682 and 4,699) | 82.6 |
| Highest quartile of households (population density greater than 4,699) | 80.8 |
| Tenure | |
| Owner | 87.9 |
| Renter | 80.4 |
| Social and affordable housing status | |
| Renter in social and affordable housing | 75.0 |
| Renter not in social and affordable housing | 81.2 |
|
|
| Percentage of householdsTable 4 Note 2 | Neighbourhood satisfaction (%)Table 4 Note 1 Table 4 Note 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Perception of safetyTable 4 Note 3 | ||
| Unsafe | 13.7 | 62.0 |
| Safe | 73.0 | 90.4 |
| Do not walk alone | 12.3 | 82.0 |
| Number of neighbourhood issues reported as a big problemTable 4 Note 4 | ||
| No neighbourhood issues | 83.4 | 89.9 |
| At least one neighbourhood issue | 14.1 | 60.0 |
| Type of neighbourhood issues reported as big problemTable 4 Note 4 | ||
| Noisy neighbours or loud parties | 3.0 | 51.0 |
| People hanging around on the streets | 3.2 | 47.0 |
| Garbage or litter lying around | 5.0 | 54.0 |
| Vandalism, graffiti and other damage to property or vehicles | 3.7 | 58.0 |
| People attacked because of skin colour, ethnicity or religion | 1.8 | 58.0 |
| People using or dealing drugs | 7.0 | 55.0 |
| People being drunk or rowdy in public places | 3.9 | 54.0 |
| Abandoned buildings | 1.7 | 66.0 |
| Smog or air pollution | 3.3 | 64.0 |
|
||
| Percentage of householdsTable 5 Note 2 | Neighbourhood satisfaction (%)Table 5 Note 1 Table 5 Note 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of unmet servicesTable 5 Note 3 | ||
| No unmet need for services in the neighbourhood | 67.0 | 88.5 |
| At least one unmet need for services in the neighbourhood | 29.0 | 79.0 |
| Type of unmet servicesTable 5 Note 3 | ||
| Child care facilities | 2.9 | 73.0 |
| Schools | 1.9 | 75.0 |
| Employment services | 6.9 | 73.0 |
| Medical services | 10.9 | 79.0 |
| Community support services | 5.2 | 72.0 |
| Parks, bike paths, playgrounds, other free or low-cost recreation facilities | 4.4 | 69.0 |
| Public transportation | 8.4 | 82.0 |
| Shops, stores or markets to buy things households need | 6.8 | 77.0 |
| Cultural facilities | 10.0 | 77.0 |
| Volunteering | ||
| Did volunteer work in the past 12 months | 32.0 | 87.1 |
| Did not do volunteer work in the past 12 months | 67.0 | 84.8 |
| Participation in a community groupTable 5 Note 3 | ||
| Participant in a community group within the neighbourhood | 16.2 | 89.0 |
| Not a participant in a community group within the neighbourhood | 83.8 | 84.9 |
| Sense of belonging to the community | ||
| Rating of 0 (very dissatisfied) to 5 | 27.0 | 70.0 |
| Rating of 6 to 10 (very satisfied) | 71.0 | 91.4 |
|
||
| Neighbourhood satisfaction (%)Table 6 Note 1 Table 6 Note 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owner | Renter | Renter in social and affordable housing | Renter not in social and affordable housing | |
| Age group of reference person of the household | ||||
| Less than 35 years | 84.2 | 78.0 | 63.0 | 79.0 |
| 35 to 54 years | 86.2 | 77.0 | 66.0 | 78.0 |
| 55 to 64 years | 88.7 | 80.3 | 80.3 | 80.3 |
| 65 years and older | 91.3 | 87.4 | 85.3 | 88.0 |
| Household type | ||||
| One couple household with childrenTable 6 Note 3 | 88.8 | 77.0 | 64.0 | 78.0 |
| One couple household without childrenTable 6 Note 3 | 90.0 | 82.7 | 80.3 | 82.8 |
| One lone-parent householdTable 6 Note 3 | 84.5 | 72.0 | 65.0 | 75.0 |
| One-person household | 86.2 | 82.4 | 80.6 | 82.8 |
| Other household type | 85.2 | 80.2 | 73.0 | 80.7 |
|
||||
| Percentage of persons in households that are very satisfied or satisfied with the neighbourhoodTable 7 Note 1 Table 7 Note 2 | |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 85.7 |
| Female | 85.9 |
| Age group | |
| 0 to 14 years | 85.3 |
| 15 to 24 years | 84.2 |
| 25 to 34 years | 83.4 |
| 35 to 44 years | 84.5 |
| 45 to 54 years | 84.5 |
| 55 to 64 years | 87.2 |
| 65 to 74 years | 89.2 |
| 75 years and older | 91.3 |
| Marital status | |
| Married | 87.5 |
| Living common law | 85.8 |
| Never married (not living common law) | 84.3 |
| Separated/divorced/widowed (not living common law) | 85.0 |
| Highest level of education | |
| Less than high school graduation | 85.9 |
| High school diploma or equivalent | 85.3 |
| Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma and college, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma | 85.5 |
| University certificate, diploma or degree | 86.5 |
| Main activity in the last 12 months | |
| Working at a paid job or self-employed | 85.7 |
| Looking for job | 79.0 |
| Going to school | 84.0 |
| Keeping house, caring for other family members | 85.0 |
| Retired | 90.1 |
| Other | 81.7 |
| Visible minority | |
| Visible minority | 80.8 |
| Not a visible minority | 87.6 |
| Aboriginal identity | |
| Aboriginal | 84.3 |
| Non-Aboriginal | 85.8 |
| Veteran status | |
| Veteran | 87.7 |
| Currently a member of the Canadian Armed Forces | 84.7 |
| Never had Canadian military service | 85.8 |
|
|
Note to readers
Neighbourhood satisfaction of the reference person
The 2018 CHS asked to household’s respondent to rate their overall satisfaction on a five-point scale: “Very satisfied”, “satisfied”, “neither satisfied or dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied”. One person (‘the reference person’ in each sampled household) was asked to complete the questionnaire. The reference person is the household member that is responsible for housing decisions. In cases where members share responsibility for housing decisions, one person was chosen to be the reference person. Therefore, answers to the neighbourhood satisfaction questions represent the perspective of the reference person and do not represent the neighbourhood satisfaction of all members of the household.
Northwest Territories (N.W.T.)
The CHS data for N.W.T. is obtained through a partnership with NWT Bureau of Statistics. In lieu of collecting the CHS in N.W.T., data is obtained from the 2019 NWT Community Survey (NCS)—which collects housing information similar to the information collected on the CHS.
For some of the concepts used in this research paper, the survey questions were worded differently between the CHS and the NCS. Estimates related to these concepts use data from both sources to produce a Canada-level estimate, as the questions are similar and still capture the same concept. The affected concepts include:
- Neighbourhood satisfaction: The 2018 CHS asked the reference person “How satisfied are you with your neighbourhood?” The 2019 NCS asked the respondent “How satisfied are you with your community?”
- Perception of safety: The perception of safety was collected in the 2018 CHS by the question “How safe do you feel from crime walking alone in your area after dark?” The 2019 NCS asked “How safe do you feel from crime walking alone in your community?”
- Volunteering: The 2018 CHS asked the reference person “In the past 12 months, did you do unpaid volunteer work for any organization?” The 2019 NCS asked for each member of the household “In the past 12 months, did ... volunteer for any of the following activities without pay on behalf of a group or organization?”
Some concepts, while captured in both the CHS and NCS, were different enough that they are not comparable. Estimates related to these concepts use only data from the CHS to produce a Canada-level estimate. That is, Canada-level estimates for these concepts do not include N.W.T. The affected concepts include:
- Neighbourhood issues
- Neighbourhood services
- Participation in a community group
- Date modified: