DIAGNOSTICO COMERCIAL

Much of the published international research on DIY is quantitative in nature. This literature – largely produced by US and British-based analysts with an interest in housing (as opposed to DIY per se) – reports the findings of exploratory survey work involving either descriptive or inferential statistical procedures. Housing, real estate and urban economists have shown a strong preference for inferential statistical analysis, studying national house condition survey datasets and census registers in order to model different aspects of the household decision to carry out home improvements by way of DIY or professional contracting (Mendelsohn, 1977; Pollakowski, 1988; Poteman, 1989; Montgomery, 1992; Bogdon, 1996). For these economists, DIY (and home improvement more generally) is treated as an indicator of an owner-occupier’s willingness to invest in the improvement of their existing home, as opposed to staying put and doing nothing, or moving out and into a newer dwelling. While variations exist across these studies as to what activities exactly constitute DIY and/or ‘home

29 improvement’, an interesting cluster of positive statistical relationships have been reported, including:

1. DIY practice and age, with younger homeowners (under 65 years) more likely to undertake their own home improvements (Mendelsohn, 1977; Pollakowski, 1988). 2. DIY practice and house age, with those who own older houses more likely to pay

professionals to do their home improvements – which may relate to the complexity of the renovations being carried out in order to modernise these older dwellings or to aging residents (Mendelsohn, 1977).

3. Income and the use of hired help, with wealthier homeowners more likely to use professionals than undertake their own home improvements (Mendelsohn, 1977). 4. The duration of owner-occupation and the likelihood of DIY occurring, with recent

movers/new homeowners the most likely to be carrying out home remodelling projects (Pollakowski, 1988; Bogdon, 1996).

5. DIY and household configuration, with married couples or multi-adult households more likely to do DIY than all other types of family units (Bogdon, 1996).

6. The addition of household members (a child or adult) and the likelihood of a housing expansion project being carried out (by way of DIY or professional contracting), with these expanding households altering their homes in order meet the evolving needs of the family6 (Baker & Kaul, 2002).

Other quantitative social scientists, particularly those with an interest in the broader role of DIY in the maintenance and improvement of national housing stocks, have tended to use descriptive procedures (i.e., frequencies and measures of central tendency) to analyse the datasets they have compiled or acquired as a secondary source. This mainly European-based research seeks to understand the nature of DIY activity, providing descriptive insights: the type of projects carried out by households, who participates and their motives. Davidson and Leather (2000), for example, used data from the 1986 and 1991 English House Condition Surveys (EHCS) and Family Expenditure Survey to examine the nature of the DIY work undertaken by British owner-occupiers and their reasons for carrying out these projects. Their data revealed that DIY generally involved cosmetic jobs (i.e., painting and decorating) as

6

Importantly, this finding led the researchers to advise “…that the home improvement process can be better understood by putting it in a broader context of household life-cycle changes and in the context of how homes are adapted to changing family circumstances. There are times in the household’s life-cycle when home improvements – particularly discretionary home improvements – are likely to be undertaken” (Baker & Kaul, 2002, p.566).

30 opposed to repair or maintenance work. They also found that remodelling projects were often accomplished by a mix of contractors, homeowners (DIY) and unpaid help (with only eight per cent of these jobs undertaken solely by the homeowner). Projects left wholly to contractors were generally those involving: 1) specialised skills (such as plastering), 2) equipment not usually owned by households (such as scaffolding), and 3) potentially dangerous tasks (such as electrical or gas related jobs) (Davidson & Leather, 2000). They also discovered that the most prolific DIYers were: 1) younger couples with children, 2) affluent households (perhaps reflecting the fact that their DIY is discretionary or recreational activity rather than a necessity), and 3) those with building trade experience who had the skills and often resources to do a wider range of jobs. They also found that those least likely to engage in DIY were older owner-occupiers (especially those over the age of 75) and those with low household incomes, “…households which might seem to have the most to gain from DIY in terms of cost reduction” (Davidson & Leather, 2000, p.751).

Brodersen (2003) also used descriptive statistics to examine the nature of DIY activity, taking as his data ten household surveys administered in five European countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Britain and Germany). over the period 1993-2001 In this case, each survey was part of a larger study into the nature and overall extent of the informal (or untaxed/non- registered) economy in Europe which included DIY activities (for more discussion about the ‘informal economy’ see Gershuny 1979; Pawson & Cant, 1983). Brodersen’s (2003) descriptive analysis of the DIY data found that ‘homeowners’ were much more likely to do DIY than those who rented their property, thereby highlighting the strong link between DIY and property ownership. Brodersen (2003) also found that age had an effect on the likelihood of doing DIY, with the frequency of activity falling, along with the scale of the work done, with a corresponding increase in age, indicating that the nature of one’s involvement in DIY changes over the life course (also see footnote 6, page 29).

The Danish and German versions of the survey also asked respondents about their motives for carrying out DIY with the great majority (75%) indicating that the opportunity to ‘save money’ was their primary motive. A quarter said they did DIY because they simply ‘enjoyed’ doing the work (Brodersen, 2003). Brodersen (2003) also found that painting and wallpapering (simple interior decorating tasks) were by far the most common DIY jobs accomplished, thereby supporting Davidson and Leathers’ (2000) results. In explaining this, Brodersen (2003, p.75) noted that “the high figure for DIY probably reflects the fact that

31 painting neither requires special knowledge nor expensive tools”. Plumbing, electrical work and the installation of heaters were the jobs most frequently left to professional firms. Surmising, Brodersen (2003, p.76) remarked that it is “…mainly work which requires expensive tools or specialist knowledge which households avoid doing as DIY.” (For a similar argument see Bogdon, 1996.)

Another study of the motives of DIYers was carried out by scholars at Britain’s Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC, 2003). Their data revealed six primary motives among British DIYers, with the dominant reason being to fulfil one’s ‘creative’ urges (84%), followed closely by the goal of ‘personalising the home’ (72%) through a process the researchers called ‘territorial marking’. For 63 per cent of their respondents, the quest for ‘perfection’ was also an important motive, one which often stemmed from the recent negative experiences they had had with substandard tradesmen. For 38 per cent, DIY was an ‘economic necessity’. Interestingly, and consistent with Brodersen’s (2003) survey research, just 28 per cent emphasised ‘leisure’ as a central motive – DIY providing a welcome and entertaining respite from the dull routines of their weekday work. Finally, 18 per cent of the sample alluded to ‘psychological drivers,’ i.e., doing DIY helped to reduce stress and ‘switch off’, escape and relax. Akin to Brodersen’s (2003) findings and the work of Davidson and Leather (2000), SIRC (2003) also found that most homeowners left plumbing and electrical work to qualified professionals, but would generally do their own decorating.

In keeping with this interest in DIY motives, Williams (2004, 2008) surveyed British DIY shoppers in both urban (2004) and rural (2008) settings. Williams’ overriding aim was to critique popular agency-oriented interpretations of the home improvement retail market which, he suggested, had either overemphasised the lifestyle dimension of DIY (that people do it for fun and to express their identity) or exaggerated its economic underpinnings (i.e., DIY is the result of financial constraints). William’s (2004) early survey work (in two urban areas in England) found that economic necessity and lifestyle choices were almost always entangled in people’s motives to engage in DIY (which is also apparent across the other quantitative reports I have reviewed above). Consequently, Williams pushed for commentators to widen their lens when examining the motives of DIYers. His follow-up work in rural England in 2008, which utilised a face-to-face interview method, also showed that people engage in DIY for not one, but many reasons (Williams, 2008).

32