SERVICIOS DE ADMINISTRACIÓN DE LOS PRÉSTAMOS HIPOTECARIOS

Despite the above constraints and hindrances identified, 11 participants stated they were happy in their home [Maria, Pauline, Sarah, Walter, Kevin, Mike, Rachael, Lewis, Jessica, and Olivia]. Participants acknowledged that their home was suitable for their needs now but they desired to move in the future [Eva, Sarah, Lewis and Olivia], Eva expressed a paradoxical sense as she desired to relocate but she also loved her home:

Rachael: “Just the usual time and money, if someone said right we’ve got a million pounds and a gang of guys outside to come and do stuff, I’m sure I

could give them lots of things.”

Kevin: “I think I’ve got to a point where we’re sort of apart for a bit more space for bikes and things we don’t really need anything badly enough to

want the expense or the hassle.”

Eva: “If I could pick up this house and put it in St Albans, I’d be happy... Yeah that is my dream, ever since I came to Luton… It’s funny because we were saying

because we’ve done so much to this home, you know every crevice and corner, so

185

Discussion

8.13

The findings of this study identified the four psychological dimensions of comfort described by Heijs and Stringer (1987). Householders were able to capture the dimensions from the guidance provided. The findings presented each dimension separately including the subfields of the other dimensions emphasising their intertwined nature. This was as to be expected, as Heijs and Stringer suggested the dimensions were interrelated and experienced collectively. This section will discuss each of the four dimensions and their corresponding sub-fields, followed by taking a closer look at the role of thermal comfort in the experience of these four factors. The final section will consider the constraints and hindrance on householders’ experiences of comfort.

Interactive Comfort 8.13.1

A majority of responses to privacy captured bathrooms and bedrooms, clearly due to the private nature afforded by such rooms. Privacy was associated with solo tasks such as hobbies or doing work. However, participants also drew upon the desire for privacy from other householders and the outside world, signifying a desire to feel cut off. This desire for privacy was recurrently associated with bathing which also offered a time for relaxation. These findings mirrored the responses from participants during study 2 in which all 6 members of the group discussed the need to have time away from other household members. Altman (1975) suggests privacy is sought once a certain level of social interaction has been reached describing two modes of privacy achievable that is what is possible in the current situation and desirable referring to the amount an individual may wish to have. A sense of achievable privacy was indicated by some participants, the notion of having some time to oneself amongst responsibilities of childcare and work appeared to be achieved.

Areas for socialising were typically communal areas of the home often included eating or some form of shared activity. Householders identified various ways in which they socialised with householders’ and guests within their home and drew upon the adaptive nature of furniture and space to accommodate their variety of

186 needs. A number of social interactive activities involved some form of consumer electronics this was mainly watching TV but also included using gesture controlled gaming (i.e. Nintendo Wii). For such gaming it was frequently necessary to be able to adapt the space to create enough room to play the games, which was a quality householders’ frequently associated with socialising. The layout and the ease of movement around the home were considered to contribute to the ease of social interaction. Rooms for social interactions being in close proximity to each other appear to allow for varying social interactions, something which householders referred to in regards to entertaining guests. Similar findings were found in a study exploring pleasant atmospheres of the home, in which being able to communicate with other householders’ which was considered a pleasant attribute of the atmosphere, was affected by the size and the arrangement of the rooms, even closing doors was considered to be detrimental to a pleasant atmosphere of the home (Pennartz 1986).

Overall, participants’ appeared to achieve a freedom of action, as a majority were able to provide examples of spaces which offered both privacy and the possibility for social interaction. Freedom of action is significant aspect of the home environment, it is considered to be one of the only places where the occupant has control of their actions and their environment (Altman 1975; Smith 1994).

There were a number of sub-fields which were identified within interactive comfort, and have been discussed throughout the discussion so far. Interactive comfort was mainly associated with facilitative and perceptual notions of comfort, the facilitative nature of space and furnishings helped to accommodate the many ways in which householders’ wish to socialise. Aspects of perceptual comfort were noted as participants described why they used certain spaces, describing spatial dimensions of rooms, when reference were made small rooms appeared to be acceptable for private spaces, whilst social areas were chosen for their spaciousness.

187

Personalisation Comfort 8.13.2

The degree of personalisation of homes varied across responses, for some, personalisation was simply displaying personal photographs whilst others considered personalising the decor and furnishings to their personal taste to be significant. The findings also revealed personalisation was not considered to be important for certain individuals who were content with anything as long as it wasn’t ‘distasteful’. However this view does not necessarily mean there is no association with comfort, as it rings true to certain definition of the word; comfort can be defined as the absence of discomfort, therefore it could be suggested that personalisation does hold some significance to these particular householders (Brager & De Dear 2003; Kolcaba & Kolcaba 1991). Personalisation appeared to be conducted in two main ways, large-scale personalisation which included changes to décor and furnishings, and small-scale personalisation, such as the display of keepsake and cherished belongings. Sometimes large-scale personalisation was desired but not possible as a result small-scale personalisation took place.

The main drivers of small-scale personalisation appeared to be memories, inherited gifts and uniqueness; the main type of keepsakes identified were the display of photographs as a way of keeping memories alive. This echoed Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton’s (1981) exploration of the meaning of cherished objects which also found similar categories of keepsakes, although they termed them: memories, kin (inherited), associations (gifts) and intrinsic qualities (uniqueness). They too found photographs were the most significant cherished object and keeping memories alive was the main driver for displaying keepsakes.

Concerning large-scale personalisation, some householders brought attention to the challenges of shared living and the difficulty in personalisation when there are others to consider, many decisions were made jointly where couples occupied the property, and male participants in particular noted a lack of significance of personalisation leaving decisions to their partners. The process of conducting large-scale decorating projects themselves appeared to alter their relationship with the property, providing a bonding experience between householder and property. This also mirrored findings of study 1 where bonding with the property through

188 décor was also discussed. The main reasons given for a lack of large-scale personalisation were due to limited time and money, and for some, there was simply was a lack of inclination to make changes, suggesting small-scale personalisation can be sufficient enough to fulfil householders needs for this type of comfort.

Personalisation was mainly considered in terms of the aesthetics of the surroundings, however householders’ also referred to creating a space of their own within shared homes (i.e. householders referred to having her own hobby room). This also touched upon an element of privacy and territorial marking as in most cases participant noted this was an area which only they used.

There were strong perceptual elements to personalisation comfort, as the personalisation of a home heavily influences the perception of the surrounding environment. Emotions were clearly influential in the choice of décor for some participants; for instance relaxation and motivation were given as reasons for choices in decor. Elements of facilitative comfort have already been discussed in respects to householders’ ability to redecorate their home, as well as elements of privacy in creation of their own space.

Personalisation comfort, overall received mixed responses from participants, whilst for some this was clearly a significant quality of their home; others although they could find examples of personalisation conferred a lack of relevance in their responses. However, several aspects of personalisation comfort identified by Heijs and Stringer (1987) were visible throughout this study, in their bonding with the property, their ability to stamp their mark on the property, and displaying keepsakes.

Facilitative Comfort 8.13.3

The nature of facilitative comfort can be described as ease of which the home allows the householder to conduct various activities. This was considered to include the ability to adapt rooms or spaces as required, features (i.e. spaces or equipment)