Consumer Decision Making In Residential Construction A Comparative Analysis Of Self Built And Ready To Move Housing

Gender distribution shows a slight dominance of female respondents (52.8%), suggesting active participation of women in housing decisions. This is important, as housing preferences are often influenced by considerations such as comfort, safety, and long-term usability, where gender perspectives can play a role. Income levels indicate that a large proportion of respondents fall within the lower- to middle-income categories, with over 44% earning below ₹50,000 per month. This highlights affordability as a key consideration in housing decisions. Consequently, cost-sensitive choices such as self-construction or budget-friendly ready-to-move options are likely to influence overall preferences.

Figure 1 Socio-economic profile of respondents

Family structure further supports this observation, with joint families constituting the largest group (38%), followed by nuclear families (32.8%). Larger households typically require flexible space planning, which may increase the preference for self-constructed housing, whereas smaller households may prioritize convenience and time-saving aspects of ready-to-move units. In addition, a majority of respondents are non-homeowners, with approximately two-thirds either living in rented houses or with parents. This indicates that the dataset primarily represents prospective homebuyers, making the findings highly relevant for analysing housing preferences and decision-making behaviour. Overall, the socio-economic characteristics demonstrate a balanced and relevant sample, where affordability, family needs, and ownership aspirations are likely to play a significant role in shaping residential construction choices.

2. Awareness and Preference of Housing Types

Awareness and preference of housing options play a fundamental role in understanding consumer decision-making in residential construction. As presented in Table 2, all respondents (100%) were aware of both self-constructed (SC) and ready-to-move (RTM) housing options, indicating a well-informed sample with adequate exposure to available housing alternatives. This complete awareness ensures that the observed preferences are based on informed choices rather than knowledge limitations.

Table 3. Awareness and preference of housing options (n = 500)

Despite equal awareness, a significant variation is observed in housing preference. A majority of respondents (68.8%) preferred self-constructed housing, while only 31.2% opted for ready-to-move units, as illustrated in Figure 2. This indicates a strong inclination toward self-construction, suggesting that consumers prioritize control over design, flexibility, and long-term value. The dominance of SC preference may also be associated with cultural and behavioural factors, where ownership of land and personalized construction are considered important.

Figure 2 Housing Preference Distribution

At the same time, the proportion of respondents preferring RTM housing (31.2%) is substantial, reflecting the growing demand for convenience-oriented housing solutions. This segment likely represents individuals who prioritize time efficiency, reduced construction risk, and immediate occupancy. The coexistence of both preferences highlights a dual behavioural pattern in the housing market, where traditional and modern housing choices operate simultaneously. In addition, a notable proportion of respondents indicated conditional preferences, where housing decisions depend on specific factors such as cost (36.4%), location (29.4%), and availability of amenities (24.2%). This suggests that a considerable segment of consumers does not have a fixed preference but instead makes decisions based on situational and economic conditions. Among these, cost emerges as the most influential conditional factor, reinforcing the importance of affordability in housing selection. Overall, the results demonstrate that while awareness of housing options is universal, consumer preferences are significantly differentiated. The dominance of self-constructed housing, combined with the presence of a convenience-driven RTM segment and condition-dependent buyers, indicates a complex and multi-dimensional decision-making process. These findings provide a strong foundation for further analysis of the factors influencing housing choice and the comparative evaluation of SC and RTM housing options.

3. Key Factors Influencing Housing Decisions

Understanding the factors influencing housing decisions is essential for evaluating consumer preferences in residential construction. Table 3 and Figure 3 present the ranking of key factors based on mean scores derived from the Likert-scale responses. Among all variables, cost/affordability emerges as the most influential factor, with the highest mean score of 4.32. This indicates that financial considerations play a dominant role in housing decisions, particularly among middle-income groups. The prominence of cost reflects the practical constraints faced by consumers, where budget limitations significantly shape the choice between self-constructed and ready-to-move housing options.

The second most important factor is location (mean = 4.18), highlighting the importance of accessibility, connectivity, and proximity to essential services. This suggests that irrespective of the type of housing, consumers prioritize strategic location advantages, which directly impact long-term convenience and property value.

Figure 3 Ranking of Key factors influencing Housing Decisions

Quality of construction (mean = 4.05) ranks third, indicating a strong concern for durability, safety, and structural reliability. This finding is particularly relevant in the context of ready-to-move housing, where buyers depend on developers for construction quality, as well as in self-construction, where material and workmanship decisions are critical. Customization flexibility (mean = 3.98) is also a significant factor, reflecting the need for personalized design and space utilization. This aspect is closely associated with the preference for self-constructed housing, where consumers have greater control over layout and functional requirements. Factors such as convenience/time-saving (mean = 3.85) and legal approval/documentation (mean = 3.72) indicate the growing importance of hassle-free processes and regulatory assurance. These factors are particularly relevant for ready-to-move housing, where buyers seek reduced involvement in construction activities and assured compliance with legal standards. Lower-ranked factors include availability of amenities (mean = 3.60) and investment value/resale potential (mean = 3.48). Although these aspects influence decision-making, their relatively lower scores suggest that immediate functional and financial considerations outweigh long-term or lifestyle-oriented benefits in the housing selection process. Overall, the results indicate that housing decisions are primarily driven by economic and functional factors, with cost, location, and quality forming the core decision criteria. At the same time, customization and convenience introduce a trade-off between self-constructed and ready-to-move housing options. This multi-factor influences highlights the complexity of consumer decision-making and provides a strong basis for further comparative and behavioural analysis in subsequent sections.

4. Comparative Analysis of Self-Constructed and Ready-to-Move Housing

The comparative evaluation of self-constructed (SC) and ready-to-move (RTM) housing provides critical insights into consumer preferences and trade-offs in residential decision-making.

Table 4 and Figure 4 present the percentage-based comparison of key housing attributes across both options. The results indicate that self-constructed housing is strongly preferred for customization flexibility (72.97%), highlighting the importance of personalized design and functional adaptability. This is further supported by the high preference for land ownership (83.14%), suggesting that ownership and control over the construction process are key motivations for selecting SC housing.

Figure 4 Comparative Analysis of Self constructed and Ready to move housing

Additionally, cost effectiveness (68.60%) is a major advantage of SC, indicating that consumers perceive it as a more economical option, particularly in long-term investment terms. In contrast, ready-to-move housing is predominantly preferred for convenience (76.28%), reflecting the growing demand for time-efficient and hassle-free housing solutions. Similarly, legal approval and documentation (69.87%) show higher preference under RTM, suggesting that consumers value regulatory assurance and reduced procedural complexity. The availability of modern amenities (64.74%) and construction quality assurance (72.44%) further strengthen the attractiveness of RTM housing, as buyers rely on developers to deliver standardized quality and integrated facilities. A noticeable contrast is observed in attributes such as quality and legal assurance, where RTM housing outperforms SC, indicating a perception of higher reliability and reduced risk. On the other hand, SC housing dominates attributes related to control, cost, and ownership, reflecting a more traditional and involvement-driven approach. Overall, the findings reveal a clear trade-off between control and convenience. While self-constructed housing offers flexibility, cost advantages, and ownership benefits, ready-to-move housing provides efficiency, quality assurance, and regulatory security. This dual preference pattern indicates that housing decisions are not uniform but depend on individual priorities, financial capacity, and risk tolerance. The results highlight the coexistence of traditional and modern housing preferences, forming a hybrid decision-making framework in the residential construction sector.

5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis provides empirical validation of the observed differences between self-constructed (SC) and ready-to-move (RTM) housing preferences. The results from the independent sample t-test (Table 5) indicate that all considered attributes exhibit statistically significant differences (p < 0.001), confirming that the choice between SC and RTM housing is strongly influenced by distinct consumer priorities. The findings reveal that attributes such as customization (mean SC = 4.32), cost (4.18), and land ownership (4.51) are significantly higher for self-constructed housing. This suggests that consumers opting for SC housing are primarily driven by control over design, cost efficiency, and ownership benefits. These factors reflect a preference for flexibility and long-term value, particularly among individuals willing to actively participate in the construction process.

Table 5. Independent sample t-test results for SC and RTM housing attributes

In contrast, attributes including convenience (mean RTM = 4.36), legal assurance (4.12), amenities (4.08), and quality (4.21) are significantly higher for ready-to-move housing. This indicates that RTM housing is preferred by consumers who prioritize time-saving, regulatory clarity, and assured construction quality. The negative t-values for these variables further emphasize the directional shift in preference toward RTM for convenience-oriented attributes. The regression analysis (Table 6) further strengthens these findings by identifying the key determinants influencing housing choice. Land ownership (β = 0.44), cost (β = 0.41), and customization (β = 0.38) emerge as the most significant positive predictors of self-constructed housing preference. These results confirm that economic and control-related factors play a dominant role in driving SC decisions.

Table 6. Regression analysis of factors influencing housing choice

On the other hand, convenience (β = -0.47), quality (β = -0.39), and legal assurance (β = -0.36) show strong negative coefficients, indicating their influence toward ready-to-move housing. This highlights the importance of reduced effort, reliability, and compliance in shaping RTM preferences. Additionally, risk perception (β = -0.33) negatively impacts SC choice, suggesting that concerns related to construction uncertainty and management complexity discourage self-construction. The overall model demonstrates strong explanatory power, with an R² value of 0.68, indicating that the selected variables account for a substantial proportion of variation in housing choice. This confirms the robustness of the analytical framework and validates the multi-factor nature of consumer decision-making. Overall, the statistical results reinforce the existence of a clear behavioural divide between SC and RTM housing preferences. While self-construction is driven by economic benefits and customization, ready-to-move housing is influenced by convenience, quality assurance, and reduced risk. These findings highlight the complex interplay of functional, financial, and psychological factors in residential decision-making.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study reveal a clear divergence in consumer preferences between self-constructed (SC) and ready-to-move (RTM) housing, driven by a combination of economic, functional, and behavioural factors. The dominance of cost, customization, and land ownership in influencing SC preference aligns with previous studies that emphasize the role of affordability and control in housing decisions (Newberry et al. 2021; Shatwan 2024; Marcher et al. 2020). Self-built housing has been widely associated with personalization and cultural adaptability, where consumers seek to align housing design with individual needs and lifestyle patterns (Ruiqi 2017). Conversely, the strong preference for RTM housing in terms of convenience, legal assurance, and quality reflects the growing demand for time-efficient and risk-free housing solutions. Similar findings have been reported in studies highlighting that modern consumer increasingly prioritize reduced effort, regulatory clarity, and assured construction standards (Han et al. 2022, 2023; Jackline et al. 2025). The significance of quality and defect minimization in RTM housing also supports earlier research indicating that construction reliability directly influences buyer satisfaction and trust (Milion et al. 2021). The presence of a substantial segment of condition-dependent buyers further confirms that housing decisions are not fixed but influenced by situational factors such as cost and location. This supports the argument that consumer behaviour in housing is dynamic and context-dependent, involving trade-offs between multiple criteria (Marcher et al. 2020). Additionally, the regression results highlighting risk perception as a negative factor for SC housing are consistent with studies identifying uncertainty and management complexity as major barriers to self-construction (Gingell and Shahab 2021; Dong et al. 2023). Importantly, the results demonstrate that sustainability and long-term investment considerations have relatively lower influence compared to immediate functional and financial factors. This observation is in agreement with prior research indicating that consumers often prioritize affordability and practicality over environmental considerations in housing decisions (Jussila et al. 2024; Ivanova and Smetanina 2016). Overall, the study confirms that residential housing choice is governed by a dual behavioural framework: a traditional preference for control and customization associated with SC housing, and a modern inclination toward convenience and reliability represented by RTM housing. This duality reflects the evolving nature of consumer behaviours in the construction sector, where both approaches coexist based on individual priorities and constraints.

CONCLUSION

This study examined consumer behaviour in residential construction by comparing self-constructed (SC) and ready-to-move (RTM) housing using responses from 500 participants. Although awareness of both housing types was universal, a majority of respondents (68.8%) preferred self-constructed housing, while 31.2% favoured ready-to-move options, indicating a stronger inclination toward control and customization. The results show that cost (mean = 4.32), location (4.18), and quality (4.05) are the most influential factors in housing decisions. SC housing is primarily preferred for customization (72.97%) and land ownership (83.14%), whereas RTM housing is favoured for convenience (76.28%) and quality assurance (72.44%). Statistical analysis confirms that these differences are significant (p < 0.001), with the model explaining a substantial variation in housing choice (R² = 0.68). From a practical perspective, developers should focus on improving flexibility and cost efficiency, while policymakers should simplify regulatory processes to support both housing types. The study contributes by identifying a clear trade-off between control and convenience in housing decisions. Future research can expand this work by including larger geographic areas and advanced analytical models to better capture evolving housing preferences. Overall, the findings highlight those residential choices are shaped by a balance between economic constraints and functional needs.

REFERENCES

1. Alekseev, A. O., K. S. Koskova, and E. R. Galiaskarov. 2019. “Technologies of Development Decisions Making in Residential Civil Engineering.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 481 (March): 012059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/481/1/012059.
2. Biswas, Saurabh, Tracy L. Fuentes, Kieren H. McCord, Adrienne L. S. Rackley, and Chrissi A. Antonopoulos. 2024. “Decisions and Decision-Makers: Mapping the Sociotechnical Cognition behind Home Energy Upgrades in the United States.” Energy Research & Social Science 109 (March): 103411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103411.
3. Carvalho, Gabriele Back, and Mirela Jeffman Dos Santos. 2020. “Comportamento do Consumidor de Produtos de Acabamentos.” Marketing & Tourism Review 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.29149/mtr.v4i2.5089.
4. Dong, Wenli, Xinyue Gao, Wenying Han, and Jiwu Wang. 2023. “Renewal Framework for Self-Built Houses in ‘Village-to-Community’ Areas with a Focus on Safety and Resilience.” Buildings 13 (12): 3003. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13123003.
5. Dorsey, Bryan. 2021. “Refocusing on Sustainability: Promoting Straw Bale Building for Government-Assisted, Self-Help Housing Programs in Utah and Abroad.” Sustainability 13 (5): 2545. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052545.
6. Fedorova, Natalia, Anne Kandler, and Richard McElreath. 2024. “Strategic Housing Decisions and the Evolution of Urban Settlements: Optimality Modelling and Empirical Application in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.” Royal Society Open Science 11 (10): 241415. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241415.
7. Gingell, Annie Hamilton, and Sina Shahab. 2021. “An Analysis of Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding in the South West of England.” Urban Science 5 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5010009.
8. Han, Yanhu, Lufan Wang, and Ruyuan Kang. 2023. “INFLUENCE OF CONSUMER PREFERENCE AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY ON PREFABRICATED BUILDING DEVELOPER’S DECISION-MAKING: A THREE-STAGE GAME MODEL.” JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT 29 (1): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2023.18038.
9. Han, Yanhu, Xiaobo Xu, Yu Zhao, Xiaoping Wang, Zeyu Chen, and Jia Liu. 2022. “IMPACT OF CONSUMER PREFERENCE ON THE DECISION-MAKING OF PREFABRICATED BUILDING DEVELOPERS.” JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT 28 (3): 166–76. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2022.15777.
10. Ivanova, Zinaida, and Tatiana Smetanina. 2016. “Research into Behaviour Patterns Typical for Consumers of Construction Material as the Mission of Ecological Management.” MATEC Web of Conferences 73: 07024. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20167307024.
11. Jackline, Nansamba, Deepa Krishnan, and Nnadi Ezekiel. 2025. “Evaluating the Quality and Durability of Offsite-Constructed Housing in Uganda Using a Composite Quality Index.” Scientific Reports 15 (1): 42586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-26623-8.
12. Jussila, J., F. Franzini, L. Häyrinen, et al. 2024. “Consumer Housing Choices among Residents Living in Wooden Multi-Storey Buildings.” Housing Studies 39 (10): 2654–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2023.2217765.
13. Lawsakul, Arthit, Wanphen Kuensman, and Kanchana Photiwichayanon. 2025. “Causal Factors Influencing Decision-Making Use Environmentally Friendly Building Materials of Construction Business Operators in Bangkok.” Asia Social Issues 18 (3): e273206. https://doi.org/10.48048/asi.2025.273206.
14. Lloyd, M. G., D. Peel, and L. B. Janssen-Jansen. 2015. “Self-Build in the UK and Netherlands: Mainstreaming Self-Development to Address Housing Shortages?” Urban, Planning and Transport Research 3 (1): 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2014.987403.
15. Marcher, Carmen, Andrea Giusti, and Dominik T. Matt. 2020. “Decision Support in Building Construction: A Systematic Review of Methods and Application Areas.” Buildings 10 (10): 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10100170.
16. Milion, Raphael N., Thaís Da C. L. Alves, José Carlos Paliari, and Luisa H. B. Liboni. 2021. “CBA-Based Evaluation Method of the Impact of Defects in Residential Buildings: Assessing Risks towards Making Sustainable Decisions on Continuous Improvement Activities.” Sustainability 13 (12): 6597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126597.
17. Newberry, Pablo, Paul Harper, and Thea Morgan. 2021. “Understanding the Market for Eco Self-Build Community Housing.” Sustainability 13 (21): 11823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111823.
18. Ruiqi, Dou. 2017. “Conversion, Simplification and Differentiation: Three Rural Housing Strategies in China Based on Self-Built Housing and Construction Solidarity.” ATHENS JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE 3 (2): 177–92. https://doi.org/10.30958/aja.3-2-4.
19. Shatwan, Alaa M. 2024. “Real Estate Developments in Residential Architecture: A Case Study of Jeddah.” Journal of Umm Al-Qura University for Engineering and Architecture 15 (3): 306–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43995-024-00059-z.
20. Weniger, Alexandra, Pamela Del Rosario, Jana Gerta Backes, and Marzia Traverso. 2023. “Consumer Behavior and Sustainability in the Construction Industry—Relevance of Sustainability-Related Criteria in Purchasing Decision.” Buildings 13 (3): 638. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030638.
21. Zea-De La Torre, Michelle-Ángela, Juan-Antonio Jimber-Del Río, Julia Nuñez-Tabales, Francisco-José Rey-Carmona, and Arnaldo Vergara-Romero. 2025. “Residential Satisfaction Indicator: Latin American Evidence.” International Journal of Strategic Property Management 29 (1): 48–61. https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2025.23241.