| Dependent variable: life_satisfaction | |||
| Model (1) | Information | Clarity | |
| income | 0.18*** | 0.19*** | 0.18*** |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
| health | 0.57*** | 0.58*** | 0.57*** |
| (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.13) | |
| park_quality | 0.47*** | 0.48*** | 0.47*** |
| (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
| informed | -0.06 | 0.34** | |
| (0.19) | (0.16) | ||
| understood | 0.59*** | 0.56*** | |
| (0.14) | (0.12) | ||
| 0/1 | -2.84*** | -2.78*** | -2.80*** |
| (0.33) | (0.33) | (0.32) | |
| 1/2 | -0.40 | -0.40 | -0.40 |
| (0.30) | (0.30) | (0.30) | |
| 2/3 | -0.63** | -0.64** | -0.63** |
| (0.26) | (0.26) | (0.26) | |
| 3/4 | -0.19 | -0.20 | -0.19 |
| (0.15) | (0.15) | (0.15) | |
| 4/5 | -0.67*** | -0.67*** | -0.67*** |
| (0.15) | (0.15) | (0.15) | |
| 5/6 | -0.41*** | -0.42*** | -0.41*** |
| (0.11) | (0.11) | (0.11) | |
| 6/7 | -0.50*** | -0.51*** | -0.50*** |
| (0.10) | (0.10) | (0.10) | |
| 7/8 | -0.44*** | -0.45*** | -0.44*** |
| (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.09) | |
| 8/9 | -0.08 | -0.10 | -0.09 |
| (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
| 9/10 | 0.16** | 0.15** | 0.16** |
| (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
| Observations | 874 | 874 | 874 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| Note: | *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01 | ||
Park Life: The difference between having financial information and understanding it on park home owners’ quality of life
Abstract
Few older people move each year, yet many are open to moving if it improves their quality of life and enables them to live independently. Residential park homes, manufactured homes typically owned by the resident but sited on rented land, are marketed as a relatively luxurious affordable downsizing option for older people who wish to maintain their independence. A notable characteristic of the sector is a 10% commission on the resale value of a dwelling. We utilise unique data from a large-scale survey (N = 1521) of park home residents to investigate how the provision and clarity of information regarding this commission at the time of purchase influences the subjective wellbeing of park home owners. Our empirical analysis reveals that clear, fully understood information about the commission significantly enhances owners’ subjective life satisfaction, whereas mere awareness of this commission does not have a statistically significant effect. Our findings extend the understanding of the effect of (asymmetrical) information in housing decision making and provide specific insights for promoting residential mobility which extend beyond this niche housing sector.
Keywords
Park home, Manufactured home, Mobile home, Sale commission, Information, Life satisfaction
1 Introduction
In England, the park home sector has emerged as a distinctive and increasingly significant form of housing. Park homes, also known as residential mobile homes or static caravans built to specific standards, are standalone dwellings sold as chattels under a licensing regime: residents own the home itself but lease the land beneath it by paying a monthly pitch fee, rather than holding a freehold or leasehold in the traditional sense. Housing approximately 159,000 people in about 85,000 homes across nearly 2,000 residential park home estates (commonly known as residential parks), the park home sector predominantly serves older residents, many of whom use this housing option to release equity from previous properties while downsizing into a community-oriented, affordable, and low-maintenance living environment Dunning et al. (2022).1 In this paper, we explore the financial characteristics of this unique form of housing and investigate how awareness and understanding of a sale commission affect park home owners’ subjective wellbeing.
Chronic housing crisis is a global phenomenon that affects all aspects of housing markets. It means homes are in extremely low supply and high demand, and what is available is often unaffordable, in a poor state of repair or unsuitable for people’s needs. In turn, this leads to a range of negative externalities. Whilst housing crisis affect all ages, older people are often treated as if they are a cause of these problems, as well as prime beneficiaries from exponential growth in house prices. This has led to a growing focus in the rightsizing gap and increasing residential mobility of older people.2
The majority preference across the older population is to live independently in their own home for as long as possible, regardless of disability, ethnicity and level of need (Boyle & Thomson, 2013; Centre for Ageing Better, 2023; Croucher, 2008; Pannell et al., 2012; Read et al., 2019). Older people prioritise aspects, or dimensions, of housing that support aspirations to age in place.3 However, evidence suggests that older people tend to be risk averse when evaluating whether different housing options will meet these fundamental aspirations. Their current home is often perceived as more likely to meet aspirations, while moving is seen, to some extent, as an uncertain or risky prospect (Pannell et al., 2012). Conversely, uncertainty - information asymmetry – about alternative available housing option serves to severely constrain levels of residential mobility amongst older people.4 This impacts older people’s housing aspirations while also having broader negative effects on the housing market.
Information asymmetry has been recognised as a major issue for purchasers across a wide range of housing markets (e.g., Qiu et al., 2020). When buying a home, the vendor typically has a more detailed information set than the purchaser and the search and decision process is particularly complex when compared to other economic goods (MacLennan, 1982). This complexity and asymmetry can give the purchaser a relative disadvantage (e.g., Marsh & Gibb, 2011) and enable the vendor to be selective in the amount of information to disclose (Bian et al., 2023) though this does not always translate to price differentials (e.g., Watkins, 1998). Financial information is distributed unevenly between buyers, for example house price information asymmetry is considered an explanatory variable for why non-local buyers pay more for their home than local buyers (e.g., Kim, 2022; Zhou et al., 2015), particularly in second hand housing markets (e.g., L. Li & Chau, 2024). Similarly, buyers with specialist financial knowledge of housing have been shown to perform advantageously in the housing market than less knowledgeable peers (Lopez, 2021). As housing information can be hard to obtain and complex to process, behavioural interpretations have suggested that home buyers often take cognitive short-cuts to make judgements (e.g., Dunning, 2017). These behavioural interpretations reveal that both information provision and understanding of that information are required for an informed financial decision to take place (e.g., Agarwal et al., 2017; Agarwal & Mazumder, 2013; Perry & Blumenthal, 2012).
Residential decision making is one of the most significant financial decisions affecting quality of life. The major role that housing plays in overall life satisfaction has been widely recognised for a long time (e.g., Dietz & Haurin, 2003; Herbers & Mulder, 2017; G.-R. Park & Kim, 2023; Peck & Stewart, 1985; Rohe & Stegman, 1994), even when residing only temporarily in the home (e.g., Lee & Park, 2010) and accounting for differences in political economy and social structure (e.g., Clapham, 2005; Zavisca & Gerber, 2016).5 Life satisfaction is impacted by housing costs in all housing tenures rather than a limited outcome for owner occupiers (Acolin & Reina, 2022), highlighting the significance of the financial aspects of the housing decision. Home ownership does not imply affluence and financial freedom, as the purchase cost can impinge on owners’ capacity to undertake maintenance and impact quality of life (e.g., Zumbro, 2014), highlighting the significance of making an informed decision at the point of purchase. Yet, to date there has been no research on the impact of this financial information-understanding relationship on home owners’ quality of life post-purchase.
This paper aims to address this gap by taking a particular focus on the impact of information asymmetry within the residential park home sector in England. The residential park home sector is marketed as a relatively luxurious affordable downsizing option for older people who wish to maintain their independence but are constrained by financial factors.6
One of the key dissimilarities between residential park homes and other permanent tenures in England, is the existence of a commission on the sale of the park home. Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended) when a park home owner sells their park home they pay a commission to the site owner. The rate is constrained by an upper threshold, set in legislation at a current maximum level of 10% of the sale price. The commission is usually justified in relation to the new home owner purchasing the joint attributes of the physical structure of the home and the pitch on which it is located.
This commission has drawn strong criticism for trapping residents’ equity and offering no apparent service in return, with campaigners labelling it a “legal theft of equity” and calling for its reduction or abolition (McKiernan, 2025). Meanwhile, site owners argue that the commission is essential income that supports keeping pitch fees lower, helps maintain park operations, and enables continual improvements (Wilson & Cromarty, 2019).7
Drawing on unique data from a comprehensive 2021 survey (N = 1521) of park home residents in England (Dunning et al., 2022), this paper aims to provide primary evidence on how the distinct economics of the park homes sector influence residents’ quality of life. In particular, we explore the degree to which park home residents are cognisant of the existence of a sale commission when purchasing their park home, and how it influences their subjective wellbeing. The implication being that this source of information asymmetry and lack of financial sophistication may have a negative housing outcome for older people which, in turn, may overshadow the potential benefits of park homes such as affordability, lower maintenance, and a supportive community environment, and hence, is likely to dampen mobility.
We find that a clear understanding of the 10% sale commission significantly enhances the life satisfaction of park home owners. Using reduced form ordinal logistic regression analysis and controlling for variables such as income, health, and perceived changes in park quality, our results indicate that park home owners who both knew about and comprehended the commission were significantly more likely to report higher levels of life satisfaction. In contrast, mere awareness of the commission, without a full understanding, did not have a statistically significant effect on life satisfaction. Our findings underscore the critical role of “understanding” financial information in housing markets, extending beyond the mere provision of information to address poor decision quality.8
Our results suggest that policymakers should focus on ensuring genuine understanding of housing market information, rather than merely requiring its disclosure. By enhancing park home buyers’ understanding of key financial information, policymakers can promote better decision-making, improve their housing outcome, and thus enhance their housing mobility.
From a methodological perspective, our comprehensive survey of this non-traditional tenure type addresses the divide between qualitative case studies and quantitative market analysis, which characterises much of the housing research. By capturing detailed data from park home residents, who are often older and financially constrained, our data also notably overcomes the selection biases that frequently under-represent vulnerable populations in housing research (Rolnitsky et al., 2018).
Whilst the 10% commission on park home sales is a unique feature of a niche housing tenure, there are similar acting financial models present in other older people’s housing options. For example, most specialist older peoples housing options apply deferred management fees which are usually charged as a percentage of the resale or market value and only deducted when the property is vacated. While this payment model can reduce ongoing service charges during occupancy, it is frequently embedded in complex lease arrangements and poorly explained at the outset. This opacity has raised consumer protection concerns and prompted recommendations for mandatory early disclosure by regulators and industry bodies (Law Commission, 2017). Learning from this paper will provide insight into the likely effectiveness of such financial models in improving residential mobility and outcomes for older people.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 offers an overview of the park home sector in England. Section 3 outlines theoretical concepts and the conceptual relationships between information provision, understanding, decision-making, and wellbeing. Section 4 describes the data utilised in our analysis, while Section 5 presents the analytical framework and the main results. Finally, Section 6 discusses the contributions and implications of our findings and provides concluding remarks.
2 Park home in England
Park homes are a significant but relatively niche tenure within England. Their history, tenure and construction are distinctive (Niner & Hedges, 1992) and in particular their legal status as chattels rather than dwellings makes for an individual form of home (Bevan, 2010). The term ‘park home’ is the common parlance in the UK for a residential mobile home that is used as a permanent dwelling and is on a ‘pitch’ within a site that the relevant local planning authority has licensed.9 Parks are of various sizes, from just a couple of homes all the way up to hundreds, and are normally operated for profit by the owner of the land (not the home).
The park home owner normally owns the physical structure of their home and the right to locate this mobile home on a pitch, but they have to pay an annual ‘pitch’ fee to the site owner to cover ground rent, maintenance of the common ground in the park and any services provided.
As ‘mobile structures’ the home is classified as a caravan and thus falls under the legal definition of a caravan (under The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and then modified under section 13 of The Caravan Sites Act 1968). Park homes though are different to holiday parks and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller sites, though all are caravans. Park home sites are for permanent residences in contrast to holiday parks, and must have planning permission and a site licence from local government. Park home sites and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller sites tend to be considered separately by local authorities, which have a legal obligation to assess and provide for the needs of Gypsy, Roma and Travellers, but not as a separate classification of housing need for Park Homes. There is also a distinction in the build quality standards required of holiday homes (built to EN1647 standards) and the higher British Standard (BS3632) for residential park homes.
The definition that park homes are ‘mobile’ evidently requires them to be movable (Age, 2020), yet in practice the homes normally appear as permanently sited structures and may look very similar to a traditional ‘bricks and mortar’ bungalow (ODPM, 2002) with their mobile elements (wheels, chassis) hidden behind a brick or wooden ‘skirt’ (Riseborough, 2014).
Whilst the definition of park homes within legislation and national government guidance determines how local authorities, park home site owners and park home owners should operate, there has been concern that in practice definitions have been blurred (BBC, 2012). Whilst the concepts are legally defined, the unique financial attributes of park homes contribute to the complex financial information required to be understood by purchasers.
When a household purchases a park home, they acquire the caravan, but not the land that the home is sited on (i.e. the pitch). The buyer is bound by the legal obligations in a written statement and in the site’s rules, although the right to re-site the caravan to another location and terminate the agreement applies.
When purchasing a park home the purchaser pays 90% of the sale price on completion of the sale, and retains 10% to pay to the site owner (at a time later agreed with the site owner).10 Whilst it is technically possible for the site owner to accept a lower proportion of the sale price, in practice 10% has become normal. The assumption that the commission paid to the site owner will be 10% is so ingrained, that Government fact sheets on the process of buying a park home identify it as a necessity (DCLG, 2013). It is also important to appreciate when the charge falls due, particularly in light of the typical demographic of park home owners. The sales commission is generally payable upon the sale of the park home, which often occurs at a significant life juncture, when the owner can no longer live independently. This timing can impose both emotional and financial strain on the owner or their relatives, who may be coping with complex personal circumstances while also managing the legal and financial implications of the charge.
The 10% commission has been challenged regularly by both park home owners and defended by site owners. Broadly, site owners are in favour of retaining the commission – sometimes using the argument that the value of the home is a reflection of both the structure and the site environment that they create, as such 10%, it is argued, is a fair return for the site owners efforts in maintaining or enhancing the value of the site. Other arguments for retention of the commission include its legitimacy as a payment for the continued loss of use of the land and as a reduction in the on-going pitch fees (MHA Broomfield Alexander, 2018), though both of these arguments lack explanations for why the value was not part of the original transaction.11
On three occasions since 2000, reviews of the 10% commission have considered but not recommended a change to the site owner’s receipt of 10% of the sale price. In 2002, the review by Berkeley Hanover found that “evidence did not support the idea of excessive profits in the sector as a whole” (ODPM, 2002, p. 12), based on a view of price rises, comparative yields, and site profits. Consequently, a reduction in the 10% commission was not carried forward. In 2005, the Government consulted on a reduction to 7.5% but ultimately decided to retain the 10% commission while enhancing the transparency of conditions in the sale of park homes (Wilson & Cromarty, 2019). In 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) argued that without the re-sale commission, pitch fees would have to rise, and the commission provides an incentive for park owners to allow the sale of homes without obstruction (DCLG, 2012). These views were reaffirmed by the Government in 2018 (MHCLG, 2018).
The significance of these intricate observations on the complexity in this unique housing sector relates to broader economic theory on consumer satisfaction relative to information endowments. While there is evidence that consumers experience a greater sense of wellbeing when their purchases are transacted under conditions where they feel well-informed (Zielke, 2008), much of this research has focussed on areas where some degree of market obfuscation is relatively common – such as online markets (e.g., Hossain & Morgan, 2006; Z. Li et al., 2023) and retail finance (e.g., Calvet et al., 2009; Campbell, 2006; Stango & Zinman, 2009, 2011). By contrast, there has been very little research undertaken regarding consumer sentiment in the context of the residential housing market with only a small number of studies focussing primarily on the relationship between potential home buyers and both realtors (e.g., Nahmens & Ikuma, 2009) and mortgage providers (Bone, 2008).
The Park Home sector provides the opportunity to extend this field of enquiry to understand how consumer behaviour and satisfaction function in relation to the acquisition of an asset where there are some unique market characteristics which may, or may not, be fully understood by potential purchasers.
Our review of these studies also provides an important insight into the governance of the park homes sector: the 10% commission has effectively become an accepted feature of the market. Prospective purchasers of park homes are effectively required to understand that transactions in this market are governed by a very different code of market conduct than all other dwellings in the UK. Moreover, despite several significant studies into the park homes sector over the past twenty years, the one voice that is not clearly represented is that of the park home residents themselves: to what extent are the peculiar characteristics of the park homes sector well-understood by prospective purchasers?
3 Information, understanding and park life
Given the unique characteristics of the 10% sale commission and its importance to park home owners’ financial wellbeing, in remaining sections we aim to empirically understand how the provision of information and transparency regarding this sale commission affect park home owners’ life satisfaction. To this end, we utilise a large-scale survey of English park home residents conducted in 2021 as part of a project commissioned by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Dunning et al., 2022).
3.1 Information, decision and satisfaction
At an intuitive and theoretical level, being well-informed is closely associated with sound decision-making, and by extension, positively contributes to subjective wellbeing, commonly referred to as happiness or satisfaction. Literature from various fields supports this notion. For instance, it has been well documented that individuals who are knowledgeable about their finances and health often report higher levels of satisfaction and wellbeing (e.g., Bai, 2023; Davis & Friedrich, 2004; Suh et al., 2012).
Information plays an essential role when the mind applies logic, statistics, or heuristics to make a decision (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011). There are multiple channels through which being well-informed improves decision quality and satisfaction. For example, clear and transparent information helps set realistic expectations, fosters trust and reduces uncertainty, leading to higher satisfaction among decision-makers (e.g., Oliver, 1980; Rawlins, 2008).
Relatedly, accurate and easily understandable information can give decision markers a greater sense of engagement and control, and help them better prepare for the decision-making process (e.g., Schulz & Nakamoto, 2013; Zimmerman, 1995). Moreover, clear and straightforward information also reduces cognitive overload and behavioural biases, allows for better comprehension, and facilitates more efficient and effective decision-making processes (e.g., Simon, 1955; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
However, information at times can also be ambiguous, contradictory, or not easily comprehensible. This state may impact decision quality and satisfaction in various ways, often negatively, due to increased cognitive load, uncertainty, confusion and stress (e.g., Allen et al., 2014; Camerer & Weber, 1992; Porcelli & Delgado, 2017; Rüb, 2016).
In summary, access to adequate and clear information is expected to empower individuals, reduce uncertainty and cognitive overload, set realistic expectations, result in higher quality decisions, and ultimately lead to higher satisfaction, whereas lack of information or ambiguous information may lead to suboptimal decisions and lower satisfaction.
3.2 Information provision of the 10% sale commission and park home life
Empirically, the link between information and satisfaction has been studied in various specific contexts such as medicine, education, and e-commerce (e.g., Alterkait & Alduaij, 2024; Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2015; Husson et al., 2011; Quiroga Gutierrez & Boes, 2024). Little, however, is known in the context of house purchasing, in particular, in relation to park homes. Following the above theoretical discussion, we hypothesise that the provision of information about the 10% sale commission is positively associated with park home residents’ subjective wellbeing.
An important feature of our survey design is that it also collects responses about the clarity of the information provided. Indeed, the quality of information provided can vary across different park operators. For example, some park home buyers may receive information about the commission in a clear and transparent manner, while others may not. We hypothesise that clarity of information provided is critical for the positive association between information provision and park home residents’ subjective wellbeing.
Existing literature extensively shows that subjective wellbeing (or life satisfaction) is positively associated with both income and health.12 While the link between income and life satisfaction has been robustly established in the literature (Boes & Winkelmann, 2010; Deaton, 2008), Boodoo et al. (2014) investigate and confirm this correlation specifically in older adults, a demographic group that overlaps the majority of park home residents. Likewise, the essential role of good health in life satisfaction has long been established in the literature (Okun et al., 1984; Palmore & Luikart, 1972). Recent studies have strengthened our understanding of the bi-directional association between health and life satisfaction (e.g., Smith et al., 2005; Steptoe et al., 2015; Veenhoven, 2008).
Considering the demonstrable importance of income and health to life satisfaction, park home-owners’ self-reported income and health status will be used as control variables in our study of information provision and information quality regarding the 10% sale commission. We also expect life satisfaction are positively associated with income and good health.
Finally, we also control for the perceived changes in the quality of the park home site to further isolate the effect of information provision and information quality on park home owners’ general life satisfaction.
4 Data
4.1 Park home resident survey
Our survey consists of two parts: a postal survey of park home residents and an online version aimed at reaching additional participants. The postal component employed a stratified sampling approach to gather data from 5,000 park home residents. Park homes were identified using the Postcode Address File and stratified based on site location (region) and park size (small, medium, and large sites).13 The online version was promoted by park home residents’ associations and the Park Homes Policy Forum to maximise reach.
Broadly, the survey, which is reproduced as an online appendix, encompasses the following themes:
- Socio demographic information about the resident and their household
- Information about their park home and the park
- Their awareness of the 10% commission
- Their perceived reaction to potential changes in the commission
In total, the survey received 1,566 responses, consisting of 1,092 paper responses and 474 online responses. Following this, nine responses were eliminated from the online survey where responses were either duplicated or two residents from the same home had participated. Additionally, 16 completely blank responses were excluded.
In the subsequent analysis, the responses were refined by focusing on those who owned their park home, leading to the removal of 13 respondents who rented their homes and 7 who did not answer the ownership question. This refined dataset thus comprised 1,521 park home-owners, representing 99% of the valid responses received. The survey is notably extensive, marked by a higher response rate compared to many similar surveys, and serves as a substantial primary data source for the nationwide analysis of the park home sector.
4.2 Data preparation
To facilitate the analysis of our main empirical questions, we utilise the following questions from the survey.14
Question 13: How has the overall quality of the park, including park features and amenities, changed in the past five years / since you moved onto the park? Response options include “Improved a lot”, “Improved”, “About the same”, “Worse” or “A lot worse”.
From this question, we create a variable named park_quality, with responses coded as 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0, correspondingly.15
Question 20: When you moved onto this park was it made clear to you that a commission could be charged if you sold your park home? Response options include “I was made aware of it and it was clear”, “I was made aware of it, but it was not very clear”, “I was not made aware of it”, or “Don’t know/can’t remember”.
From these options we create two dummy variables called informed and understood. If the response is “I was made aware of it and it was clear”, both variables take the value of 1; If the response is “I was made aware of it, but it was not very clear”, informed is coded 1, but understood is coded 0. If the response is “I was not made aware of it”, both variables take the value of 0. Note that within the context of this paper, we use “clear” and “understood” interchangeably. We exclude “Don’t know/can’t remember” responses from the analysis.
Question 27: What is your total gross household income? Response options include annual income of “Up to £10,399”, “£10,400 up to £15,599”, “£15,600 up to £20,799”, “£20,800 up to £25,999”, “£26,000 up to £31,199”, “£31,200 up to £36,399”, “£36,400 up to £41,599”, “£41,600 up to £46,799”, “£46,800 up to £51,999”, “£52,000 or more”, and “Prefer not to say”.
These options are coded in ascending order from 0 to 9, excluding “Prefer not to say” responses. This variable is named income.
Question 29: Overall, on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is “not at all” and 10 is “completely”, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
These responses are coded accordingly using their scale points, and the variable is named life_satisfaction. It is worth noting that the length of time between a respondent’s purchase of a park home and their completion of the survey varies across participants. Some respondents may have purchased their home quite recently, while others may have done so several years ago.
Question 31: Do you have any health problems or disabilities that you expect will last for more than a year? Response options include “Yes” or “No”.
From these options we create a dummy variable named health where “Yes” coded as 0 and “No” is coded as 1. Note that the severity of any health problems or disabilities is not covered by the scope of the question.
Since life satisfaction is measured on an 11-point Likert scale and because of well-documented problems associated with cardinal treatment of ordinal variables (e.g., Schröder & Yitzhaki, 2017), we employ an ordinal logistic regression model to estimate the relationship between life satisfaction and the independent variables (e.g., Kahana et al., 2013). While responses to Question 13 are also on a Likert scale, for simplicity, we treat it as an interval scale to avoid creating too many dummy variables.
After excluding observations with missing values for any of the aforementioned questions and responses where participants answered “Don’t know/can’t remember” for Question 20 or ‘Prefer not to say’ for Question 27, our dataset comprises 874 observations. These observations contain valid information for life_satisfaction, park_quality, income, health, and our main variables of interest, informed and understood.
4.3 Summary statistics
| count | mode | mode freq. | mean | std | min | 50% | max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| life_satisfaction | 874 | 8 | 174 | 7.09 | 2.33 | 0 | 8 | 10 |
| park_quality | 874 | 2 | 417 | 1.65 | 0.95 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| income | 874 | 1 | 242 | 2.27 | 1.79 | 0 | 2 | 9 |
| health | 874 | 0 | 563 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| informed | 874 | 1 | 727 | 0.83 | 0.37 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| understood | 874 | 1 | 513 | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Table 1 presents summary statistics for the variables in our dataset. The first three variables in the table are categorical but have been converted into interval scale per the rules outlined in Section 4.2. The remaining variables are binary dummy variables.
Among our sample of 874 participants, the most common response for life satisfaction, chosen by 174 participants, is 8 on a scale from 0 to 10. This indicates a general contentment with life among park home owners, as also evidenced by the median (50%) choice being 8. The most frequent response for changes in park quality is 2, corresponding to “About the same.” However, with a mean value below 2, on average there is a slight perceived decrease in park quality for the participants. The most popular income range selected by the participants is 1, corresponding to “£10,400 up to £15,599,” while the median income range is 2, or “£15,600 up to £20,799.”
Regarding health, 563 out of 874 participants reported having health problems or disabilities expected to last more than a year. This relatively low reported health status is likely influenced by the high average age of park home owners, compared to the general population.
Among the 874 participants, 727 confirmed being made aware of that a commission could be charged if they sold their park home. This suggests that most participants have been given certain level of information regarding the commission. However, only 513 of these 727 participants agreed that this sale commission was clear to them. This implies that 214 of the 727 participants were aware of the sale commission but did not fully understand it. Overall, 83% of respondents were aware of the sale commission, with 59% of them reporting that it was clear to them.16
5 Empirical analysis
5.1 Ordinal logistic regression
To explore the relationship between life satisfaction and information regarding the sale commission, we employ an ordinal logistic regression model due to the ordered nature of the categorical dependent variable, life satisfaction. Following standard practice (Agresti, 2013; McCullagh, 1980), we formulate the empirical model as follows. Let \(Y\) be an ordinal response variable representing life satisfaction for park home owners, \(X\) a vector of covariates including income, health, park_quality, informed and understood, and finally \(P(Y \leq y_j | X)\) the probability that \(Y\) is less than or equal to the threshold for category \(j\), \(y_j\), given \(X\). The ordinal logistic regression model is given by: \[ \begin{aligned} \log\left(\frac{P(Y \leq y_j)}{1-P(Y \leq y_j)}\right) = & \alpha_j - \beta_1 \cdot \text{income} - \beta_2 \cdot \text{health} - \beta_3 \cdot \text{park\_quality} \\ & - \beta_4 \cdot \text{informed} - \beta_5 \cdot \text{understood}, \, j = 1, \ldots, 10. \end{aligned} \tag{1}\]
In Equation 1, the log odds of the unobserved latent variable being below threshold \(y_j\) versus being above \(y_j\) is explained by the set of explanatory variables available in our dataset. The parameters \(\alpha_j\) represent the cutpoints and increase in order. It’s important to note that this model incorporates a negative sign for the beta coefficients, so a positive \(\beta\) indicates that as the value of the explanatory variable increases, the likelihood of a higher category increases. For example, a positive \(\beta_1\) suggests that being in a higher income group is associated with a higher likelihood that life satisfaction is observed in a higher category.
5.2 Results
Table 2 presents the primary outcomes of the ordinal logistic regression analysis. To underscore the respective importance of information provision and clarity, we present three models. Model (1) as defined by Equation (1) incorporates both informed and understood as explanatory variables. In contrast, the second model includes only informed, while the third model features only understood, alongside the control variables.
Model (1) reveals that understood, reflecting both awareness and clarity regarding the 10% sale commission, significantly boosts life satisfaction. This effect persists even after controlling for income, health, park_quality, and the dummy variable informed, representing mere awareness of the commission. Note that, the impact of informed loses statistical significance in the presence of understood. This underscores that while awareness is necessary, a clear understanding of the commission is pivotal for enhancing park home owners’ life satisfaction.
Specifically, the odds of achieving a higher life satisfaction score are approximately 70% higher (\(e^{0.59-0.06} \approx 1.70\)) for park home owners who were made aware of and fully understood the 10% sale commission compared to those who were not made unaware of it. Similarly, these odds increase by about 80% (\(e^{0.59} \approx 1.80\)) for park home owners who were made aware of and fully understood the 10% sale commission compared to those who were made aware of but did not fully understand it. Interestingly, this finding implies that compared to ignorance, confusion negatively influences life satisfaction, although the effect is not statistically significant.
However, the fact that merely being aware of but not fully understanding the commission does not significantly alter the odds compared to being unaware of it is worth emphasizing.17 \(\beta_4\) in Model (1) is not statistically significant, suggesting that merely being informed of the commission is not sufficient in improving park home owners’ life satisfaction. This underscores the importance of clarity in information provision, as highlighted by the significant effect of understood.
The second model in Table 2 examines the estimated effect of information provision without considering its effectiveness in creating a clear understanding of the commission. This highlights the potential misinterpretation of solely focusing on information provision without addressing clarity. As made clear by a comparison with Model (1), the significant effect of informed in this model is driven by its correlation with the clarity variable understood. Drawing policy recommendations based on this misspecified model would be misleading.
The third model in Table 2 excludes informed from the analysis, reinforcing that clarity regarding the sale commission primarily drives the positive association between information and life satisfaction. The estimated effect of understood remains positive, statistically significant, and comparable in magnitude to that in Model (1).
The effects of income, health, and park_quality on the log odds remain consistent across the three models presented in Table 2. Notably, a one-category increase in income is associated with approximately 20% higher odds (\(e^{0.18} \approx 1.20\)) of achieving a higher life satisfaction score. Similarly, good health is associated with about 77% higher odds (\(e^{0.57} \approx 1.77\)) of a higher life satisfaction score, while a perceived increase in park quality by one category corresponds to about 60% higher odds (\(e^{0.47} \approx 1.60\)) of achieving a higher life satisfaction score. However, these effects should be interpreted with caution, considering that both income and park_quality are ordinal categorical variables in nature.
5.3 Robustness
In the baseline Model (1), we used Question 13 as a control for changes in park quality. However, it is reasonable to argue that both the level of park quality and changes in that quality may influence park home owners’ life satisfaction. While we do not have a direct measure of overall park quality levels, in this section we make use of responses to Question 12 to account for several aspects of residents’ park life, some of which are related to specific dimensions of park quality.
- Question 12: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following aspects of your park home and park?
- Maintenance/upkeep of the park
- Facilities provided at the park
- Park owner/manager/operator
- Value for Money from your pitch fee
- Other park home residents
- Your park home accommodation overall
| Dependent variable: life_satisfaction | ||||
| Model (1) | Operator | Overall Accom. | All | |
| income | 0.19*** | 0.19*** | 0.18*** | 0.19*** |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | |
| health | 0.60*** | 0.58*** | 0.64*** | 0.59*** |
| (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.13) | |
| park_quality | 0.46*** | 0.34*** | 0.34*** | 0.24*** |
| (0.07) | (0.09) | (0.07) | (0.09) | |
| informed | -0.09 | -0.11 | -0.14 | -0.13 |
| (0.19) | (0.19) | (0.19) | (0.19) | |
| understood | 0.60*** | 0.55*** | 0.45*** | 0.34** |
| (0.15) | (0.15) | (0.15) | (0.15) | |
| maintenance | -0.11 | |||
| (0.08) | ||||
| facilities | 0.15* | |||
| (0.08) | ||||
| operator | 0.14** | -0.02 | ||
| (0.06) | (0.08) | |||
| pitch_fee_value | 0.24*** | |||
| (0.07) | ||||
| other_residents | 0.29*** | |||
| (0.07) | ||||
| accom_overall | 0.69*** | 0.54*** | ||
| (0.08) | (0.09) | |||
| 0/1 | -2.87*** | -2.86*** | -1.24*** | -0.76* |
| (0.35) | (0.35) | (0.39) | (0.41) | |
| 1/2 | -0.41 | -0.41 | -0.39 | -0.39 |
| (0.32) | (0.32) | (0.32) | (0.32) | |
| 2/3 | -0.68** | -0.67** | -0.66** | -0.64** |
| (0.28) | (0.28) | (0.28) | (0.28) | |
| 3/4 | -0.15 | -0.15 | -0.10 | -0.08 |
| (0.16) | (0.16) | (0.16) | (0.15) | |
| 4/5 | -0.66*** | -0.66*** | -0.57*** | -0.56*** |
| (0.15) | (0.15) | (0.15) | (0.15) | |
| 5/6 | -0.42*** | -0.41*** | -0.34*** | -0.32*** |
| (0.11) | (0.11) | (0.11) | (0.11) | |
| 6/7 | -0.53*** | -0.52*** | -0.47*** | -0.45*** |
| (0.10) | (0.10) | (0.10) | (0.10) | |
| 7/8 | -0.43*** | -0.42*** | -0.36*** | -0.34*** |
| (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.09) | (0.09) | |
| 8/9 | -0.11 | -0.10 | -0.05 | -0.02 |
| (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
| 9/10 | 0.19** | 0.19** | 0.22*** | 0.25*** |
| (0.08) | (0.08) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
| Observations | 816 | 816 | 816 | 816 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Note: | *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01 | |||
After excluding observations with missing values for any of these 6 variables, our dataset comprises 816 observations. Table 3 presents the results of the ordinal logistic regression analysis using this refined dataset. In addition to the baseline Model (1), the second column includes a variation of the model with operator added as an extra control variable. Compared to the results in Table 2, Model (1) produces similar coefficients for informed and understood. When operator is included as a control, the estimated effect of understood decreases while operator has a significant and positive effect on life satisfaction. This aligns with intuition: park home owners’ satisfaction with park owner/manager/operator is positively associated with their subjective wellbeing. Importantly, however, our main finding remains robust. The effect of informed remains statistically insignificant, while the effect of understood continues to be positive and statistically significant.
The third column in Table 3 includes accom_overall instead of operator as an additional control. A similar conclusion can be made: park home owners’ overall satisfaction with their accommodation has a significant and positive effect on subject wellbeing. Meanwhile, the effect of informed remains statistically insignificant, and the effect of understood continues to be positive and statistically significant.
Finally, in the fourth column we include all 6 additional variables from Question 12 as controls. Notably, the effects of pitch_fee_value, other_residents, and accom_overall are all positive and statistically significant, indicating that park home owners’ satisfaction with value for money from their pitch fee, their fellow park home residents, and their overall park home accommodation positively contributes to their life satisfaction. However, only facilities aspect of the three specific park quality dimensions has a significant effect on life satisfaction, while the effects of maintenance and operator are statistically insignificant.18 Importantly, we once again confirm that the effect of informed remains statistically insignificant, whereas the effect of understood remains positive and statistically significant.
6 Conclusion
Increasing housing mobility and housing options for older people has emerged as a key housing policy objective. Whilst many older people are satisfied and well served in their home, for others enabling moves is key to addressing the rightsizing gap and ensuring older people are living in affordable accommodation, that is in a good state of repair and warmth and that is suitable for their needs – including with the use of adaptations. The evidence on current levels of mobility is clear: a small minority of older people move each year; yet far more people express an intention or interest in moving. Older people have a strong priority to age in place. This means they are willing to move if it would allow them to maintain independence and wellbeing in the home, control and choice, safety, a sense of community and belonging, social networks and interactions. Older people want to live in housing that provides ready access to amenities, leisure facilities and green space, and is close to friends and family. Despite this willingness to move constraints on levels of mobility include affordability, risk aversion and information asymmetry.
Applying ordinal logistic regression analysis of unique data from a comprehensive 2021 survey of park home residents in England (Dunning et al., 2022), this paper demonstrates that a clear understanding of the 10% sale commission significantly enhances the life satisfaction of park home residents in England. However, the mere awareness of the commission’s existence does not have the same positive impact on wellbeing. Park home owners who were both informed about and understood the implications of the commission experienced approximately 70% greater probability of reporting higher levels of life satisfaction compared to those lacking such understanding.
Our research underscores the critical role of information transparency and consumer comprehension in shaping resident experiences and wellbeing. Previous studies have shown that across diverse markets - ranging from everyday food products to complex financial services - information provision often proves ineffective (Lacko & Pappalardo, 2010), and may indeed generate confusion and lead to market inefficiencies (Green & Armstrong, 2012; Gu & Wenzel, 2020; Woodward & Hall, 2010, 2012). Our analysis extends this literature by revealing that merely providing key financial information proves insufficient to enhance residents’ welfare in the park home sector. Rather, it is the quality of information comprehension that materially influences residents’ outcomes. This is particularly important given that park home owners tend to be in an age group frequently associated with lower financial literacy (Lusardi et al., 2014) and heightened susceptibility to behavioural biases that may impede sound decision-making (Angrisani & Lee, 2019). The significance of these findings is likely to extend beyond the specific case of English park homes, contributing to broader debates on information asymmetry in housing markets - an issue that transcends geographical boundaries and market sectors.
Our results lead to several key implications for understanding the interplay between information asymmetry, consumer behaviour, and wellbeing in housing markets. Firstly, it is clearly important for issues of resident satisfaction and consumer protection to ensure that all prospective park home residents are made fully aware of the terms of the 10% commission. Moreover, it may be necessary for prospective park home residents to be supported in arriving at a clear and full understanding of the 10% commission. Our research shows that having the relevant information may not be sufficient – park home residents need to fully comprehend the implications of the 10% commission. Positive housing outcomes in the park home sector will support older people’s aspirations to age in place. This includes aspirations to live independently, maintain wellbeing, exercise choice and control, be an active member of society, contribute to family life, not feel like a ‘burden’, and have good relationships with neighbours.
Our study also reveals how unique market features, like the 10% commission in park homes, require targeted information strategies to ensure consumer protection and satisfaction. This observation may inform policy development in other housing contexts with similarly distinctive characteristics. Moreover, ensuring transparency and fostering clear understanding of the ongoing charges associated with park homes, such as pitch fees, utility costs and insurance, is essential for achieving positive housing outcomes.
In the context of rightsizing, defined as older adults’ active, positive choice to move to housing that better suits their needs and lifestyle, a clear understanding of financial implications can reduce informational barriers to mobility. Rightsizing is under utilised, with many older adults remaining in unsuitable homes until crisis strikes, often due to a shortage of suitable housing options and limited understanding of available options (Beach, 2021; Pannell et al., 2012). Enhancing transparency and comprehension of costs in the park home sector can help older individuals make informed, confidence driven housing transitions, facilitating smoother, well-timed moves that improve quality of life.
Using the 10% commission as case study in the English park home context, this paper contributes to a broader understanding of how information and comprehension asymmetries affect housing markets globally. Our findings provide learning to wider housing policy discussions, beyond this unique aspect of this niche housing sector. For instance, the use of deferred management fees which are commonplace in the financial models of specialist older persons housing options to improve their affordability. As well as manufactured home estates in Australia and the US – conceptually similar to park homes – whereby residents purchase dwellings but encounter ongoing fees for the right to occupy land (Durst & Sullivan, 2019; Towart & Ruming, 2022). Without targeted information strategies these financial models are likely to lead to negative housing outcomes for residents (reducing wellbeing) as well as being reducing their effectiveness in stimulating residential mobility.
For future research, it is important to note that while the survey data provides rich insights into park home residents’ experiences, it is based on self-reported information. Future studies should incorporate administrative and/or market data to complement survey findings when available. Additionally, given the limitations of the current reduced-form analysis and the absence of a set of relevant control variables such as residents’ gender, age, education, etc., further investigation is needed to explore the mechanisms through which a lack of understanding influences residents’ long-term financial wellbeing and overall quality of life.
It is important to recognise that numerous additional factors, such as community engagement, stress levels, and personal resilience, undoubtedly influence participants’ subjective assessments of life satisfaction. Furthermore, potential endogeneity must be considered. For example, individuals with higher life satisfaction may be more likely to recall and interpret information about the commission positively, potentially biasing the observed associations. Addressing these complexities will require different research design and appropriate data in future studies.
Finally and more broadly, this paper has contributed to a more nuanced understanding of housing markets. We highlight the need to address information asymmetry, particularly for vulnerable populations, and advocate for policies and practices that prioritise consumer comprehension and wellbeing, such as standardised information disclosure processes mandated in most banking and retail finance markets, along with mechanisms to check and verify home buyers’ clear understanding of key costs, ultimately paving the way for a more just and sustainable housing system.
References
Acolin, A., & Reina, V. (2022). Housing cost burden and life satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(4), 1789–1815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09921-1
Agarwal, S., Ben-David, I., & Yao, V. (2017). Systematic mistakes in the mortgage market and lack of financial sophistication. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.01.028
Agarwal, S., & Mazumder, B. (2013). Cognitive Abilities and Household Financial Decision Making. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(1), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.1.193
Age, U. K. (2020). Factsheet 71: Park homes. https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs71_park_homes_fcs.pdf
Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical Data Analysis (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Allen, P. M., Edwards, J. A., Snyder, F. J., Makinson, K. A., & Hamby, D. M. (2014). The effect of cognitive load on decision making with graphically displayed uncertainty information. Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 34(8), 1495–1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12161
Alterkait, M. A., & Alduaij, M. Y. (2024). Impact of Information Quality on Satisfaction with E-Learning Platforms: Moderating Role of Instructor and Learner Quality. Sage Open, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241233400
Angrisani, M., & Lee, J. (2019). Cognitive Decline and Household Financial Decisions at Older Ages. Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 13, 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2018.03.003
Arrigoitia, M. F., & West, K. (2021). Interdependence, commitment, learning and love: The case of the United Kingdom’s first older women’s co-housing community. Ageing & Society, 41(7), 1673–1696. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X19001673
Bai, R. (2023). Impact of financial literacy, mental budgeting and self control on financial wellbeing: Mediating impact of investment decision making. PLOS ONE, 18(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294466
Bäumker, T., Callaghan, L., Darton, R., Holder, J., Netten, A., & Towers, A.-M. (2012). Deciding to move into extra care housing: Residents’ views. Ageing & Society, 32(7), 1215–1245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X11000869
BBC. (2012). Mobile home residents ’out of pocket’, says a watchdog. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-19937131
Beach, B. (2016). Generation stuck: Exploring the reality of downsizing in later life. McCarthy and Stone & International Longevity Centre UK. https://ilcuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Generation-Stuck.pdf
Beach, B. (2021). What we want: Future-proofing retirement housing in England. International Longevity Centre UK. https://ilcuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ILC-What-we-want-FINAL-5.pdf
Bevan, M. (2010). Retirement lifestyles in a niche housing market: Park-home living in England. Ageing & Society, 30(6), 965–985. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10000176
Bian, X., Contat, J. C., Waller, B. D., & Wentland, S. A. (2023). Why Disclose Less Information? Toward Resolving a Disclosure Puzzle in the Housing Market. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 66(2), 443–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-021-09824-6
Boes, S., & Winkelmann, R. (2010). The Effect of Income on General Life Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 95(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9452-7
Bone, P. F. (2008). Toward a General Model of Consumer Empowerment and Welfare in Financial Markets with an Application to Mortgage Servicers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008.00103.x
Boodoo, U. M. A., Gomez, R., & Gunderson, M. (2014). Relative income, absolute income and the life satisfaction of older adults: Do retirees differ from the non-retired? Industrial Relations Journal, 45(4), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12052
Boyle, F., & Thomson, C. (2013). Housing an ageing population: Implications for managing the social housing stock. Proceedings 29th Annual Association of Researchers in Construction Management Conference. ARCOM.
Bunce, D. (2010). Relocatable Homes: Medieval Tenure in the 21st Century? Urban Policy and Research, 28(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2010.496714
Calvet, L. E., Campbell, J. Y., & Sodini, P. (2009). Measuring the Financial Sophistication of Households. American Economic Review, 99(2), 393–398. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25592430
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 325–370. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41755006
Campbell, J. Y. (2006). Household Finance. Journal of Finance, 61(4), 1553–1604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00883.x
Centre for Ageing Better. (2023). Locked out: A New Perspective on Older People’s Housing Choices. https://ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-08/locked-out-presentation.pdf
Clapham, D. (2005). The meaning of housing: A pathways approach (1st ed.). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgmwd
Cromarty, H., & Wilson, W. (2023). Mobile (park) homes. House of Commons Library: Research Briefing, Number CBP01080. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01080/SN01080.pdf
Croucher, K. (2008). Housing Choices and Aspirations of Older People - Research from the New Horizons Programme. Centre for Housing Policy, University of York.
Davies, L. E., Brittain, K., Wilkinson, H., Lewis, S., Robinson, L., & Kingston, A. (2022). Describing transitions in residential status over 10 years in the very old: Results from the Newcastle 85+ Study. Age and Ageing, 51(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afac056
Davis, N. C., & Friedrich, D. (2004). Knowledge of Aging and Life Satisfaction among Older Adults. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 59(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.2190/U9WD-M79K-9HB8-G9JY
Dawkins, C. J., & Koebel, C. T. (2009). Overcoming Barriers to Placing Manufactured Housing in Metropolitan Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360903401052
DCLG. (2012). Park homes: Government response to the house of commons communities and local government committee’s first report of session 2012-13. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a790ab640f0b676f4a7d691/2192400.pdf
DCLG. (2013). Buying a park home - fact sheet. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6128f0528fa8f53dcb9478f1/150217_Buying_a_home.pdf
Deaton, A. (2008). Income, Health, and Well-Being around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.53
Dunning, R. (2017). Competing Notions of Search for Home: Behavioural Economics and Housing Markets. Housing, Theory and Society, 34(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2016.1190784
Dunning, R., Gu, Y., Lord, A., Moore, T., Macdonald, J., & Wilson, I. (2022). The Impact of a Change in the Maximum Park Home Sale Commission. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1083506/Park_Homes_Research_Report.pdf
Durst, N. J., & Sullivan, E. (2019). The Contribution of Manufactured Housing to Affordable Housing in the United States: Assessing Variation Among Manufactured Housing Tenures and Community Types. Housing Policy Debate, 29(6), 880–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2019.1605534
Ghasemaghaei, M., & Hassanein, K. (2015). Online information quality and consumer satisfaction: The moderating roles of contextual factors – A meta-analysis. Information & Management, 52(8), 965–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.07.001
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
Government Office for Science. (2016). Future of an ageing population. The Government Office for Science. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/816458/future-of-an-ageing-population.pdf
Green, K. C., & Armstrong, J. S. (2012). Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Disclaimers in Advertising. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.12.053
Gu, Y., & Wenzel, T. (2020). Curbing obfuscation: Empower consumers or regulate firms? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 70, 102582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2020.102582
Hammond, M., Walsh, S., & White, S. (2018). RIGHTSIZING: Reframing the housing offer for older people. Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA)/PHASE @ Manchester School of Architecture. https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/621554/1/Rightsizing_MSA_Final2.pdf
Herbers, D. J., & Mulder, C. H. (2017). Housing and subjective well-being of older adults in Europe. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32(3), 533–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-016-9526-1
Hillcoat-Nallétamby, S., & Ogg, J. (2014). Moving beyond “ageing in place”: Older people’s dislikes about their home and neighbourhood environments as a motive for wishing to move. Ageing & Society, 34(10), 1771–1796. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X13000482
Hossain, T., & Morgan, J. (2006)...Plus Shipping and Handling: Revenue (Non) Equivalence in Field Experiments on eBay. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 6(2). https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2202/1538-0637.1429/html
Husson, O., Mols, F., & Van De Poll-Franse, L. V. (2011). The relation between information provision and health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression among cancer survivors: A systematic review. Annals of Oncology, 22(4), 761–772. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq413
Kahana, E., Bhatta, T., Lovegreen, L. D., Kahana, B., & Midlarsky, E. (2013). Altruism, Helping, and Volunteering: Pathways to Well-Being in Late Life. Journal of Aging and Health, 25(1), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264312469665
Kim, H. (2022). Heterogeneous effects of information disclosure: Evidence from housing markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 195, 359–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.01.017
King, E., Luff, R., Sheikh, S., & Templeton, F. (2021). A place we can call home: A vision and a roadmap for providing more options for housing with care and support for older people. Social Care Institute for Excellence. https://www.scie.org.uk/housing/role-of-housing/place-we-can-call-home/
Lacko, J. M., & Pappalardo, J. K. (2010). The Failure and Promise of Mandated Consumer Mortgage Disclosures: Evidence from Qualitative Interviews and a Controlled Experiment with Mortgage Borrowers. American Economic Review, 100(2), 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.516
Law Commission. (2017). Event Fees in Retirement Properties Summary (373). https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/OtherOrganisation/Event-fees-in-retirement-properties-summary.pdf
Lee, E., & Park, N.-K. (2010). Housing Satisfaction and Quality of Life Among Temporary residents in the United States. Housing and Society, 37(1), 43–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2010.11430580
Li, L., & Chau, K. W. (2024). Information Asymmetry with Heterogeneous Buyers and Sellers in the Housing Market. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 68(1), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-023-09939-y
Li, Z., Zhao, X., & Ou, G. (2023). Understanding customer satisfaction in curated subscription services: Moderating roles of subscription time and information disclosure. Information & Management, 60(6), 103834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103834
Lopez, L. A. (2021). Asymmetric information and personal affiliations in brokered housing transactions. Real Estate Economics, 49(2), 459–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12325
Lusardi, A., Mitchell, O. S., & Curto, V. (2014). Financial literacy and financial sophistication in the older population. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 13(4), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747214000031
MacLennan, D. (1982). Housing Economics: An Applied Approach. Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.
Maddux, J. E. (2017). Subjective Well-Being and Life Satisfaction: An Introduction to Conceptions, Theories, and Measures. In Subjective Well-Being and Life Satisfaction. Routledge.
Marsh, A., & Gibb, K. (2011). Uncertainty, Expectations and Behavioural Aspects of Housing Market Choices. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2011.599182
McCullagh, P. (1980). Regression Models for Ordinal Data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 42(2), 109–142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2984952
McKiernan, J. (2025). PM urged to end ’legal theft’ from park home owners. In BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74qeq71q25o.
MHA Broomfield Alexander. (2018). Consultation on residential park homes commission rate. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2018-05/180524-park-homes-commission-rate-consulation-report.pdf
MHCLG. (2018). Review of park homes legislation: Call for evidence – part 1 and 2: Government response. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bc9b094ed915d660546da8e/Park_homes_Review_Government_response.pdf
Nahmens, I., & Ikuma, L. H. (2009). Discovering the variables that influence new home-buyer service satisfaction. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(5), 581–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00801.x
Niner, P., & Hedges, A. (1992). The mobile homes survey. Department of the Environment.
ODPM. (2002). Economics of the Park Homes Industry. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.housingcare.org/downloads/kbase/2024.pdf
Okun, M. A., Stock, W. A., Haring, M. J., & Witter, R. A. (1984). Health and Subjective Well-Being: A Meta-Analyis. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 19(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.2190/QGJN-0N81-5957-HAQD
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150499
Palmore, E., & Luikart, C. (1972). Health and Social Factors Related to Life Satisfaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 13(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136974
Pannell, J., Aldridge, H., & Kenway, P. (2012). Market Assessment of Housing Options for Older People. New Policy Institute.
Park, A., & Ziegler, F. (2016). A Home for Life? A Critical Perspective on Housing Choice for “Downsizers” in the UK. Architecture_MPS, 9(1, 1). https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/amps/article/id/918/
Park, G.-R., & Kim, J. (2023). Trajectories of Life Satisfaction Before and After Homeownership: The Role of Housing Affordability Stress. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(1), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00601-7
Peck, C., & Stewart, K. K. (1985). Satisfaction with Housing and Quality of Life. Home Economics Research Journal, 13(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X8501300403
Perry, V. G., & Blumenthal, P. M. (2012). Understanding the Fine Print: The Need for Effective Testing of Mandatory Mortgage Loan Disclosures. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.12.055
Porcelli, A. J., & Delgado, M. R. (2017). Stress and Decision Making: Effects on Valuation, Learning, and Risk-taking. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 14, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.11.015
Porteus, J. (2018). Rural housing for an ageing population: Preserving Independence. All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Housing; Care for Older People. https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Support_materials/Reports/HAPPI-4-Rural-Housing-for-an-Ageing-Population.pdf
Qiu, L., Tu, Y., & Zhao, D. (2020). Information asymmetry and anchoring in the housing market: A stochastic frontier approach. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 35(2), 573–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09701-y
Quiroga Gutierrez, A. C., & Boes, S. (2024). Bridging the gap: Experimental evidence on information provision and health insurance choices. Health Economics, 33(6), 1368–1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4820
Rawlins, B. R. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/885
Read, J., Cable, S., Löfqvist, C., Iwarsson, S., Bartl, G., & Schrag, A. (2019). Experiences of health services and unmet care needs of people with late-stage Parkinson’s in England: A qualitative study. PLOS ONE, 14(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226916
Riseborough, M. (2014). Park home living - a good housing option for later life? https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Support_materials/Viewpoints/HLIN_Viewpoint67_ParkHomes.pdf
Rohe, W. M., & Stegman, M. A. (1994). The Effects of Homeownership: On the Self-Esteem, Perceived Control and Life Satisfaction of Low-Income People. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369408975571
Rolnitsky, A., Kirtsman, M., Goldberg, H. R., Dunn, M., & Bell, C. M. (2018). The representation of vulnerable populations in quality improvement studies. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 30(4), 244–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy016
Rüb, F. (2016). Decision Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints. Assessing the Multiple‐Streams Framework. European Policy Analysis, 2(1), 218–218. https://doi.org/10.18278/epa.2.1.12
Schröder, C., & Yitzhaki, S. (2017). Revisiting the evidence for cardinal treatment of ordinal variables. European Economic Review, 92, 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.12.011
Schulz, P. J., & Nakamoto, K. (2013). Health literacy and patient empowerment in health communication: The importance of separating conjoined twins. Patient Education and Counseling, 90(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.09.006
Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Smith, D. M., Langa, K. M., Kabeto, M. U., & Ubel, P. A. (2005). Health, wealth, and happiness: Financial resources buffer subjective well-being after the onset of a disability. Psychological Science, 16(9), 663–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01592.x
Stango, V., & Zinman, J. (2009). Exponential Growth Bias and Household Finance. Journal of Finance, 64(6), 2807–2849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.01518.x
Stango, V., & Zinman, J. (2011). Fuzzy Math, Disclosure Regulation, and Market Outcomes: Evidence from Truth-in-Lending Reform. Review of Financial Studies, 24(2), 506–534. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhq089
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0
Suh, S., Choi, H., Lee, C., Cha, M., & Jo, I. (2012). Association Between Knowledge and Attitude About Aging and Life Satisfaction Among Older Koreans. Asian Nursing Research, 6(3), 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2012.07.002
Towart, L. C., & Ruming, K. (2022). Manufactured Home Estates As affordable retirement housing in Australia: Drivers, growth and spatial distribution. Australian Geographer, 53(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2022.2072056
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Veenhoven, R. (2008). Healthy happiness: Effects of happiness on physical health and the consequences for preventive health care. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(3), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9042-1
Watkins, C. (1998). Are new entrants to the residential property market informationally disadvantaged? Journal of Property Research, 15(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/095999198368509
Wilson, W., & Cromarty, H. (2019). Mobile (park) homes - 10% commission on sales. House of Commons Library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07003/
Woodward, S. E., & Hall, R. E. (2010). Consumer confusion in the mortgage market: Evidence of less than a perfectly transparent and competitive market. American Economic Review, 100(2), 511–515. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.511
Woodward, S. E., & Hall, R. E. (2012). Diagnosing Consumer Confusion and Sub-Optimal Shopping Effort: Theory and Mortgage-Market Evidence. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3249–3276. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3249
Zavisca, J. R., & Gerber, T. P. (2016). The Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Political Effects of Housing in Comparative Perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074333
Zhou, X., Gibler, K., & Zahirovic-Herbert, V. (2015). Asymmetric buyer information influence on price in a homogeneous housing market. Urban Studies, 52(5), 891–905. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26146019
Zielke, S. (2008). Exploring asymmetric effects in the formation of retail price satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(5), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2007.08.005
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506983
Zumbro, T. (2014). The Relationship Between Homeownership and Life Satisfaction in Germany. Housing Studies, 29(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2013.773583
Footnotes
Internationally, park homes are referred to as mobile homes or manufactured homes in the US, which are an extensive source of affordable housing for lower-income households (Dawkins & Koebel, 2009; Durst & Sullivan, 2019). The Australian equivalent are caravan parks, which, despite often being associated with tourism, also provide low cost housing for residents, who tend to be older and on lower incomes (Bunce, 2010).↩︎
More older people are open to the idea of moving than actually move (Beach, 2016; Centre for Ageing Better, 2023). There is a consensus that residential mobility is often related to key transitions, events or crises that occur throughout the life-course (Beach, 2021; Pannell et al., 2012). It is estimated that 40% of moves by older people are not planned in advance (Hammond et al., 2018).↩︎
This includes aspirations to live independently, maintain wellbeing, exercise choice and control, be an active member of society, contribute to family life, not feel like a ‘burden’, and have good relationships with neighbours (Arrigoitia & West, 2021; Bäumker et al., 2012; Davies et al., 2022; Government Office for Science, 2016; Hillcoat-Nallétamby & Ogg, 2014; King et al., 2021; A. Park & Ziegler, 2016; Porteus, 2018).↩︎
Other barriers to residential mobility include financial disincentives, limited housing options, and the practical challenges of moving. E.g., the Stamp Duty Land Tax on new purchases can be substantial, deterring many from downsizing. Additionally, the shortage of suitable housing, such as age-friendly, accessible properties, limits options for older individuals seeking to move. Furthermore, the hassle of moving, encompassing emotional attachment, logistical challenges, and financial costs, often outweighs the perceived benefits, leading many to remain in their current homes.↩︎
Most of this literature relies on subjective wellbeing measures, typically based on self-reported responses to questions like “How satisfied are you with your current life conditions?” The present paper follows a similar approach, using a subjective measure of life satisfaction (see, Section 4.2). Throughout the paper, the term “life satisfaction” refers specifically to subjective life satisfaction.↩︎
In a recent government commissioned research, Dunning et al. (2022) report that the average age of respondents and members of their households in their survey was 71.8 years, with a quarter aged between 70 and 74 years of age. 20 per cent were aged under 65 with a similar proportion aged 80 years and older. They also find that more than half (52 per cent) of respondents identified value for money/affordability as a reason they choose to live in a park home. 46 per cent indicated that the feel, peace, or security of the park was a reason. Broadly one third of home owners also indicated that the “space, layout or low maintenance of a park home” and one third indicated that a reason for choosing to live in a park home was that it “allowed me to release capital”. For more details, see Dunning et al. (2022).↩︎
There have been several reviews of the commission charge in England, most recently in 2006, after which the Government announced that the commission would remain at 10% but added that park home vendors and site owners/operators must provide additional information to prospective purchasers to ensure transparency regarding the commission. However, while a requirement, the practice of how this has been implemented is variable meaning there are contrasting level of knowledge and understanding amongst park home purchases.↩︎
Section 3 outlines the theoretical foundations connecting information, understanding, and satisfaction.↩︎
Privately owned sites must have a licence from the local council which the park owner must clearly display. Typically, a site licence will set conditions covering the park’s maximum number of homes, required services and amenities, and compliance with health and safety standards. (https://www.gov.uk/park-mobile-homes)↩︎
There are, however, slightly different regulations regarding three different types of vendor (the site owner; a home owner who was the home owner before 26th May 2013; and, a home owner who acquired their home on or after 26th May 2013) (DCLG, 2013).↩︎
We note that, unlike traditional bricks-and-mortar homes, park homes typically depreciate in value over time. Consequently, it is often unrealistic for sellers to recover the original purchase price, let alone cover the 10% sales commission. Moreover, there is well-documented evidence of a lack of transparency and understanding regarding the commission (Wilson & Cromarty, 2019). Although most homeowners are aware that a 10% commission exists, many remain unclear about its rationale, on whom and how it is payable, or its impact on future mobility (Dunning et al., 2022). Issues around this sale commission, along with longstanding concerns about unfair practices by some site owners, such as misuse of the 10% commission, interference in home sales and poor site maintenance, have prompted multiple reviews of the park home sector in England.↩︎
For a comprehensive overview of this subject area, see, e.g., Maddux (2017).↩︎
Identification of park home addresses was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, we combined data from multiple sources to identify the locations of park home sites. These sources included the most recent survey of the park home sector in England (ODPM, 2002), a review of industry records, such as sites listed by the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, and data from park home sales databases and advertising websites. In the second stage, Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File was used to identify individual addresses associated with the postcodes of the park home sites. The resulting address list was then refined to exclude properties that were clearly not park homes, using a combination of automated and manual methods. For further details, see Chapter 2 of Dunning et al. (2022).↩︎
Further details on other survey questions and their corresponding responses can be found in Dunning et al. (2022).↩︎
Although we refer to this variable as park_quality for brevity, it should not be interpreted as an absolute measure of park quality. Instead, it captures a respondent’s perceived change in park quality over the past five years or since they moved onto the park.↩︎
These proportions are comparable to corresponding values in the full sample.↩︎
In the current setup, informed and understood are not completely independent. When understood is 1, informed has to be 1. When understood is 0, informed can be either 0 or 1. Alternatively, one may construct two dummy variables for “aware and clear” and “aware but not clear”, respectively, using “not aware” as the reference group. Similar results obtain.↩︎
This is not particularly surprising, as the three variables are highly positively correlated in the refined dataset. While near multicollinearity may be a concern, it is not inherently problematic. We have proceeded by including as many control variables as available in the dataset to take a conservative approach in our robustness checks.↩︎