Is Mixed-Tenure Neighborhood Conducive to Neighborhood Satisfaction? Yiu, C.Y., Bayrak, M.M., Liao, K.H., Xu, J., He, Y., Maing, M. and Shen. J. January 22, 2016 International Interdisciplinary Students Conference Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Introduction Mixed-tenure neighborhoods (MTN) in Hong Kong Co-existence of Private and Public Housing 3 different mixes of MTN in HK PRH-PRI, PRH-HOS, HOS-PRI Public Rental Housing (PRH), Subsidized Housing (HOS), and Private Housing (PRI) Mixes allow a natural experiment on ownership effect PRI Their forms are similar. Found no stigmatization effect. MTN PRH HOS
Natural Experiment Unique context of MTN in HK allows a controlled experiment Mixed-tenure Neighborhood in HK Same race Low crime rate Non-stigmatized public housing Income similar PRH rental HOS owner-occupied MTN -> Satisfaction? Mixed-tenure Neighborhood in the US Different race and ethnicity High crime rate Stigmatized public housing Income different Ownership difference (mostly rental public housing) MTN -> Dissatisfaction
Literature Review Mixed-Tenure Neighborhood is Good for Neighborhood Satisfaction!? UK Literatures Benefits of MTN Kearns and Mason (2007) improve social inclusion and residential satisfaction Europe Morris et al (2012) improve neighborhood satisfaction Kearns, A., & Mason, P. (2007). Mixed tenure communities and neighbourhood quality. Housing Studies, 22(5), 661-691. Morris, A., Jamieson, M., & Patulny, R. (2012). Is social mixing of tenures a solution for public housing estates. Evidence Base, 1(1), 1-20.
Theoretical Framework Theory 1a: Perception Theory 1b: Behavior Theory 2: Other Controlled Factors (physical environment, crime, ethnicity, stigmatization) Control: Demographic Factors Neighborhood Satisfaction Theory 3: Ownership Mix
Theoretical Framework
Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Behavior The more interactive people behave in their neighborhood, the more satisfied with their neighborhood Hypothesis 2: Perception The more positive people s perceptions are towards aspects of mixed-tenure neighborhoods, the more they are satisfied with their neighborhood Hypothesis 3: Tenure Home owners are more satisfied with their neighborhoods than renters PRI > HOS > PRH
Private Housing Theoretical Argument 100% ownership for owner (ignore mortgage) Freely chosen subject to affordability Subsidized Housing 60-70% ownership (land premium payable) Limited choice subject to the rules of the subsidized scheme Public Rental Housing 0% ownership (low rent) Very limited choice Own Choice Satisfy
Methodology Neighborhood setting A: Private housing with PRH (49 samples) W: Private housing with HOS (50 samples) M: Private housing with HOS (70 samples) C: Pure private housing (59 samples) survey interviews 169 interviews finished at the end of 2014 42 open-ended and close-ended questions Carried out in 3 mixed-tenure neighborhoods with different mixes, and in different territories Statistical Analysis Regression test
Variables Neighborhood satisfaction Do you think your neighborhood is a good place to live in? Why are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your neighborhood? Behavior Talk with people from different estates (TALKOTHER) Share public space with people from different estates (SHARESPACE) Shop in the other estate (SHOPOTHER) Likert-scale (1 = complete disagree 5 = completely agree) Open-ended Sum of three statements Likert-scale (1-5) Likert-scale (1-5) Likert-scale (1-5)
Variables Perception Sum of three statements Like it if kids from different estates Likert-scale (1-5) are in the same class (LIKEMIXEDCLASS) Believe that facilities will not be Likert-scale (1-5) affected by other types of estates (NOTAFFECTFACILITIES) Allow people to come to their estate Likert-scale (1-5) for shopping (COMESHOPPING) Tenure Private; HOS; PRH. (yes/no) Socio-demographic variables: Age 0 = less than or 50 years old; 1 = more than 50 years old Gender 0 = female; 1=male Income 0 = less than or equal to HKD$ 25,000 1 = more than HKD$ 25,000 Education 0 = less or equal to secondary school; 1 = more than secondary school Length of residence (years)
Summary Statistics Variables Total Private HOS PRH Respondents 169 (100%) 67 (39.6%) 47 (27.8%) 55 (32.5%) Female 85 (50.3%) 33 (49.3%) 19 (40.4%) 33 (60.0%) Employed 114 (67.5%) 45 (67.2%) 28 (59.6%) 41 (74.5%) HH Income (HKD/Mon) Total Private HOS PRH <10,000 4 (2.4%) 2 (3.0%) 1 (2.1%) 1 (1.8%) 10,000-25,000 53 (31.4%) 7 (10.4%) 18 (38.3%) 28 (50.9%) 25,001-50,000 63 (37.7%) 22 (32.8%) 18 (38.3%) 23 (41.8%) 50,001-100,000 35 (20.7%) 30 (44.8%) 4 (8.5%) - >100,000 5 (3.0%) 5 (7.5%) - -
Result & Discussion Neighborhood Satisfaction v. Ownership 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.69 4.00 4.17 3.60 0.61 0.53 0.61 0.74 Wong Tai Sin (PRH/HOS) Ma On Shan (HOS/P) Aberdeen (PRH/P) Total Mean score S.D. 5.00 4.00 4.36 4.38 3.75 4.17 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.62 0.68 0.75 0.74 Private HOS PRH Total Mean score S.D.
Perception of Physical Environment Result & Discussion Wong Tai Sin (PRH/HOS) Ma On Shan (Private/HOS) Aberdeen (Private/PRH) n % n % n % Good Air quality 5 10.0 19 27.1 3 6.1 Good Environment 9 18.0 42 60.0 18 36.7 Tranquility 2 4.0 14 20.0 8 16.3 Good Social 2 4.0 3 4.3 9 18.4 Environment Accessible/Good 7 14.0 16 22.9 2 4.1 transportation Good facilities 2 4.0 5 7.1 5 10.2 Too crowded 1 2.0 0 0.0 3 6.1 Lack of facilities 1 2.0 1 1.4 3 6.1 Not accessible/bad 5 10.0 4 5.7 1 2.0 transportation Bad social 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0 environment Other reasons 2 4.0 2 2.9 0 0.0
Behavior and Perception Scores Result & Discussion Pri HOS PRH Total Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD SHOP OTHER 4.24 0.61 3.76 1.09 3.91 0.77 4.00 0.79 Behavior TALK OTHER 4.31 0.76 3.94 0.84 3.94 0.86 4.09 0.81 SHARE SPACE 4.09 0.75 4.06 0.76 3.89 0.79 4.02 0.77 Pri HOS PRH Total Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD LIKE MIXED CLASS 4.16 0.88 4.20 0.67 4.17 0.62 4.18 0.74 Perception COME SHOPPING 3.74 0.79 3.84 0.64 3.85 0.76 3.81 0.74 NOT AFFECT FACILITIES PRI Highest 3.21 1.02 3.55 0.93 3.64 0.89 3.45 0.95 PRI Lowest
Result & Discussion Dep Variables: Neigh Sat. Coefficient t-statistic (Constant) 2.181 4.122*** EDUCATION.336 2.251** INCOME -.165-1.272 AGE.394 2.861** GENDER -.009 -.083 LENGTH.011.899 SHOPOTHER.123 1.733* TALKOTHER -.025 -.317 SHARESPACE.153 1.871* LIKEMIXEDCLASS -.054 -.630 COMESHOPPING.169 1.832* NOTAFFECTFACILITIES -.018 -.302 HOS.520 3.617*** Private.439 2.647* PRH (excluded)
Result & Discussion Behavior Perception Perception Satisfaction Pearson Correlation.314 *** Sig. (2-tailed).000 Pearson Correlation.264 ***.013 Sig. (2-tailed).001.873 The more positive one s perception is, the more active he/she is in a mixed-tenure neighborhood; The more active one is, the more satisfied he/she is with his/her neighborhood..
Theory 1 Perceptions have indirect impact on neighborhood satisfaction Theory 2 Behavior has a direct effect on neighborhood satisfaction Theory 3 Income does not have any effects on neighborhood satisfaction. Education and Age do. Theory 4 Conclusions Owners in subsidized housing and private housing have a stronger neighborhood satisfaction than renters in public housing. It is probably due to the freedom to choose.