Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.company.com
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
www.company.com
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
– Their forms are similar.
– Found no stigmatization effect.
MTN
PRI
HOS PRH
www.company.com
Natural Experiment
• Unique context of MTN in HK allows a controlled
experiment
Mixed-tenure Neighborhood
in HK
Mixed-tenure Neighborhood
in the US
Same race Different race and ethnicity
Low crime rate High crime rate
Non-stigmatized public housing Stigmatized public housing
Income similar Income different
PRH – rental
HOS – owner-occupied
Ownership difference (mostly
rental public housing)
MTN -> Satisfaction? MTN -> Dissatisfaction
www.company.com
Literature Review
• Mixed-Tenure Neighborhood is Good for
Neighborhood Satisfaction!?
Literatures Benefits of MTN
UK 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.
www.company.com
Theoretical Framework
Neighborhood Satisfaction
Theory 1a:
Perception
Theory 1b:
Behavior
Theory 2:
Other Controlled Factors (physical environment, crime,
ethnicity, stigmatization)
Theory 3:
Ownership Mix
Control:
Demographic Factors
www.company.com
Theoretical Framework
www.company.com
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
www.company.com
Theoretical Argument
• Private Housing
– 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
www.company.com
Methodology
• 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
A: Private
housing with
PRH
(49 samples)
M: Private
housing with
HOS
(70 samples)
W: Private
housing with
HOS
(50 samples)
C: Pure private
housing
(59 samples)
Neighborhood setting
www.company.com
Variables
Neighborhood satisfaction Do you think your neighborhood is a
good place to live in? Likert-scale (1 = complete
disagree – 5 = completely
agree) Why are you satisfied or dissatisfied
with your neighborhood? Open-ended
Behavior Sum of three statements Talk with people from different estates (TALKOTHER)
Likert-scale (1-5)
Share public space with people from
different estates (SHARESPACE) Likert-scale (1-5)
Shop in the other estate
(SHOPOTHER) Likert-scale (1-5)
www.company.com
Variables
Perception Sum of three statements
Like it if kids from different estates
are in the same class (LIKEMIXEDCLASS)
Likert-scale (1-5)
Believe that facilities will not be
affected by other types of estates (NOTAFFECTFACILITIES)
Likert-scale (1-5)
Allow people to come to their estate for shopping (COMESHOPPING)
Likert-scale (1-5)
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)
www.company.com
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%) - -
www.company.com
Result & Discussion
• Neighborhood Satisfaction v. Ownership
3.60
4.69
4.00 4.17
0.61 0.53 0.61 0.74
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Wong Tai Sin (PRH/HOS) Ma On Shan (HOS/P) Aberdeen (PRH/P) Total
Mean score S.D.
4.36 4.38
3.75 4.17
0.62 0.68 0.75 0.74
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Private HOS PRH Total
Mean score S.D.
www.company.com
Result & Discussion
• Perception of Physical Environment
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
Environment 2 4.0 3 4.3 9 18.4
Accessible/Good
transportation 7 14.0 16 22.9 2 4.1
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
transportation 5 10.0 4 5.7 1 2.0
Bad social
environment 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0
Other reasons 2 4.0 2 2.9 0 0.0
www.company.com
Result & Discussion
• Behavior and Perception Scores
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 3.21 1.02 3.55 0.93 3.64 0.89 3.45 0.95
PRI
Lowest
PRI
Highest
www.company.com
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)
www.company.com
Result & Discussion
Behavior Perception
Perception Pearson Correlation
.314***
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Satisfaction 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..
www.company.com
• 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
– 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.
Conclusions