IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i10p13433-13453d56622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Natural Environmental Characteristics of Subsidized Households: A Case Study of Austin, Texas

Author

Listed:
  • Young-Jae Kim

    (Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, North Dakota State University, 711 2nd Avenue North, Office #308, Fargo, ND 58102, USA)

  • Ayoung Woo

    (Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, A307 Langford Architecture Center, 3137 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA)

Abstract

Compared to the traditional public housing program, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has been regarded as a better tool to ensure the quality of housing structure for subsidized households and the mixing of incomes in neighborhoods. Previous studies related to LIHTC developments have solely focused on the relationships between subsidized households and socioeconomic environments, such as income, race, poverty, etc. Beyond the socioeconomic environments where subsidized households are located, there is a limited understanding about whether subsidized households experience healthier natural environments in their neighborhoods. This study aims to investigate whether LIHTC-subsidized housing neighborhoods provide adequate natural environments to the subsidized households in Austin, Texas, compared to the public housing households. We employ comparison t -tests and binomial logistic regression models. The results show that LIHTC households are significantly exposed to unhealthy natural environmental settings such as a lack of green vegetation and steep slopes while no statistical evidence is reported for public housing neighborhoods. Findings from this study may help policymakers and planners improve their understanding of whether subsidized housing developments offer better natural environments for disadvantaged populations and help them develop effective environmental intervention strategies to improve the quality of life of subsidized households.

Suggested Citation

  • Young-Jae Kim & Ayoung Woo, 2015. "Estimating Natural Environmental Characteristics of Subsidized Households: A Case Study of Austin, Texas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-21, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:10:p:13433-13453:d:56622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/10/13433/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/10/13433/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saelens, B.E. & Sallis, J.F. & Black, J.B. & Chen, D., 2003. "Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1552-1558.
    2. Eriksen, Michael D. & Rosenthal, Stuart S., 2010. "Crowd out effects of place-based subsidized rental housing: New evidence from the LIHTC program," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 953-966, December.
    3. Ainsworth, B.E. & Keenan, N.L. & Strogatz, D.S. & Garrett, J.M. & James, S.A., 1991. "Physical activity and hypertension in Black adults: The Pitt County study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 81(11), pages 1477-1479.
    4. Harlan, Sharon L. & Brazel, Anthony J. & Prashad, Lela & Stefanov, William L. & Larsen, Larissa, 2006. "Neighborhood microclimates and vulnerability to heat stress," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(11), pages 2847-2863, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Young-Jae Kim & Ayoung Woo, 2016. "What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Young-Jae Kim & Ayoung Woo, 2016. "What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Cutts, Bethany B. & Darby, Kate J. & Boone, Christopher G. & Brewis, Alexandra, 2009. "City structure, obesity, and environmental justice: An integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park access," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1314-1322, November.
    3. Anura Amarasinghe & Gerard D'Souza & Cheryl Brown & Tatiana Borisova, 2006. "A Spatial Analysis of Obesity in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2006-13, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    4. Deepak Saraswat, 2022. "Labor Market Impacts of Exposure to Affordable Housing Supply: Evidence from the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program," Working papers 2022-09, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    5. Spielman, Seth E. & Yoo, Eun-hye, 2009. "The spatial dimensions of neighborhood effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1098-1105, March.
    6. Kevin Credit & Elizabeth Mack, 2019. "Place-making and performance: The impact of walkable built environments on business performance in Phoenix and Boston," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 264-285, February.
    7. Mi Namgung & B. Elizabeth Mercado Gonzalez & Seungwoo Park, 2019. "The Role of Built Environment on Health of Older Adults in Korea: Obesity and Gender Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-13, September.
    8. Courtney Coughenour & Hanns de la Fuente-Mella & Alexander Paz, 2019. "Analysis of Self-Reported Walking for Transit in a Sprawling Urban Metropolitan Area in the Western U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Eric T. H. Chan & Tim Schwanen & David Banister, 2021. "The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: evidence from a rapidly developing city in China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 431-454, February.
    10. McNeill, Lorna Haughton & Kreuter, Matthew W. & Subramanian, S.V., 2006. "Social Environment and Physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 1011-1022, August.
    11. Fernando Fonseca & Escolástica Fernandes & Rui Ramos, 2022. "Walkable Cities: Using the Smart Pedestrian Net Method for Evaluating a Pedestrian Network in Guimarães, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    12. repec:rri:wpaper:200613 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kent, Jennifer L. & Mulley, Corinne & Stevens, Nick, 2020. "Challenging policies that prohibit public transport use: Travelling with pets as a case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 86-94.
    14. Victor O. Akande & Robert A.C. Ruiter & Stef P.J. Kremers, 2019. "Environmental and Motivational Determinants of Physical Activity among Canadian Inuit in the Arctic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, July.
    15. Chen, Jie & Nong, Huifu, 2016. "The heterogeneity of market supply effects of public housing provision: Empirical evidence from China," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 115-127.
    16. Letizia Appolloni & Maria Vittoria Corazza & Daniela D’Alessandro, 2019. "The Pleasure of Walking: An Innovative Methodology to Assess Appropriate Walkable Performance in Urban Areas to Support Transport Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-26, June.
    17. Jun-Hyun Kim & Chanam Lee & Wonmin Sohn, 2016. "Urban Natural Environments, Obesity, and Health-Related Quality of Life among Hispanic Children Living in Inner-City Neighborhoods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    18. Park, Sungjin, 2008. "Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0ct7c30p, University of California Transportation Center.
    19. Benoît Schmutz, 2012. "Public Housing Quotas and Segregation," AMSE Working Papers 1228, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    20. H. Allen Klaiber & Joshua K. Abbott & V. Kerry Smith, 2017. "Some Like It (Less) Hot: Extracting Trade-Off Measures for Physically Coupled Amenities," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1053-1079.
    21. Razieh Zandieh & Javier Martinez & Johannes Flacke & Phil Jones & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2016. "Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking: Inequalities in Neighbourhood Safety, Pedestrian Infrastructure and Aesthetics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:10:p:13433-13453:d:56622. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.