IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/chosxx/v31y2016i5p519-539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How much of too much? What inspections data say about residential clutter as a housing problem

Author

Listed:
  • Nathanael Lauster
  • Alina McKay
  • Navio Kwok
  • Jennifer Yip
  • Sheila R. Woody

Abstract

How big of a housing problem is residential clutter? In this paper, we draw upon inspections data in Vancouver to both estimate the size of the problem and detail how it is observed and constituted through municipal regulatory processes. We contrast the inspections approach to residential clutter with the mental health approach, which focuses on hoarding disorder. Inspections data indicate the problem of residential clutter is potentially larger than might be expected by the epidemiology of hoarding disorder, and also point toward the many risks associated with clutter. Using our best estimate, approximately seven per cent of low-income, dense, single-room occupancy (SRO) housing units inspected were identified by inspectors as problematically cluttered, indicating a sizable problem. Larger buildings and those managed as social housing were more likely than other buildings to have many units identified as problematically cluttered. Strikingly, for given buildings, estimates of problematic clutter tended to remain relatively stable across time, inspector, and inspection method.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathanael Lauster & Alina McKay & Navio Kwok & Jennifer Yip & Sheila R. Woody, 2016. "How much of too much? What inspections data say about residential clutter as a housing problem," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(5), pages 519-539, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:31:y:2016:i:5:p:519-539
    DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2015.1094567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02673037.2015.1094567
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02673037.2015.1094567?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:chosxx:v:31:y:2016:i:5:p:519-539. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/chos20 .

    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.