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