What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Spatial Location of Placed-Based Subsidized Households in the US
2.2. Walkable Neighborhood Amenities
2.3. Measuring Walkable Neighborhoods
3. Data and Methodology
3.1. Study Setting
3.2. Data Description
3.3. Statistical Analyses
4. Results
4.1. Sample Characteristics
4.2. Comparison t-Test
4.2.1. Walk Score
4.2.2. Built Environmental Characteristics
4.3. Binary Logistic Regression
4.3.1. Socio-Demographic and Walk Score Correlates of LIHTC and PH Neighborhoods (Base Models)
4.3.2. Built Environmental Correlates of LIHTC and PH Neighborhoods (One-by-One and Final Models)
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Li, W.; Joh, K.; Lee, C.; Kim, J.-H.; Park, H.; Woo, A. From car-dependent neighborhoods to walkers’ paradise: Estimating walkability premiums in the condominium housing market. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2014, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joh, K.; Chakrabarti, S.; Boarnet, M.G.; Woo, A. The walking renaissance: A longitudinal analysis of walking travel in the greater los angeles area, USA. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8985–9011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pivo, G.; Fisher, J.D. The walkability premium in commercial real estate investments. Real Estate Econ. 2011, 39, 185–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setton, E.; Marshall, J.D.; Brauer, M.; Lundquist, K.R.; Hystad, P.; Keller, P.; Cloutier-Fisher, D. The impact of daily mobility on exposure to traffic-related air pollution and health effect estimates. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rogers, S.H.; Halstead, J.M.; Gardner, K.H.; Carlson, C.H. Examining walkability and social capital as indicators of quality of life at the municipal and neighborhood scales. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2011, 6, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du Toit, L.; Cerin, E.; Leslie, E.; Owen, N. Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local sociability? Urban Stud. 2007, 44, 1677–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Ory, M.G.; Yoon, J.; Forjuoh, S.N. Neighborhood walking among overweight and obese adults: Age variations in barriers and motivators. J. Community Health 2013, 38, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Z.; Lee, C. Site and neighborhood environments for walking among older adults. Health Place 2010, 16, 1268–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ainsworth, B.E.; Keenan, N.L.; Strogatz, D.S.; Garrett, J.M.; James, S.A. Physical activity and hypertension in black adults: The pitt county study. Am. J. Public Health 1991, 81, 1477–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mason, J.O.; McGinnis, J.M. “Healthy people 2000”: An overview of the national health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Public Health Rep. 1990, 105, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, W.C.; Baranowski, T.; Young, D.R. Physical activity interventions in low-income, ethnic minority, and populations with disability. Am. J. Prev. Med. 1998, 15, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, S.J.; Schnare, A.B. “… and a suitable living environment”: The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality. Hous. Policy Debate 1997, 8, 703–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oakley, D. Locational patterns of low-income housing tax credit developments a sociospatial analysis of four metropolitan areas. Urban Affairs Rev. 2008, 43, 599–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, L. Siting Affordable Housing: Location and Neighborhood Trends of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Developments in the 1990s; Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Van Zandt, S.; Mhatre, P.C. Growing pains: Perpetuating inequality through the production of low-income housing in the dallas/fort worth metroplex. Urban Geography 2009, 30, 490–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowley, S. The affordable housing crisis: Residential mobility of poor families and school mobility of poor children. J. Negro Educ. 2003, 72, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massey, D.S.; Denton, N.A. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Woo, A.; Kim, Y.-J. Spatial location of place-based subsidized households and uneven geography of opportunities: Case of Austin, Texas in the US. Community Dev. 2016, 47, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Squires, G.D.; Kubrin, C.E. Privileged places: Race, uneven development and the geography of opportunity in urban america. Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasarda, J.D. Inner-city concentrated poverty and neighborhood distress: 1970 to 1990. Hous. Policy Debate 1993, 4, 253–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pendall, R. Why voucher and certificate users live in distressed neighborhoods. Hous. Policy Debate 2000, 11, 881–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.-J.; Woo, A. Estimating natural environmental characteristics of subsidized households: A case study of austin, texas. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13433–13453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksen, M.D.; Rosenthal, S.S. Crowd out effects of place-based subsidized rental housing: New evidence from the lihtc program. J. Public Econ. 2010, 94, 953–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, A.F. Housing Policy in the United States; Routledge: Abingdon, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Rohe, W.M.; Freeman, L. Assisted housing and residential segregation: The role of race and ethnicity in the siting of assisted housing developments. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2001, 67, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, A.; Joh, K.; Van Zandt, S. Unpacking the impacts of the low-income housing tax credit program on nearby property values. Urban Stud. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, A.; Joh, K.; Van Zandt, S. Impacts of the low-income housing tax credit program on neighborhood housing turnover. Urban Affairs Rev. 2016, 52, 247–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, A.; Joh, K. Beyond anecdotal evidence: Do subsidized housing developments increase neighborhood crime? Appl. Geography 2015, 64, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, I.; Yancey, W.L. Public Housing Projects, Blacks, and Public Policy: The Historical Ecology of Public Housing in Philadelphia; The Africa-America Institute: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Taeuber, K.E.; Taeuber, A.F. Negroes in Cities: Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Change; Aldine Pub. Co.: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Bickford, A.; Massey, D.S. Segregation in the second ghetto: Racial and ethnic segregation in american public housing, 1977. Soc. Forces 1991, 69, 1011–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, W.H.; Schill, M.H.; Wachter, S.M. Polarisation, public housing and racial minorities in us cities. Urban Stud. 1998, 35, 1889–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goering, J.; Kamely, A.; Richardson, T. Recent research on racial segregation and poverty concentration in public housing in the united states. Urban Affairs Rev. 1997, 32, 723–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galster, G.C. The evolving challenges of fair housing since 1968: Open housing, integration, and the reduction of ghettoization. Cityscape 1999, 4, 123–138. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, C.; Moudon, A.V. Physical activity and environment research in the health field: Implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. J. Plan. Lit. 2004, 19, 147–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Frank, L.D. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann. Behav. Med. 2003, 25, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Dyck, D.; Cardon, G.; Deforche, B.; Sallis, J.F.; Owen, N.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I. Neighborhood ses and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in belgian adults. Prev. Med. 2010, 50, S74–S79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frank, L.D.; Schmid, T.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Chapman, J.; Saelens, B.E. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from smartraq. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Black, J.B.; Chen, D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1552–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, X.; Yu, C.-Y.; Lee, C.; Lu, Z.; Mann, G. A retrospective study on changes in residents’ physical activities, social interactions, and neighborhood cohesion after moving to a walkable community. Prev. Med. 2014, 69, S93–S97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ewing, R.; Schmid, T.; Killingsworth, R.; Zlot, A.; Raudenbush, S. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. In Urban Ecology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 567–582. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, L.D.; Andresen, M.A.; Schmid, T.L. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2004, 27, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Macintyre, S.; Clarkson, J.P.; Pikora, T.; Donovan, R.J. Environmental and lifestyle factors associated with overweight and obesity in perth, australia. Am. J. Health Promot. 2003, 18, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lopez, R. Urban sprawl and risk for being overweight or obese. Am. J. Public Health 2004, 94, 1574–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Chapman, J.E.; Saelens, B.E.; Bachman, W. Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sturm, R.; Cohen, D.A. Suburban sprawl and physical and mental health. Public Health 2004, 118, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lund, H. Pedestrian environments and sense of community. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2002, 21, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Kaplan, R. Physical and psychological factors in sense of community new urbanist kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 313–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leyden, K.M. Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1546–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Handy, S.L.; Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P.L. The causal influence of neighborhood design on physical activity within the neighborhood: Evidence from northern california. Am. J. Health Promot. 2008, 22, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tudor-Locke, C.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M.; McCormack, G. Tracking of pedometer-determined physical activity in adults who relocate: Results from reside. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wells, N.M.; Yang, Y. Neighborhood design and walking: A quasi-experimental longitudinal study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Bull, F.; Knuiman, M.; McCormack, G.; Van Niel, K.; Timperio, A.; Christian, H.; Foster, S.; Divitini, M.; Middleton, N. The influence of urban design on neighbourhood walking following residential relocation: Longitudinal results from the reside study. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 77, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, X.; Lu, Z.; Yu, C.; Lee, C.; Mann, G. Walkable communities: Impacts on residents’ physical and social health. World Health Des 2013, 7, 68–75. [Google Scholar]
- Boarnet, M.; Crane, R. The influence of land use on travel behavior: Specification and estimation strategies. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2001, 35, 823–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2001, 1780, 87–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holtzclaw, J.; Clear, R.; Dittmar, H.; Goldstein, D.; Haas, P. Location efficiency: Neighborhood and socio-economic characteristics determine auto ownership and use-studies in chicago, los angeles and san francisco. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2002, 25, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, L.D.; Stone, B.; Bachman, W. Linking land use with household vehicle emissions in the central puget sound: Methodological framework and findings. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 2000, 5, 173–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, L.D.; Engelke, P. Multiple impacts of the built environment on public health: Walkable places and the exposure to air pollution. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2005, 28, 193–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frumkin, H.; Frank, L.; Jackson, R. The Public Health Impacts of Sprawl; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Duncan, D.T.; Aldstadt, J.; Whalen, J.; Melly, S.J.; Gortmaker, S.L. Validation of walk score® for estimating neighborhood walkability: An analysis of four us metropolitan areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 4160–4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carr, L.J.; Dunsiger, S.I.; Marcus, B.H. Walk score™ as a global estimate of neighborhood walkability. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2010, 39, 460–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Glaeser, E.L.; Kolko, J.; Saiz, A. Consumer city. J. Econ. Geogr. 2001, 1, 27–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moos, M. From gentrification to youthification? The increasing importance of young age in delineating high-density living. Urban Stud. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moos, M. “Generationed” space: Societal restructuring and young adults’ changing residential location patterns. Can. Geogr. 2014, 58, 11–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meligrana, J.; Skaburskis, A. Extent, location and profiles of continuing gentrification in canadian metropolitan areas, 1981–2001. Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 1569–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yen, I.H.; Kaplan, G.A. Poverty area residence and changes in physical activity level: Evidence from the alameda county study. Am. J. Public Health 1998, 88, 1709–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jackson, R.J.; Kochtitzky, C. Creating a healthy environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health; Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Q.; Wang, Y. Trends in the association between obesity and socioeconomic status in us adults: 1971 to 2000. Obes. Res. 2004, 12, 1622–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Townsend, M.S. Obesity in low-income communities: Prevalence, effects, a place to begin. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2006, 106, 34–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winkleby, M.A.; Jatulis, D.E.; Frank, E.; Fortmann, S.P. Socioeconomic status and health: How education, income, and occupation contribute to risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Am. J. Public Health 1992, 82, 816–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Handy, S.; Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: Empirical evidence from northern california. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Joh, K.; Lee, C.; Kim, J.-H.; Park, H.; Woo, A. Assessing benefits of neighborhood walkability to single-family property values a spatial hedonic study in austin, texas. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2015, 35, 471–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauterkus, S.Y.; Miller, N. Residential land values and walkability. J. Sustain. Real Estate 2011, 3, 23–43. [Google Scholar]
- Litman, T. Economic value of walkability. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2003, 1828, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koschinsky, J.; Talen, E.; Alfonzo, M.; Lee, S. How walkable is walker’s paradise? Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Des. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, L.J.; Dunsiger, S.I.; Marcus, B.H. Validation of walk score for estimating access to walkable amenities. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010, 45, 1144–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duncan, D.T.; Aldstadt, J.; Whalen, J.; Melly, S.J. Validation of walk scores and transit scores for estimating neighborhood walkability and transit availability: A small-area analysis. GeoJournal 2013, 78, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirsch, J.A.; Moore, K.A.; Evenson, K.R.; Rodriguez, D.A.; Roux, A.V.D. Walk score® and transit score® and walking in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 45, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dong, H. Were home prices in new urbanist neighborhoods more resilient in the recent housing downturn? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2014, 35, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76, 265–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Lee, C. Correlates of walking to school and implications for public policies: Survey results from parents of elementary school children in Austin, Texas. J. Public Health Policy 2009, 30, S177–S202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- U.S. Census Bureau. Available online: http://www.census.gov/2010census (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- Forbes. Available online: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emeg45iikm/1-austin-texas (accessed on 10 November 2015).
- City of Austin. City of Austin Demographic Profile. Available online: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/demographic-data (accessed on 28 March 2016).
- Governing. Gentrification in America Report. Available online: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/gentrification-in-cities-governing-report.html (accessed on 1 April 2016).
- Zhu, X.; Lee, C. Walkability and safety around elementary schools: Economic and ethnic disparities. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Walk Score. Available online: https://www.walkscore.com (accessed on 2 December 2015).
- Ewing, R.; Schroeer, W.; Greene, W. School location and student travel analysis of factors affecting mode choice. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2004, 1895, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Forinash, C.V.; Schroeer, W. Neighborhood Schools and Sidewalk Connections: What Are the Impacts on Travel Mode Choice and Vehicle Emissions? TR News, 2005; Volume 237, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
- Boarnet, M.G.; Anderson, C.L.; Day, K.; McMillan, T.; Alfonzo, M. Evaluation of the california safe routes to school legislation: Urban form changes and children’s active transportation to school. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variables | Total | LIHTC Neighborhoods | PH Neighborhoods | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Mean | S.D. | N | Mean | S.D. | N | Mean | S.D. | |
Minority (%) | 500 | 41.24 | 27.44 | 42 | 70.46 | 22.79 | 14 | 67.40 | 29.79 |
Income ($1000) | 506 | 50.20 | 27.94 | 42 | 33.80 | 14.68 | 14 | 28.71 | 10.36 |
Median Housing Value ($1000) | 506 | 136.33 | 97.22 | 42 | 93.84 | 103.38 | 14 | 96.10 | 35.07 |
Unemployment (%) | 498 | 4.33 | 4.12 | 42 | 6.51 | 4.15 | 14 | 8.87 | 6.57 |
Female-Headed Family (%) | 481 | 21.94 | 17.92 | 42 | 33.75 | 16.63 | 14 | 46.28 | 24.57 |
Teenage School Dropout (%) | 472 | 15.31 | 20.71 | 42 | 23.53 | 16.85 | 14 | 26.83 | 24.78 |
Welfare Receipt (%) | 495 | 1.79 | 2.83 | 42 | 3.21 | 3.54 | 14 | 6.45 | 5.69 |
Variable | LIHTC Neighborhoods | PH Neighborhoods | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-LIHTC (N = 410) | LIHTC (N = 41) | Diff. in Mean | Non-PH (N = 437) | PH (N = 14) | Diff. in Mean | |||||
Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | |||
Walk Score | 47.17 | 24.76 | 37.46 | 21.13 | 9.71 ** | 45.85 | 24.49 | 60.04 | 24.61 | −14.19 ** |
Non-LIHTC Neighborhoods (N = 452) | LIHTC Neighborhoods (N = 42) | Diff. in Mean | Non-PH Neighborhoods (N = 480) | PH Neighborhoods (N = 14) | Diff. inMean | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | |||
Sidewalks (rate) | 0.579 | 0.208 | 0.516 | 0.183 | 0.063 * | 0.572 | 0.209 | 0.633 | 0.106 | −0.062 |
Bike Lanes (rate) | 0.240 | 0.277 | 0.262 | 0.201 | −0.021 | 0.240 | 0.272 | 0.296 | 0.238 | −0.055 |
Highways (%) | 0.059 | 0.116 | 0.108 | 0.126 | −0.049 *** | 0.065 | 0.119 | 0.014 | 0.030 | 0.050 |
Major Roads (%) | 0.183 | 0.154 | 0.196 | 0.110 | −0.013 | 0.184 | 0.152 | 0.167 | 0.110 | 0.017 |
Variables | LIHTC Neighborhoods | PH Neighborhoods | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Odds Ratio | p > |z| | Odds Ratio | p > |z| | |
Socio-Demographic Variables | ||||
Minority (%) | 1.057 *** | 0.001 | 1.010 | 0.533 |
Income ($1000) | 0.957 *** | 0.022 | 0.980 | 0.513 |
Median Housing Value ($1000) | 1.009 ** | 0.009 | 1.004 | 0.572 |
Unemployment (%) | 0.973 | 0.560 | 1.011 | 0.871 |
Female-Headed Family (%) | 1.030 ** | 0.020 | 1.033 ** | 0.042 |
Teenage School Dropout (%) | 0.985 | 0.107 | 1.003 | 0.799 |
Welfare Receipt (%) | 0.896 * | 0.072 | 1.118 | 0.157 |
Locatoinal Variables | ||||
Distance to CBD (mile) | 1.056 * | 0.072 | 0.896 | 0.480 |
Number of Observations | 460 | 460 | ||
LR Chi | 63.05 | 30.87 | ||
Pro > Chi-Sq | <0.0001 | 0.0001 | ||
Pseudo R2 | 0.2243 | 0.2608 |
Variables | LIHTC Neighborhoods | PH Neighborhoods | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One-by-One Models † | Final Model | One-by-One Models † | Final Model | |||||
OR | P > |z| | OR | P > |z| | OR | P > |z| | OR | P > |z| | |
Socio-Demographic Variables | ||||||||
Minority (%) | 1.05 *** | <0.000 | 1.02 | 0.409 | ||||
Income ($1000) | 0.94 ** | 0.013 | 0.99 | 0.773 | ||||
Median Housing Value ($1000) | 1.01 ** | 0.030 | 1.00 | 0.827 | ||||
Unemployment (%) | 0.98 | 0.700 | 0.99 | 0.926 | ||||
Female-Headed Family (%) | 1.03 ** | 0.016 | 1.03** | 0.045 | ||||
Teenage School Dropout (%) | 0.98 ** | 0.047 | 1.00 | 0.866 | ||||
Welfare Receipt (%) | 0.90 | 0.119 | 1.15 | 0.120 | ||||
Locational Variables | ||||||||
Distance to CBD (mile) | 1.01 | 0.919 | 0.99 | 0.974 | ||||
Walk Score | ||||||||
Walk Score (1 to 100) | 0.96 **** | < 0.000 | 0.96 *** | <0.000 | 1.01*** | 0.426 | 1.02 | 0.376 |
Built Environmental Variables | ||||||||
Sidewalks (rate) | 0.14 *** | 0.041 | 1.07 | 0.967 | 7.39 | 0.296 | 0.22 | 0.613 |
Bike Lanes (rate) | 0.76 | 0.619 | 0.72 | 0.682 | 1.38 | 0.787 | 1.14 | 0.924 |
Highways (%) | 1.03 ** | 0.012 | 1.04 ** | 0.048 | 0.93 | 0.242 | 0.93 | 0.279 |
Major Roads (%) | 1.02 | 0.273 | 1.05 ** | 0.016 | 0.97 | 0.261 | 0.96 | 0.266 |
Number of Observations | - | 420 | - | 420 | ||||
LR Chi | - | 85.85 | - | 34.01 | ||||
Pro > Chi-Sq | - | <0.000 | - | 0.0012 | ||||
Pseudo R2 | - | 0.3196 | - | 0.2700 |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, Y.-J.; Woo, A. What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households. Sustainability 2016, 8, 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040396
Kim Y-J, Woo A. What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households. Sustainability. 2016; 8(4):396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040396
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Young-Jae, and Ayoung Woo. 2016. "What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households" Sustainability 8, no. 4: 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040396