123
tests for both separate owner-occupied and rental
units show that the correlation of the indices is
statistically significant in the case of owneroccupied units, X2 (1, N = 70) = 7.81, p < .05, and
it was not significant for rental units, X2 (1,
N = 275) = .31, p > .05. The reason for this could
be the overall age of buildings in the study area.
The age of buildings goes beyond the parameters
examined in the literature. Older buildings start
either holding their value due to renovations or
loosing value due to deterioration; thus, the value
ratio index does not detect these differences.
In terms of the correspondence between the
indicators regarding the types of housing, only on
single-family residential units was the relationship between the indices significant, X2 (1,
N = 147) = 2.79, p > .05. The relationship with
duplexes and triplexes and multifamily units
were not significant, X2 (1, N = 148) = .19,
p > .05, and X2 (1, N = 50) = .01, p > .05, respectively. Like the conclusion above, this could be
due to the specific age conditions of the units and
smaller numbers in the case of multifamily
buildings.
Finally, though no less important, the overall
relationship between the housing quality index
and code violations was statistically significant,
X2 (2, N = 278) = 7.24, p < .05. This result validates the creation of the composite indicator when
relying on data from assessment of external conditions. As expected, the value ratio index’s statistical correlations with code violations are not
significant. This was expected, as the index is calculated based primarily on considerations of age.
In general, although the statistical correlation
between the housing quality index and records of
code violations is significant, the indicator could
be adjusted to consider some elements of the
housing stock to produce better composite indicators, for instance, considerations due to the
nature of the way traditional single-family residential units have been transformed into places
that offer rooms to students.
9.5
Conclusions
Two composite indicators are proposed with the
goal of measuring inadequate housing at the neighborhood level. One index identifies inadequate
units by considering physical exterior conditions
and the other index by using the value ratio of units
based on information contained in administrative
records from tax assessments.
The results of the two composite indicators
show an overall similar identification of housing
units deemed to be inadequate. Both indices work
well in tandem, allowing both a detailed analysis
of housing conditions and a prompt analysis to
identify how many units have deteriorated and at
what time they begin to do so.
The results of the procedures aiming to test
the statistical significance of the relationship
between age and inadequacy show that there is a
significant relation between both composite indicators and the age of housing units. This validates
what previous authors have found about this
relationship.
Although it seems not to be a statistically significant overall correspondence between the two
indices, it was found that there is a statistically
significant correlation when looking at the relationship between the composite indicators and
the results for owner-occupied and single- family
residential units. The physical characteristics of
rental and multifamily units could make it difficult to assess their physical conditions in the
field. This difficulty is common in the literature
on measuring inadequate housing.
The statistically significant relationship
between the housing quality index and records
for code violations validates not only the index
but also recent findings in the literature about the
relevance of exterior conditions in measuring
inadequate housing.
From a housing planning perspective, it is
important to point out that the presence of deteriorated or inadequate housing in this neighborhood
9 Helping the Neighborhood: Creating a Sustainability Indicator of Substandard Housing
tests for both separate owner-occupied and rental
units show that the correlation of the indices is
statistically significant in the case of owneroccupied units, X2 (1, N = 70) = 7.81, p < .05, and
it was not significant for rental units, X2 (1,
N = 275) = .31, p > .05. The reason for this could
be the overall age of buildings in the study area.
The age of buildings goes beyond the parameters
examined in the literature. Older buildings start
either holding their value due to renovations or
loosing value due to deterioration; thus, the value
ratio index does not detect these differences.
In terms of the correspondence between the
indicators regarding the types of housing, only on
single-family residential units was the relationship between the indices significant, X2 (1,
N = 147) = 2.79, p > .05. The relationship with
duplexes and triplexes and multifamily units
were not significant, X2 (1, N = 148) = .19,
p > .05, and X2 (1, N = 50) = .01, p > .05, respectively. Like the conclusion above, this could be
due to the specific age conditions of the units and
smaller numbers in the case of multifamily
buildings.
Finally, though no less important, the overall
relationship between the housing quality index
and code violations was statistically significant,
X2 (2, N = 278) = 7.24, p < .05. This result validates the creation of the composite indicator when
relying on data from assessment of external conditions. As expected, the value ratio index’s statistical correlations with code violations are not
significant. This was expected, as the index is calculated based primarily on considerations of age.
In general, although the statistical correlation
between the housing quality index and records of
code violations is significant, the indicator could
be adjusted to consider some elements of the
housing stock to produce better composite indicators, for instance, considerations due to the
nature of the way traditional single-family residential units have been transformed into places
that offer rooms to students.
9.5
Conclusions
Two composite indicators are proposed with the
goal of measuring inadequate housing at the neighborhood level. One index identifies inadequate
units by considering physical exterior conditions
and the other index by using the value ratio of units
based on information contained in administrative
records from tax assessments.
The results of the two composite indicators
show an overall similar identification of housing
units deemed to be inadequate. Both indices work
well in tandem, allowing both a detailed analysis
of housing conditions and a prompt analysis to
identify how many units have deteriorated and at
what time they begin to do so.
The results of the procedures aiming to test
the statistical significance of the relationship
between age and inadequacy show that there is a
significant relation between both composite indicators and the age of housing units. This validates
what previous authors have found about this
relationship.
Although it seems not to be a statistically significant overall correspondence between the two
indices, it was found that there is a statistically
significant correlation when looking at the relationship between the composite indicators and
the results for owner-occupied and single- family
residential units. The physical characteristics of
rental and multifamily units could make it difficult to assess their physical conditions in the
field. This difficulty is common in the literature
on measuring inadequate housing.
The statistically significant relationship
between the housing quality index and records
for code violations validates not only the index
but also recent findings in the literature about the
relevance of exterior conditions in measuring
inadequate housing.
From a housing planning perspective, it is
important to point out that the presence of deteriorated or inadequate housing in this neighborhood
9 Helping the Neighborhood: Creating a Sustainability Indicator of Substandard Housing