TY - JOUR
T1 - Another Look at Location Affordability
T2 - Understanding the Detailed Effects of Income and Urban Form on Housing and Transportation Expenditures
AU - Makarewicz, Carrie
AU - Dantzler, Prentiss
AU - Adkins, Arlie
N1 - Funding Information:
Some of the data used in this analysis are derived from Restricted Data Files of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, obtained under special contractual arrangements designed to protect the anonymity of respondents. These data are not available from the authors. Persons interested in obtaining PSID Restricted Data Files should contact PSIDHelp@umich.edu
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
PY - 2020/11/1
Y1 - 2020/11/1
N2 - Findings from a study using the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID) and detailed urban environment and transit data support the location affordability hypothesis. Households in location-efficient places spent significantly less on household transportation, enough to offset high housing costs. Walkable blocks and good transit especially contribute to these savings. But households with very low incomes (below 35% AMI) do not see significant enough savings. Authors recommend investments in transit, sidewalks, and economic development in disinvested areas; the preservation and creation of affordable housing of all types and tenures; and more supports for households with very low incomes. For decades, researchers have explored how location efficiency (LE) affects housing affordability, including incorporating transportation costs into a holistic housing affordability measure known as location affordability. Others have argued that estimated transportation savings from LE may be overstated because of limits in data and methods. Smart and Klein’s 2018 article in Housing Policy Debate analyzed the PSID and found “no evidence to support the location affordability hypothesis.” Considering their study’s policy implications, as well as its methodological limitations, we tested the PSID data at a smaller geography using more detailed household and urban form variables, per the LE literature. With this approach, we find statistically significant and meaningful transportation cost differences that are enough to offset higher housing prices for several income groups. However, the transportation savings for households in the lowest-income group in urban areas do not offset high housing costs. Because location-affordable places are in short supply, and the extreme shortage of affordable housing, both housing and transportation investments are needed to support households with low and moderate incomes. Expanding location affordability regionally will also help to address climate change and expand access to job opportunities, goods, services, and other amenities.
AB - Findings from a study using the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID) and detailed urban environment and transit data support the location affordability hypothesis. Households in location-efficient places spent significantly less on household transportation, enough to offset high housing costs. Walkable blocks and good transit especially contribute to these savings. But households with very low incomes (below 35% AMI) do not see significant enough savings. Authors recommend investments in transit, sidewalks, and economic development in disinvested areas; the preservation and creation of affordable housing of all types and tenures; and more supports for households with very low incomes. For decades, researchers have explored how location efficiency (LE) affects housing affordability, including incorporating transportation costs into a holistic housing affordability measure known as location affordability. Others have argued that estimated transportation savings from LE may be overstated because of limits in data and methods. Smart and Klein’s 2018 article in Housing Policy Debate analyzed the PSID and found “no evidence to support the location affordability hypothesis.” Considering their study’s policy implications, as well as its methodological limitations, we tested the PSID data at a smaller geography using more detailed household and urban form variables, per the LE literature. With this approach, we find statistically significant and meaningful transportation cost differences that are enough to offset higher housing prices for several income groups. However, the transportation savings for households in the lowest-income group in urban areas do not offset high housing costs. Because location-affordable places are in short supply, and the extreme shortage of affordable housing, both housing and transportation investments are needed to support households with low and moderate incomes. Expanding location affordability regionally will also help to address climate change and expand access to job opportunities, goods, services, and other amenities.
KW - accessibility
KW - expenditures
KW - housing
KW - location affordability
KW - transportation
KW - urban form
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090316396&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090316396&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/10511482.2020.1792528
DO - 10.1080/10511482.2020.1792528
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85090316396
SN - 1051-1482
VL - 30
SP - 1033
EP - 1055
JO - Housing Policy Debate
JF - Housing Policy Debate
IS - 6
ER -