Pearson, A L; Barnard, L T; Pearce, J; Kingham, S and Howden-Chapman, P (2014) Housing quality and resilience in New Zealand. Building Research & Information, 42(2), pp. 182-190. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
There is extensive research on the negative health impacts of poor housing quality. However, little is known about the potential health benefits of high-quality housing in poor neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods with unexpectedly good health outcomes despite high levels of deprivation have been deemed resilient places and housing quality in these areas may be a contributor to this resilience. This study aimed to evaluate whether an indicator of neighbourhood housing quality was associated with a previously quantified resilience index (RINZ) in New Zealand. It was found that areas with high housing quality tended to have higher median income, greater proportions of partnered people and shorter-term residents, and very low proportions of Māori. A positive association was found between housing quality and resilience, after adjustment for deprivation. There was no indication of differences by heterogeneity in housing quality within the aggregate unit of analysis. These findings pose the hypothesis that improving housing quality in similarly deprived areas that have poor health outcomes could potentially boost health. To extend this understanding, further development of a more sophisticated housing quality indicator is recommended.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; health; housing; resilience |
| Index terms: | housing, deprivation, built environment, quality indicator, income, aggregate, New Zealand |
| Subjects: | Geography, infrastructure and transport systems, social justice, materials science, construction type, project delivery, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Ethics, Urban Studies, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here