How Vehicle Access Enables Low-Income Households to Live in Better Neighborhoods

Transcription

1 How Vehicle Access Enables Low-Income Households to Live in Better Neighborhoods DAWKINS, Casey (University of Maryland) JEON, Jae Sik (University of Maryland) PENDALL, Rolf (Urban Institute) ACSP 2014 Conference

2 1. Background Transportation influences location choices Alonso & Muth -> Abraham & Hunt 1997; Levine 1998; Rodriguez, et al Low income households face unique constraints when making housing choices and often lack access to automobiles Vouchers are one way to improve the location options facing low income households MTO final evaluation; 2011; Carlson, et al Much has been written about the location outcomes of low income households, but we know little about the role of transportation as it influences those outcomes Lease-up (Shroder, 2002); Housing search (Clampet-Lundquist, 2004); Neighborhood Opportunities (Briggs et al. 2012; Rosenblatt & DeLuca, 2012) 2

3 2. Research Questions How does vehicle access influence the types of neighborhoods in which low-income households are able to secure housing following a move to a new neighborhood? How do low-income households trade off different neighborhood amenities when making location choices? How does the receipt of a voucher combined with a geographical constraint on initial residential location influence locational attainment over the long-term? 3

4 3. Data and Method Household data: MTO baseline, interim, and final surveys Neighborhood data: 2000 Census, HUD data, HUD FHEA, other national data to characterize neighborhood sustainability To address reverse-causality between auto-access and locational outcomes (Gurley and Bruce 2005; Cervero et al. 2002): Restricted sample to those moved to a new census tract by the final survey Used the lagged measure of vehicle access as of the MTO interim survey, and added controls for whether the household gained or lost access to a vehicle Location Attainment Model Dependent variable: a census tract characteristic associated with a household s chosen neighborhood Independent variables: household-level determinants of location choice 4

5 4. Independent Variables Definitions Variable Definition Treatment Effects Voucher holder 1=Hhld with voucher, 0=Hhld without voucher Experimental group 1=Experimental Group Section 8 group 1=Section 8 Group Voucher x Experimental group Interaction of Voucher and Experimental Voucher x Section 8 group Interaction of Voucher and Section 8 Metropolitan Controls Baltimore 1=Baltimore Chicago 1=Chicago Los Angeles 1=Los Angeles New York 1=New York Household Characteristics Car access at interim 1=Hhld owns a car or has a driver's license Car access gained 1=Hhld gained car access between the interim and final survey Car access lost 1=Hhld lost car access between the interim and final survey Income Total Income of Household Income squared Quadratic term of Income Age of HH head Age of Household Head Age of HH head squared Quadratic term of Age HH head Black 1=A household head is Black HH head Hispanic 1=A household head is Hispanic HH head female 1=A household head is female HH head married 1=A household head is Married # children in HH Number of Children HH head has high school degree 1=A household head holds high school diploma, GED, or both HH head employed 1=A household head is currently employed Baseline Neighborhood Characteristic The lagged measure of the same neighborhood characteristic 5

6 5. Neighborhood Characteristics Averages No Car Access at Interim No Car Access at Final Car Access at Interim No Car Access at Final No Car Access at Interim Car Access at Final Car Access at Interim Car Access at Final Full Sample Functional Environment Median Gross Rent *** *** Vacancy Rate ** 7.49*** % Owner Occupied *** 37.70*** Vouchers (% of Rental Housing) *** 6.14*** FHEA Transit Access Index * 68.17* 68.34** Social Environment Poverty Rate *** 27.90*** Median Household Income 28, , ,345.87* 30,784.33*** 30,987.82*** Labor Force Participation Rate *** 55.80*** Unemployment Rate *** 13.90*** % Minority Population ** 81.15*** 81.47*** % Female Headed Households *** 45.35*** % 25+ w High School Diploma / GED *** 62.66*** Natural Environment % Open Space *** 5.39*** Average Block Length 2, , , ,447.59*** 2,337.97*** Population Density 27, , , ,862.05*** 22,202.92*** % Buffer of Major Highways Cancer Risk / Million *** 58.92*** % Buffer of TRI Facilities ** Economic Vitality Job Density 5, , , *** 3,760.59*** Aggregate Income Density 327,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000*** 269,000,000*** Access to Opportunity FHEA School Performance Index ** 28.81** # Jobs within 30 minutes 193, , , ,527.30*** 144,186.20*** 6

7 6. Locational Attainment Results Voucher holder Experimental group Section 8 group Voucher X Exp Voucher X Sec8 Car access at interim Car access gained Car access lost Variable Description Functional Environment Median Gross Rent *** *** * NS NS *** *** *** Vacancy Rate *** NS NS NS 1.335* *** * 1.386*** % Owner Occupied *** 4.800*** NS NS NS 4.779*** 4.867*** *** Vouchers (% of Rental Housing) 2.546*** NS NS NS NS NS NS NS FHEA Transit Access Index NS NS NS NS 6.526* NS NS 4.743** Social Environment Poverty Rate *** *** ** NS NS *** *** 5.026*** Median Household Income 7,728.3*** 2,868.2*** 1,638.7* NS NS 3,425.7*** 3,218.3*** -4,229.1*** Labor Force Participation Rate 4.712*** 1.989*** 2.102*** NS NS 2.094*** 2.112*** *** Unemployment Rate *** *** ** NS NS *** *** 2.393*** % Minority Population ** NS NS NS NS *** ** 4.930*** % Female Headed Households *** *** ** NS NS *** *** 3.478*** % 25+ w High School Diploma / GED 6.316*** 3.184*** NS NS NS 3.318*** 3.142*** *** Natural Environment % Open Space 2.282*** NS NS NS NS 1.600*** 1.827*** *** Average Block Length *** NS NS NS NS ** *** ** Population Density -3,063.12** NS NS NS NS -2,596.56* -4,088.20*** 2,878.40** % Buffer of Major Highways ** NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Cancer Risk / Million *** NS NS NS NS NS NS 1.972* % Buffer of TRI Facilities ** ** NS NS NS NS NS 4.839* Economic Vitality Job Density -1, ** NS NS NS NS NS NS 3, *** Aggregate Income Density NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Access to Opportunity FHEA School Performance Index NS NS NS NS NS 3.696*** 2.667* NS # Jobs within 30 minutes -83, *** NS NS NS NS NS NS 37, * Note: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1; NS = not significant at.10 level Models also include controls for household characteristics, baseline neighborhood characteristics, and metropolitan areas. 7

8 7. Findings Households with access to cars ended up in neighborhoods with: Lower concentrations of poverty Lower unemployment Lower vacancy rates Higher median rents Higher labor-force participation Higher-performing schools Tradeoffs associated with having car access between environmental conditions and outcomes with access to jobs and public transit The initial exposure to low-poverty neighborhoods has impacts on long-term locational attainment 8

9 8. Policy Implications Combining rental vouchers with subsidies for automobile vouchers Short-term car rental services such as ZipCar and Car2Go Coordination of housing voucher assistance with nonprofit car donation services and rideshare service The expansion of the voucher program supported by expanded housing search services that provide information about the opportunities available in different neighborhoods Housing search services should be: Transportation-based services (the WtWV program) Tailored to the particular needs of individual households, given the spatial heterogeneity of preferences and opportunity structures 9