Next Article in Journal
An Approach to Assess the Effectiveness of Smart Growth in Achieving Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Journal
Measuring Eco-Efficiency of Agriculture in China
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2016, 8(4), 396; doi:10.3390/su8040396

What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households

1
Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, North Dakota State University, 711 2nd Avenue North, Office #308, Fargo, ND 58102, USA
2
Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, A340 Langford Architecture Center, 3137 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen
Received: 5 March 2016 / Revised: 18 April 2016 / Accepted: 19 April 2016 / Published: 21 April 2016
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [3375 KB, uploaded 25 April 2016]   |  

Abstract

Neighborhood walkability can influence individual health, social interactions, and environmental quality, but the relationships between subsidized households and their walkable environment have not been sufficiently examined in previous empirical studies. Focusing on two types of subsidized housing developments (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Public Housing (PH)) in Austin, Texas, this study evaluates the neighborhood walkability of place-based subsidized households, utilizing objectively measured Walk Score and walking-related built environment data. We also used U.S. Census block group data to account for the socio-demographic covariates. Based on various data, we employed bivariate and multivariate analyses to specify the relationships between subsidized households and their neighborhood walkable environment. The results of our bivariate analyses show that LIHTC households tend to be located in car-dependent neighborhoods and have more undesirable walking-related built environment conditions compared with non-LIHTC neighborhoods. Our regression results also represent that LIHTC households are more likely to be exposed to neighborhoods with low Walk Score, less sidewalk coverage, and more highways and major roads, while there are no significant associations for PH households. These findings imply that more attention and effort toward reducing the inequitable distributions of walkable neighborhood features supporting rather than hindering healthy lifestyles must be provided to subsidized households. View Full-Text
Keywords: street smart walk score; walking-related built environment; low-income housing tax credit households; public housing households street smart walk score; walking-related built environment; low-income housing tax credit households; public housing households
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, Y.-J.; Woo, A. What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households. Sustainability 2016, 8, 396.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top