Exploring the Effect of Public Housing on the Concentration of Poverty in Columbus, Ohio

Abstract

Using boundary-matched 1980 and 1990 census tract data for the central county of the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area, the authors explore the effect that public housing has on changes in neighborhood poverty rates to evaluate the impact of governmental and institutional actions on recent increases in poverty concentration within urban areas. Three important findings emerge: Public housing concentrated poverty in Columbus during the 1980s, the effect of public housing on poverty concentration was greater among blacks than whites, and public housing concentrates poverty because host neighborhoods house the at-risk portion of the population and because public housing affects the surrounding housing market.

Mobility and work-residence matching for new immigrants in Hong Kong

“…Similar phenomenon has also been found in Chinese cities (Liu & Wu, 2006). Since the application conditions would rely on the financial situation of households, a direct effect would appear that in the public housing area, poor families would be geographically circumscribed (Hays, 1995;Holloway, Bryan, Chabot, Rogers, & Rulli, 1998). However, for the indirect (or spill-over effect), which means that surrounding neighborhoods would be encouraged to move away from public housing area, not enough evidence is found to support this notion (Delang & Lung, 2010).…”

“…The negative coefficients of District poverty illustrate an influence from the 'Neighborhood Effect' of poverty concentration (Friedrichs & Blasius, 2003). In Hong Kong, a spill-over effect from 'Neighborhood Effect' would appear when poor families cluster in a nearby district (Hays, 1995;Holloway et al, 1998). As a result of such effect, households who can afford better housing would move out of this district.…”

Landscape ecology, land-use structure, and population density: Case study of the Columbus Metropolitan Area

“…Columbus is considered a "typical" American city. With a demographic profile that reflects the nation as a whole, it is widely used as a test market for new products (Conroy, 2004;Holloway, Bryan, Chabot, Rogers, & Rulli, 1998). As the modeling approach is a good fit for Columbus, its conclusions may well apply to many other similar U.S. cities.…”

Estimating the local economic impacts of HOPE VI

“…Such sites have contributed to increased poverty in their neighborhoods (Massey and Kanaiaupuni 1993;Holloway et al 1998;Turner et al 2007). The complexes have had negative effects on surrounding property values, even after taking other neighborhood conditions into account (Lee, Culhane, and Wachter 1999;Galster 2002;Ellen et al 2007).…”