Mixed Messages about Mixed Tenure: Do Reviews Tell the Real Story?

Mixed tenure is the predominant development and regeneration strategy and is a key component of UK housing and urban policy. It is purported to provide wide-ranging social, environmental and economic benefits to residents. While there is a large literature on mixed tenure, policy makers are likely to rely on reviews and summaries of the evidence rather than primary studies. But can they rely on such reviews? Using systematic review methods this paper critically appraises recent reviews for the evidence that mixed tenure policies and strategies have achieved any of these expected benefits. Of the six UK reviews of primary studies, most drew on less than half the available primary studies, none provided a critical appraisal of individual studies and made no comment on conflicting evidence between and within studies. While the reviews gave indications of the deficiencies of the evidence base, rather than focus on the implications of these deficiencies, four of the six reviews emphasised the positive effects of tenure mix.

[1]  M. David.  Introduction: Themed Section on Evidence-Based Policy as a concept for Modernising Governance and Social Science Research , 2002, Social Policy and Society.

[2]  Rebecca Tunstall,et al.  ‘Mixed tenure’ policy in the UK: privatisation, pluralism or euphemism? , 2003 .

[3]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , 2005 .

[4]  Tony Manzi,et al.  Developing and sustaining mixed tenure housing developments , 2008 .

[5]  Occasional Paper 1 : Neighbourhoods and the Impacts of Social Mix : Crime , Tenure Diversification and Assisted Mobility , 2005 .

[6]  J. Gray,et al.  Evidence based policy making , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Hugh Bochel,et al.  Making policy in theory and practice , 2007 .

[8]  L. Hedges,et al.  A Brief History of Research Synthesis , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[9]  A. Murie,et al.  Neighbourhoods that work: A study of the Bournville estate, Birmingham , 2003 .

[10]  Mark Petticrew,et al.  The physical environment and physical activity: a critical appraisal of review articles. , 2007, American journal of preventive medicine.

[11]  A. Kearns,et al.  Mixed Tenure Communities and Neighbourhood Quality , 2007 .

[12]  Baziel G M van Engelen,et al.  Polymyositis, invasion of non-necrotic muscle fibres, and the art of repetition , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  R. Moore,et al.  Evidence-based policy-making , 2006, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[14]  A. Fenton,et al.  A good place for children? : attracting and retaining families in inner urban mixed income communities. , 2005 .

[15]  R. Rogers,et al.  Towards an Urban Renaissance , 1999 .

[16]  Ljiljana V. Grubović.  Urban task force , 2002 .

[17]  R. Atkinson.  The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban renaissance? , 2004 .

[18]  H. Davies,et al.  Using Evidence: How research can inform public services , 2007 .

[19]  A Balancing Act? Tenure Diversification in Australia and the UK , 2003 .

[20]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Reconnecting Excluded Communities: The Neighbourhood Impacts of Owner Occupation , 1998 .

[21]  Mark Petticrew,et al.  Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  S. Cummins,et al.  “Food deserts”—evidence and assumption in health policy making , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Housing Lin,et al.  Homes for the Future: More Affordable, More Sustainable - Housing Green Paper (August 2007) , 2007 .

[24]  A Shiell,et al.  Lost in translation: a genealogy of the “social capital” concept in public health , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[25]  Reinout Kleinhans,et al.  Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: A review of recent literature , 2004 .

[26]  G. Meen,et al.  Economic Segregation in England: Causes, Consequences And Policy , 2005 .

[27]  M. Petticrew,et al.  The health impacts of housing improvement: a systematic review of intervention studies from 1887 to 2007. , 2009, American journal of public health.

[28]  Barry Goodchild,et al.  Social Mix and the `Balanced Community' in British housing policy – a tale of two epochs , 2000 .

[29]  A. Murie,et al.  More than tenure mix: developer and purchaser attitudes to new housing estates. , 2006 .

[30]  Tony Manzi,et al.  So many managers, so little vision: registered social landlords and consortium schemes in the UK , 2004 .

[31]  Steven A Greenberg,et al.  How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[32]  Great Britain. Foreign Office..  Our future homes : opportunity, choice, responsibility : the government's housing policies for England and Wales , 1995 .

[33]  A. Berube.  Mixed communities in England A US perspective on evidence and policy prospects , 2005 .

[34]  Wendy Sarkissian,et al.  The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical Review , 1976 .

[35]  J. Billeter.  Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing , 2009 .

[36]  Naoto Yamauchi,et al.  Joseph Rowntree Foundation , 2021, International Encyclopedia of Civil Society.

[37]  Rowland Atkinson,et al.  Owner Occupation, Social Mix and Neighbourhood Impacts , 1999 .

[38]  Chris Park,et al.  The Environment , 2010 .

[39]  Rowland Atkinson,et al.  Disentangling Area Effects: Evidence from Deprived and Non-deprived Neighbourhoods , 2001 .

[40]  Tony Manzi,et al.  Creating and sustaining mixed income communities in Scotland: a good practice guide , 2007 .

[41]  George Galster,et al.  Neighbourhood Social Mix as a Goal of Housing Policy: A Theoretical Analysis , 2007 .

[42]  H. Graham,et al.  Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: The reality according to policymakers , 2004, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[43]  Caroline Mager.  National strategy for neighbourhood renewal : a framework for consultation , 2000 .