Walkability, transit access, and traffic exposure for low-income residents with subsidized housing.

OBJECTIVES We assessed the spatial distribution of subsidized housing units provided through 2 federally supported, low-income housing programs in Orange County, California, in relation to neighborhood walkability, transit access, and traffic exposure. METHODS We used data from multiple sources to examine land-use and health-related built environment factors near housing subsidized through the Housing Choice Voucher Program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, and to determine these patterns' associations with traffic exposure. RESULTS Subsidized projects or units in walkable, poorer neighborhoods were associated with lower traffic exposure; higher traffic exposure was associated with more transit service, a Hispanic majority, and mixed-use areas. Voucher units are more likely than LIHTC projects to be located in high-traffic areas. CONCLUSIONS Housing program design may affect the location of subsidized units, resulting in differential traffic exposure for households by program type. Further research is needed to better understand the relationships among subsidized housing locations, characteristics of the built environment, and health concerns such as traffic exposure, as well as which populations are most affected by these relationships.

[1]  Douglas Houston,et al.  Fine particulate concentrations on sidewalks in five Southern California cities , 2011 .

[2]  K. Neckerman,et al.  Built environments and obesity in disadvantaged populations. , 2009, Epidemiologic reviews.

[3]  Paul Ong,et al.  Proximity of licensed child care facilities to near-roadway vehicle pollution. , 2006, American journal of public health.

[4]  Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris,et al.  A New-found Popularity for Transit-oriented Developments? Lessons from Southern California , 2010 .

[5]  V. Basolo.  Immigrants ’ Housing Search and Neighborhood Conditions : A Comparative Analysis of Housing Choice Voucher Holders , 2009 .

[6]  Douglas Houston,et al.  Transit, Employment and Women on Welfare1 , 2002 .

[7]  B. Ostro,et al.  Proximity of California public schools to busy roads. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  Kathryn M Neckerman,et al.  Effect of individual or neighborhood disadvantage on the association between neighborhood walkability and body mass index. , 2009, American journal of public health.

[9]  H. Frumkin.  Urban Sprawl and Public Health , 2002, Public health reports.

[10]  Genevieve Giuliano,et al.  Low Income, Public Transit, and Mobility: , 2005 .

[11]  L. Frank,et al.  Multiple Impacts of the Built Environment on Public Health: Walkable Places and the Exposure to Air Pollution , 2005 .

[12]  Michael Cahill,et al.  Housing and urban development , 2018, The Environment and Social Policy.

[13]  Douglas Houston,et al.  Structural Disparities of Urban Traffic in Southern California: Implications for Vehicle-Related Air Pollution Exposure in Minority and High-Poverty Neighborhoods , 2004 .

[14]  Frederick W Lipfert,et al.  On exposure and response relationships for health effects associated with exposure to vehicular traffic , 2008, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.

[15]  J. Rabkin,et al.  High point walking for health: creating built and social environments that support walking in a public housing community. , 2009, American journal of public health.

[16]  Samiya A Bashir,et al.  Home is where the harm is: inadequate housing as a public health crisis. , 2002, American journal of public health.

[17]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment , 2010 .

[18]  S. Popkin,et al.  The Health Status of HOPE VI Public Housing Residents , 2005, Journal of health care for the poor and underserved.

[19]  J. Brooks-Gunn,et al.  Moving to opportunity: an experimental study of neighborhood effects on mental health. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[20]  Lucas J Carr,et al.  Walk score™ as a global estimate of neighborhood walkability. , 2010, American journal of preventive medicine.

[21]  S. Popkin,et al.  The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed‐Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants? , 2000 .

[22]  Yifang Zhu,et al.  Study of ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic , 2002 .

[23]  Gary G Bennett,et al.  Safe To Walk? Neighborhood Safety and Physical Activity Among Public Housing Residents , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[24]  Lawrence D. Frank,et al.  Healthy Neighborhoods: Walkability and Air Pollution , 2009, Environmental health perspectives.

[25]  V. Basolo,et al.  Does mobility matter? The neighborhood conditions of housing voucher holders by race and ethnicity , 2005 .

[26]  A. Rundle,et al.  Disparities in Urban Neighborhood Conditions: Evidence from GIS Measures and Field Observation in New York City , 2009, Journal of public health policy.

[27]  Steve L Mara,et al.  A Wide Area of Air Pollutant Impact Downwind of a Freeway during Pre-Sunrise Hours. , 2009, Atmospheric environment.

[28]  Ralph Buehler,et al.  Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA , 2011 .

[29]  Lisa Schweitzer,et al.  Neighborhood Air Quality, Respiratory Health, and Vulnerable Populations in Compact and Sprawled Regions , 2010 .

[30]  D. Resnik.  Urban sprawl, smart growth, and deliberative democracy. , 2010, American journal of public health.

[31]  J. Behren,et al.  Traffic density in California: Socioeconomic and ethnic differences among potentially exposed children , 2003, Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.

[32]  Andrew Rundle,et al.  The Urban Built Environment and Obesity in New York City: A Multilevel Analysis , 2007, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.