Housing, place or social networks: What's more important for relocating tenants?

被引:12
作者
Baker, Emma [1 ]
Arthurson, Kathy [2 ]
机构
[1] Flinders Univ S Australia, Sch Geog Populat & Environm Management, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[2] Swinburne Univ Technol, Inst Social Res, Hawthorn, Vic, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.1080/07293682.2007.9982612
中图分类号
TU98 [区域规划、城乡规划];
学科分类号
0814 ; 082803 ; 0833 ;
摘要
Urban regeneration is increasingly used by Australian governments as a means of physically upgrading ageing public dwelling stock, but little is known about the social implications of regeneration projects. For public tenants involuntarily relocated for urban regeneration, relocation risks added stress and disruption for an already disadvantaged population. However, it also has the potential to improve residential satisfaction. Moving may provide an opportunity to improve the quality of housing in terms of room size, space and other physical characteristics, the opportunity to live in a better or safer neighbourhood, access to better services and a broadening of social networks. This paper reports on the findings of a research project investigating the comparative influences-quality of housing, residential environment, and social networks-on residential satisfaction after relocation. Tenants were interviewed before and after relocation from Ferryden Park in South Australia as part of The Parks Urban Regeneration Project, to date Australia's largest regeneration project. The study found that in determining the self-perceived success of relocation, at least for this group of tenants, the quality of the post relocation housing was the most important factor. The implication for planners is that although familial and friendship networks are still important, the quality of post relocation housing is likely to have a greater influence on whether or not tenants are satisfied with moving as part of urban regeneration projects.
引用
收藏
页码:28 / 35
页数:8
相关论文
共 52 条
[41]  
Sayegh KS, 1987, HOUSING CANADIAN PER, P478
[42]  
SCHWIRIAN KP, 1993, J COMMUNITY PSYCHOL, V21, P285, DOI 10.1002/1520-6629(199310)21:4<285::AID-JCOP2290210405>3.0.CO
[43]  
2-Y
[44]  
*SCRCSSP, 1999, REP GOV SERV 1999
[45]  
SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision), 2007, REP GOV SERV 2007 PR
[46]  
South Australian Housing Trust, 2006, TRUST FOC 2005 2006
[47]  
Stimson, 1978, THESIS
[48]   Health impact assessment of housing improvements: incorporating research evidence [J].
Thomson, H ;
Petticrew, M ;
Douglas, M .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2003, 57 (01) :11-16
[49]   The health impacts of housing-led regeneration: a prospective controlled study [J].
Thomson, Hilary ;
Morrison, David ;
Petticrew, Mark .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2007, 61 (03) :211-214
[50]  
Wilkinson RG, 1998, SOCIAL DETERMINANTS