The intersection of homeownership,race and neighbourhood context: Implications for neighbourhood satisfaction

Abstract

This study contributes to the growing body of literature on the multifaceted consequences of homeownership for households and their communities, which has seldom focused on neighbourhood satisfaction, an important predictor of neighbourhood quality. Existing studies on the relationship between homeownership and neighbourhood satisfaction have not considered whether homeownership varies in its consequences depending on local context or racial background. Homeownership may render residents more responsive to neighbourhood conditions, to their benefit and to their detriment, depending on local context. Patterns may further vary across racial groups, given vast interracial inequalities in the attainment of desirable neighbourhood outcomes and homeownership. Employing a sample of 1897 respondents from the 2001 Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS), as well as data from the 2000 Census, this study uncovers a complex set of interrelationships among homeownership, neighbourhood characteristics and race. Homeownership makes residents more sensitive to the desirability of local characteristics, proving beneficial in advantaged communities and disadvantageous in distressed communities. These conclusions are broadly applicable to blacks, Latinos and whites, though homeownership is more salient among blacks and Latinos in determining their response to neighbourhood conditions. Given differential access to desirable neighbourhoods and asset accumulation across racial groups, findings raise new and important questions regarding the meaning of homeownership for minority households and their communities.

Keywords

homeownership neighbourhood attachment neighbourhood satisfaction race place stratification

Introduction

Neighbourhood satisfaction – how well neighbourhoods meet residents’ needs and desires – has been the subject of a long-standing dialogue among urban scholars (Greif, 2009; Harris, 2001; Hipp, 2009; Lee and Guest, 1983; Lee et al., 1991; Swaroop and Krysan, 2011; Theodori, 2001; Woldoff, 2002). Neighbourhood satisfaction merits scholarly attention given that it is an important indicator and predictor of neighbourhood quality. Residents who are satisfied with their neighbourhoods are less likely to seek to leave them (Speare, 1974), and ensuing population stability can strengthen community social cohesion and collective efficacy, deterring crime and disorder (Sampson et al., 1997; Silver and Miller, 2004). Numerous studies have suggested that one characteristic – homeownership – can enhance neighbourhood satisfaction through expectations of wealth accumulation, gratifying social ties, stronger emotional connection, and sense of pride and achievement (Greif, 2009; Grinstein-Weiss et al., 2011; Hipp, 2009; Swaroop and Krysan, 2011; Woldoff, 2002). However, studies have generally examined the relationship between homeownership and neighbourhood satisfaction without consideration of a key factor: local context.

Stressors in the local context (e.g. poverty, crime and disorder, racial segregation) may powerfully diminish all residents’ neighbourhood satisfaction because of poorer services and amenities, perceived lack of safety and social stigma (Hipp, 2007, 2009; Ross et al., 2000; Woldoff, 2002). However, these local stressors may be particularly salient to the neighbourhood satisfaction of homeowners, given their strong economic and social stake in their communities. Few studies have considered whether, by heightening residents’ sensitivity to neighbourhood conditions, homeownership may increase the likelihood of experiencing weak neighbourhood satisfaction, particularly in disadvantaged communities. This topic is particularly timely given that in recent decades homeownership has become more evident in communities with higher levels of local stressors (Flippen, 2010; Gabriel and Painter, 2003; Immergluck, 1998), and that many homeowners face unexpected exposure to community decline in the wake of foreclosures resulting from the housing market crisis (Immergluck and Smith, 2006a, 2006b).

Patterns raise particular concern for blacks and Latinos, who have consistently shown lower levels of neighbourhood satisfaction relative to whites, attributable in part to disadvantageous neighbourhood conditions (Campbell et al., 1976; Galster and Hesser, 1981; Greif, 2009; Hunter, 1974; Lee et al., 1991; Woldoff, 2002). Blacks and Latinos have also been more likely than whites to purchase homes in economically distressed and racially segregated communities (Flippen, 2010; Gabriel and Painter, 2003; Immergluck, 1998, Meyers et al., 2005), and to face stronger obstacles in exiting neighbourhoods with which they become dissatisfied (South and Deane, 1993; South et al., 2005). These patterns, in conjunction with the customary barriers to community exit posed by homeownership, elicit concern that homeownership may entrench blacks and Latinos in dissatisfactory residential conditions.

The primary goal of this study is to examine whether the consequences of homeownership for neighbourhood satisfaction vary according to neighbourhood context and racial background. Disadvantageous neighbourhood characteristics consistently associated with weaker neighbourhood satisfaction may take a stronger toll on the neighbourhood satisfaction of homeowners. Similarly, homeownership may facilitate stronger neighbourhood satisfaction in more advantaged communities, particularly through expectations of wealth accumulation and prestige. Accordingly, this study employs the 2001 Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS) and 2000 Census data to explore the complex relationships among homeownership, neighbourhood context and neighbourhood satisfaction. Specifically, it will examine blacks, Latinos and whites to assess: (1) patterns of neighbourhood satisfaction and neighbourhood characteristics among owners and renters (2) the influence of homeownership and neighbourhood characteristics (i.e. economic disadvantage, physical disorder, racial composition and presence of local homeowners) on neighbourhood satisfaction, and (3) the presence of a conditional relationship between homeownership and neighbourhood characteristics. Findings can provide valuable information for policymakers and community organisers in identifying households at risk of experiencing weaker levels of satisfaction, and similarly communities in jeopardy of future decline. Furthermore, findings can speak to the larger dialogue on interracial inequalities in the attainment of desirable neighbourhood and housing outcomes.

Patterns and consequences of contemporary homeownership

Homeownership has occupied a unique position in American history, with its attainment recognised as an indicator of the ‘American Dream’ (Rohe et al., 2002; Shlay, 2006). For many years federal housing policy has encouraged homeownership because of its assumed benefits for households and communities (Dietz and Haurin, 2003; Galster, 1987; Rohe and Watson, 2007; Shlay, 2006). Homeownership can contribute to financial security (e.g. wealth accumulation, protection from rising housing costs), psychological wellbeing (e.g. self-esteem, control over the local space) and gratifying social ties, all of which can enhance neighbourhood satisfaction (Dietz and Haurin, 2003; Greif, 2009; Rohe and Basolo, 1997; Rohe and Stegman, 1994). A larger presence of homeowners in the community can also benefit all residents’ neighbourhood satisfaction by fostering population stability and inhibiting crime and disorder (Silver and Miller, 2004; Speare, 1974). Furthermore, as discussed by investment return theory, homeowners are more likely to engage in activities (e.g. home improvements, membership in neighbourhood watch groups) that can improve their home values and those of other homeowners (Galster, 1987; Rohe and Stewart, 1996).

Opportunities for homeownership have not been evenly distributed across racial groups, as blacks and Latinos have historically shown lower rates of homeownership compared with whites (Conley, 1999; McConnell and Marcelli, 2007). However, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as well as government-sponsored enterprises (e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), reduced discriminatory patterns in lending and enhanced lending opportunities for minorities (Shlay, 2006). While disparities in homeownership rates between whites and minorities remained consistent in the 1970s and 1980s (Wachter and Megbolugbe, 1992), there were noteworthy gains in minority homeownership in the mid to late 1990s (Shlay, 2006). Between 1990 and 2000, the overall homeownership rate grew by 2 percentage points, including increases of 3.4 points for whites, 2.9 points for blacks, and 3.3 points for Latinos. By the end of the decade, the homeownership rate for whites was 72.4%; blacks, 46.3%; and Latinos, 45.7% (Fannie Mae).

Blacks’ and Latinos’ increased homeownership rates elicited cautious optimism about eradicating persistent residential and economic inequalities across racial groups. However, consistent with the locational attainment model and place stratification models, blacks and Latinos were more likely than whites to purchase homes in neighbourhoods with conditions (e.g. poverty, segregation, crime and disorder) that are associated with lower property values and poorer local services (e.g. schools, sanitation), and similarly, neighbourhood satisfaction (Alba and Logan, 1992; Flippen, 2010; Friedman and Rosenbaum, 2007; Gabriel and Painter, 2003; Herbert and Kaul, 2005; Immergluck 1998; Rosenbaum and Friedman, 2001; Stuart, 2000; Turner et al., 2002). Blacks and Latinos also experience stronger obstacles to escaping undesirable neighbourhood conditions, which may serve to intensify their negative toll on neighbourhood satisfaction (Ahlbrandt, 1984; Campbell et al., 1976; Greif, 2009; Hunter, 1974; Lee et al., 1991; South and Deane, 1993; South et al., 2005). Overall, these patterns raise considerable concern about black and Latino homeowners’ neighbourhood satisfaction.

Homeownership, local stressors and neighbourhood satisfaction

The current study focuses on several local stressors that have been consistently linked to neighbourhood satisfaction. Neighbourhood physical disorder (e.g. deterioration, graffiti, litter and abandoned buildings) can lower neighbourhood satisfaction because of concerns about property value depreciation, fear, stress, social mistrust, powerlessness and depression (Haney, 2007; Hipp, 2007; Mitchell and LaGory, 2002; Perkins and Taylor, 1996; Ross, 2000; Sampson and Raudenbush, 2004; Skogan, 1990; Woldoff, 2002). Disorder is closely associated with local economic disadvantage (Greif, 2009; Grinstein-Weiss et al., 2011; Lee and Guest, 1983; Hipp, 2009; Mohan and Twigg, 2007; Permentier et al., 2011; Taylor, 1996). Affluent communities can offer higher quality resources and amenities (e.g. schools, sanitation, transportation and police protection), better aesthetics, social prestige and greater home value appreciation (Taylor, 1996). Community affluence is also instrumental in facilitating higher levels of trust among residents, enhancing social ties and in turn augmenting neighbourhood satisfaction (Fischer and Jackson, 1976).

Previous studies have consistently uncovered a strong relationship between racial composition and neighbourhood satisfaction. The local presence of blacks in particular has been shown to diminish residents’ neighbourhood satisfaction, owing to racial prejudice as well as to race-associated factors, including anxiety about local property values, safety and prestige in minority neighbourhoods (Bobo and Zubrinsky, 1996; Charles, 2000; Clark, 1992; Ellen, 2000; Farley et al., 1994; Greif, 2009; Harris, 2001; Hipp, 2009; Krysan, 2002; Sampson and Raudenbush, 2004; Swaroop and Krysan, 2011). Growing aversion to Latino neighbours has also been observed, perhaps attributable to racial stereotyping and worries about neighbourhood quality, as well as to concerns about cultural assimilation (Clark, 1992; Espenshade and Hempstead, 1996; Greif, 2009; Lewis et al., 2011; South et al., 2008).

All residents may be susceptible to weaker neighbourhood satisfaction as a result of disadvantageous neighbourhood conditions, though homeowners may be at particular risk. Homes are the largest investment that most households make, as well as the largest item in their wealth portfolio (Shapiro et al., 2013). As a result, homeowners should remain strongly attuned to the presence of local characteristics that could jeopardise their home values, and similarly, their financial security (Harris, 1999; Immergluck and Smith, 2006a). Homeownership can also pose obstacles to exiting communities, given the time and effort necessary to sell a home, particularly when trying to minimise financial losses. Homeowners may therefore experience particular strain in the presence of undesirable neighbourhood conditions from which they have greater difficulty escaping. Frustrated homeowners may experience hopelessness and withdraw from community affairs, undermining the local social fabric (Jargowsky, 1997, Ross et al., 2000; Silver and Miller, 2004; Skogan, 1990). Alternatively, homeowners’ vested interest in preserving neighbourhood quality may prompt greater engagement in activities to improve undesirable local conditions.

The significance of homeownership for racial minorities

Interracial disparities in access to homeownership and wealth, as well as in neighbourhood preferences, may influence the extent to which neighbourhood characteristics and homeownership interact to influence neighbourhood satisfaction across racial groups. For example, since blacks have faced the strongest barriers to owning property (Conley, 1999; Yinger, 1995), black homeowners may experience a sense of pride as a result of ‘conquering the odds’, potentially buffering the ill effects of local stressors on their neighbourhood satisfaction. Similar patterns may be evident among Latinos, who have also faced impediments to homeownership (McConnell and Marcelli, 2007). Moreover, since many Latinos are immigrants who seek social and economic assimilation (Alba and Nee, 2003; Wen et al., 2009), they may regard homeownership as an affirmation of this goal and experience fewer concerns about the community characteristics where their homes were purchased.

Furthermore, blacks have generally shown considerable openness to a larger presence of black neighbours, and Latinos have illustrated desires for neighbourhoods with a sizeable Latino population (Charles, 2000; Clark, 1992; Krysan and Bader, 2007; Massey and Denton, 1993; Swaroop and Krysan, 2011). For both groups, preferences for neighbourhoods with a decent share of ingroup members may be motivated by a desire to avoid racial discrimination and to experience racial solidarity (Ellen, 2000; Feagin and Sikes, 1994; Krysan and Farley, 2002).

Ethnic communities can also provide economic opportunities, valuable social networks and desirable ethnic goods, enhancing their appeal to Latinos, particularly those who are immigrants (Chiswick and Miller, 2005; Fried, 2000; Gold, 1992). Thus, blacks and Latinos may be less likely to view neighbourhoods with a larger minority (particularly ingroup) presence as undesirable, and accordingly within these groups homeowners and renters may show similar patterns.

Alternatively, homeownership may considerably heighten blacks’ and Latinos’ susceptibility to weak neighbourhood satisfaction, given its contribution to overall household wealth. Wealth can provide an important cushion in the event an unexpected financial crisis (e.g. unemployment), which is especially critical for blacks and Latinos given lower household incomes and greater labour market insecurity relative to whites (Shapiro et al., 2013). Blacks and Latinos have also historically faced obstacles to wealth accumulation, particularly compared with whites. In 2002, whites’ median net worth was approximately 15 times that of black households and 10 times that of Latino households, and in subsequent years wealth disparities have grown starker (Gottschalck, 2008; Tayor et al., 2011). Further, blacks and Latinos derive significantly more of their net worth from homeownership than whites, whose equity is supplemented by assets such as stocks and retirement accounts (Shapiro et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2011). Thus, blacks and Latinos may be particularly likely to experience anxiety, and weaker neighbourhood satisfaction, when residing in communities whose social characteristics endanger the value of their most vital asset.

In sum, despite some evidence that homeownership may prove beneficial to neighbourhood satisfaction, it remains to be seen whether patterns generalise across neighbourhood conditions and social groups. It is plausible that homeownership could contribute to weaker neighbourhood satisfaction by creating or amplifying a negative response to ‘undesirable’ neighbourhood characteristics. Given vast differences across whites and minorities in their access to desirable communities and homeownership, as well as in their preferences regarding neighbourhood characteristics, patterns may diverge across whites and minorities. To address these topics, the current analysis employs a sample of blacks, Latinos and whites from the 2001 Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS), as well as 2000 Census data, to first assess patterns of neighbourhood satisfaction and neighbourhood characteristics for homeowners and renters within racial group. Next, it will assess the direct influence of homeownership and characteristics associated with neighbourhood desirability (i.e. economic disadvantage, physical disorder, racial composition and presence of local homeowners) on neighbourhood satisfaction, and finally it will determine whether a conditional relationship exists between homeownership and neighbourhood characteristics.

Methods

Data

The current study employs the 2001 Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS), a multistage probability sample of all communities and households in Los Angeles County with an oversample of poor neighbourhoods. LAFANS is a panel study, capturing individuals’ information at multiple time points, and a repeated cross-sectional neighbourhood survey, as communities will be examined at multiple time points, with new respondents added at each wave (Sastry et al., 2003). The sample consists of the 1897 individuals who responded to the question assessing neighbourhood satisfaction, race and homeownership.¹

The 2000 U.S. Census provided neighbourhood-level (census tract) information for the 65 L.A. County tracts represented in the LAFANS sample. Tract-level data are linked to respondent data, enabling a multilevel analysis of how individual and neighbourhood characteristics affect neighbourhood satisfaction. Systematic neighbourhood observations of physical disorder were provided by the LAFANS research team. Observations were undertaken in the 65 tracts represented in the sample, which contained 422 blocks and 2071 block faces. Each block contained approximately 5 block faces, with approximately 6.5 blocks per tract. An average of three independent observations were completed per block face, 14 per block, and 92 per tract (Sastry et al., 2003). These observations were collected by trained observers as they both drove and walked along each block face, observing both sides of the street and consequently recording observations of disorder using a standardised form. The current study aggregated block-level data to the tract level.

Dependent variable

The outcome of interest is neighbourhood satisfaction, which is a five-category variable derived from a question that asked ‘how satisfied are you with your neighbourhood?’, where ‘1’ is low and ‘5’ is high. Previous studies have relied on similar global measures of satisfaction, as they are meaningful estimates of residents’ overall perceptions of their communities (Greif, 2009; Harris, 2001; Hipp, 2009; Parkes et al., 2002; Woldoff, 2002).

Individual-level predictors

Homeownership is a dichotomous variable, where ‘1’ indicates the respondent lived in an owner-occupied dwelling, while ‘0’ indicates residence in a renter-occupied dwelling. Race is measured here by three mutually exclusive dummy variables – non-Hispanic white (reference), non-Hispanic black and Latino.

A handful of residential-based variables that have been associated with satisfaction and homeownership are included in the analysis, such as length of neighbourhood residence (in years) and a neighbouring scale, which represents the mean of respondents’ answers to four questions on a scale of 1 (low) to 4 (high) that measured how often they talk to neighbours and how often neighbours do favours for each other, watch each other’s property and give advice to one another (alpha value = 0.73).

Individual-level socioeconomic status is captured by respondent education and household income. The former is represented by four dummy variables: less than high school degree (reference), high school degree, some college/vocational experience/associate’s degree and college degree/postgraduate work or degree, and the latter is a logged measure of annual earned household income and transfer income (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, food stamps), in dollars. Analyses also include age (years), presence of children in the home (‘1’ = yes; ‘0’ = no), gender (‘1’ = male; ‘0’ = female), and marital status (‘1’ = married or cohabiting, ‘0’ = not married or cohabiting).

The definition of neighbourhood frequently varies among respondents, which poses particular challenges to an examination of neighbourhood attachment among racial groups if neighbourhood perceptions vary systematically across these groups. As a result, neighbourhood size is controlled for in all individual- and neighbourhood-level models using a variable labelled perceived neighbourhood size. This continuous control variable is based on a four-category LAFANS question that captures respondents’ own perceptions of their neighbourhood size, where ‘1’ represents the size of one street block, ‘2’ an area of several blocks on either side, ‘3’ an area within a 15-minute walk, and ‘4’ an area beyond a 15-minute walk.

Neighbourhood-level predictors

Four tract-level variables are employed to capture neighbourhood dynamics. First, a tract-level economic advantage scale was created through a series of data aggregation steps.² The scale consists of two standardised constructs: median household income (logged) and physical disorder. Physical disorder is captured by a scale derived from six questions posed to trained interviewers who surveyed block faces: ‘Is there: (1) trash or junk, (2) garbage, litter, broken glass, (3) empty beer or liquor bottles, (4) cigarettes/cigar butts/packages, (5) graffiti anywhere, and (6) homes/apartments with damaged exterior walls’. Physical disorder was reverse-coded before constructing the economic advantage scale, which has an alpha of 0.82. Percentage non-Hispanic black and percentage Latino capture the minority population size in respondents’ census tract. Finally, percentage homeowner captures the presence of homeowners in respondents’ census tract.

Analytic approach

T-tests are used to explore differences in satisfaction and all individual- and neighbourhood-level characteristics separately among blacks, Latinos and whites, and then according to tenure status within each racial group. Next, hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) is used in order to account for the nested structure of the data and its implications for assumptions about independence of observations (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). A series of multilevel models explore the influence of homeownership on satisfaction separately among blacks, Latinos and whites. Finally, in order to determine whether homeownership and neighbourhood characteristics interact to influence neighbourhood satisfaction, a separate set of models examines coefficients of interaction terms calculated by multiplying homeownership by each neighbourhood-level variable.³

Results

Patterns of neighbourhood satisfaction, homeownership and neighbourhood characteristics

In accordance with previous research, results illustrate that neighbourhood satisfaction varies according to racial background. Table 1 shows that whites have the highest mean satisfaction levels (4.21), which are significantly different from those of Latinos (3.86) and blacks (3.80). Whites also exhibit significantly higher levels of homeownership (65%) compared with blacks (47%) and Latinos (40%), and are most likely to reside in ‘desirable’ neighbourhoods that have characteristics generally associated with greater property values, better services and amenities, and higher prestige.

Table 1.

Descriptive information according to racial background.

	Blacks	Latinos	Whites
Individual-level
Neighbourhood satisfaction (1 = low; 5 = high)	3.80^w	3.86^w	4.21^{b l}
Homeownership (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.47^{w l}	0.40^{b w}	0.65^{b l}
Length residence (years)	9.26^{w l}	7.30^{b w}	12.21^{b l}
Neighbouring scale (1 = low; 4 = high)	2.52^w	2.56^w	2.64^bl
Perceived neigh. size (1 = low; 4 = high)	2.38^l	1.99^{b w}	2.37^l
Unsafe (1 = low; 4 = high)	2.08^w	2.08^w	1.88^{b l}
Household income (logged)	10.06^w	9.86^w	10.67^{b l}
Less than high school (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.09^l	0.48^{b w}	0.08^l
High school degree (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.27	0.26	0.23
Some college (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.48^{w l}	0.20^{b w}	0.33^{b l}
College + (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.16^{w l}	0.06^{b w}	0.36^{b l}
Age (years)	43.10^{w l}	38.07^{b w}	48.77^{b l}
Gender (male = 1)	0.49	0.53	0.51
Married/cohabiting (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.33^{l w}	0.56^b	0.61^b
Kids home (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.44^{l w}	0.59^{b w}	0.32^{b l}
Neighbourhood-level
Neigbhourhood advantage scale	−0.30^{w l}	−0.54^{b w}	0.53^{b l}
% Black	14.32^{w l}	4.77^{b w}	6.12^{b l}
% Latino	45.72^{w l}	66.64^{b w}	27.98^{b l}
% Homeowner	45.60^w	43.15^w	64.28^{b l}
Individual N	227	778	892
Tract N	46	65	54

Notes:

Significantly different from blacks.

Significantly different from Latinos.

Significantly different from whites.

Table 2 presents patterns according to both racial background and homeownership status, using t-tests to assess differences between homeowners and renters within each racial group. The table shows neighbourhood satisfaction levels are significantly higher for owners than renters among blacks (3.94 and 3.66, respectively) and whites (4.30 and 4.04, respectively). However, satisfaction levels do not differ meaningfully between Latino homeowners and renters. Among all three racial groups, homeowners reside in communities with greater socioeconomic advantage and a larger presence of homeowners compared with their renter counterparts.

Table 2.

Descriptive information according to racial background and homeownership status.

	Black owner	Black renter	Latino owner	Latino renter	White owner	White renter
Individual-level
Neighbourhood satisfaction (1 = low; 5 = high)	3.94	3.66*	4.01	3.78	4.30	4.04*
Length residence (years)	12.40	6.47*	11.76	4.18*	15.80	9.26*
Neighbouring scale (1 = low; 4 = high)	2.64	2.44	2.63	2.59	2.74	2.51*
Perceived neigh. size (1 = low; 4 = high)	2.52	2.26	2.04	1.96	2.42	2.29
Household income (logged)	10.45	9.66*	10.13	9.66*	10.96	10.20*
Less than high school (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.08	0.09	0.38	0.53*	0.04	0.16*
High school degree (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.12	0.40*	0.31	0.23	0.22	0.24
Some college (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.61	0.37*	0.25	0.17	0.36	0.27
College + (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.19	0.14	0.06	0.07	0.38	0.34
Age (years)	42.14	43.33	43.19	34.53*	53.60	40.77*
Gender (male = 1)	0.55	0.43	0.52	0.53	0.51	0.52
Married/cohabiting (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.37	0.26	0.59	0.54	0.69	0.50*
Kids home (0 = no; 1 = yes)	0.48	0.38	0.57	0.60	0.33	0.31
Neighbourhood-level
Neighbourhood advantage scale	−0.04	−0.51*	−0.19	−0.77*	0.73	0.17*
% Black	13.58	14.40	5.43	4.39	5.96	6.37
% Latino	43.75	47.02	63.56	68.26	27.14	29.67
% Homeowner	53.75	43.80*	55.49	46.16*	53.39	50.03*
Individual N	107	120	311	467	580	312
Tract N	29	33	56	49	39	45

Note:

Indicates statistically significant difference between owners and renters within racial groups at p < 0.05 level.

Neighbourhood racial composition, however, does not significantly differ between homeowners and renters within racial groups. Latino owners and renters are particularly likely to experience a large local Latino presence (63.56% and 68.26%, respectively), compared with black owners and renters (43.75% and 47.02%) and white owners and renters (27.14% and 29.67%). Black owners and renters are similarly likely to have a larger share of black residents in their communities (13.58% and 14.40%), while white owners and renters show approximately equivalent levels (5.96% and 6.37%), as do Latino owners and renters (5.43% and 4.39%). Taken together, results from Tables 1 and 2 support the place stratification and spatial assimilation models. Whites are generally more likely than blacks and Latinos to reside and purchase homes in more economically and socially advantaged communities. However, homeownership appears to be an aspect of residential and social mobility that permits minorities to attain residence in somewhat more advantaged communities (Alba and Logan, 1992; Herbert and Kaul, 2005).

Explaining neighbourhood satisfaction

Hierarchical modelling is used to assess whether homeownership is associated with higher neighbourhood satisfaction, either directly or due to other relevant individual- and neighbourhood-level factors. Model 1 in Tables 3 through 5 underscores the positive, albeit modest, relationship between homeownership and neighbourhood satisfaction among whites (coefficient = 0.15, p < 0.05), and among blacks (coefficient = 0.49, p < 0.01), though not among Latinos (coefficient = 0.03, p > 0.05). The inclusion of neighbourhood-level predictors in Model 2 in each of these tables only slightly weakens the homeownership coefficient among blacks (0.44, p < 0.01) and whites (0.11, p < 0.01). Model 3 in Tables 3 through 5 includes all individual-level characteristics in addition to neighbourhood-level ones, and shows modest weakening of the homeownership coefficient among blacks to 0.34 (p < 0.01), though there is little change among whites (coefficient = 0.11, p < 0.05). Among Latinos the coefficient for homeownership remains consistently non-significant across the three models, ranging from 0.03 to 0.06 (p > 0.05).

Table 3.

Regression of neighbourhood satisfaction on individual- and neighbourhood-level characteristics among blacks (unstandardised coefficients).^a

	1	2	3
Own home	0.492**	0.438**	0.343**
Neighbourhood-level
Neighbourhood advantage		0.062	0.061
% Black		−0.029*	−0.028*
% Latino		−0.011	−0.013
% Homeowner		0.013	0.014
Individual-level
Length residence			0.009
Neighbouring			0.189***
HH income (log)			0.057
High school degree			−0.382**
Some college			−0.279
College+			−0.028
Intercept	3.702	3.722	3.701
L1 Var	0.572	0.582	0.487
L2 Var	0.545	0.318	0.313

Notes:

Individual N = 227; Tract N = 46 ***p < 0.001 **p < 0.01 *p < 0.05.

Models also control for age, children, married/cohabiting, gender and perceived neighbourhood size.

Table 4.

Regression of neighbourhood satisfaction on individual- and neighbourhood-level characteristics among Latinos (unstandardised coefficients).^a

	1	2	3
Own home	0.034	0.063	0.061
Neighbourhood-level
Neighbourhood advantage		0.302*	0.314*
% Black		−0.022*	−0.023*
% Latino		−0.013	−0.012
% Homeowner		0.008	0.007
Individual-level
Length residence			−0.017**
Neighbouring			0.144***
HH income (log)			0.053
High school degree			−0.138
Some college			0.010
College+			−0.169**
Intercept	3.792	3.838	3.849
L1 Var	0.648	0.641	0.611
L2 Var	0.162	0.079	0.072

Notes:

Individual N = 778; Tract N = 65 ***p < 0.001 **p < 0.01 *p < 0.05.

Models also control for age, children, married/cohabiting, gender and perceived neighbourhood size.

Table 5.

Regression of neighbourhood satisfaction on individual- and neighbourhood-level characteristics among whites (unstandardised coefficients).^a

	1	2	3
Own home	0.149*	0.113*	0.112*
Neighbourhood-level
Neighbourhood advantage		0.392*	0.338*
% Black		−0.011	−0.021
% Latino		−0.013*	−0.013*
% Homeowner		0.009	0.004
Individual-level
Length residence			0.009*
Neighbouring			0.103**
HH income (log)			0.042
High school degree			−0.048
Some college			0.194*
College+			0.012
Intercept	3.981	4.204	4.212
L1 Var	0.551	0.542	0.528
L2 Var	0.279	0.137	0.119

Notes:

Individual N = 892; Tract N = 54 ***p < 0.001 **p < 0.01 *p < 0.05.

Models also control for age, children, married/cohabiting, gender and perceived neighbourhood size.

Model 3 in Tables 3 through 5 also illustrates a relationship between community characteristics and neighbourhood satisfaction, with varying patterns across racial groups. Neighbourhood advantage is associated with stronger neighbourhood satisfaction among whites (coefficient = 0.34, p < 0.05) and Latinos (coefficient = 0.31, p < 0.05). Furthermore, a larger share of black neighbours lowers neighbourhood satisfaction among both blacks (coefficient = −0.03, p < 0.05) and Latinos (−0.02, p < 0.05), while a greater percentage of Latino residents is associated with weaker satisfaction among whites (coefficient = −0.01, p < 0.05).⁴ These findings are generally in line with those of previous studies, which evidence aversion among whites and non-whites to a larger minority presence, potentially resulting from racial prejudice and concerns surrounding the long-standing belief that minority neighbourhoods are associated with fewer resources, more crime and declining property values (Ellen, 2000; Harris, 1999; Krysan, 2002; Lewis et al., 2011; Swaroop and Krysan, 2011).

Interactions between homeownership and neighbourhood characteristics

Findings to this point align with those of previous studies, illustrating that homeownership and neighbourhood characteristics are meaningful predictors of neighbourhood satisfaction. However, current analyses and those from previous studies have not explored whether these variables interact in shaping neighbourhood satisfaction. Cross-level interactions between homeownership and the four neighbourhood characteristics examined here permit such an examination, and analyses uncover a number of noteworthy, statistically significant interactions (at the p < 0.05 level) between homeownership and economic advantage, percentage black, percentage Latino and percentage homeowner (see Figure 1 for an illustration of all significant interactions).

Figure 1.

Interaction between neighbourhood characteristics and homeownership.

Figure 1 shows a striking and consistent interaction between economic advantage and homeownership for blacks, Latinos and whites. Overall, homeowners are indeed more responsive than renters to neighbourhood characteristics, as seen by the steeper slopes among homeowners across all three groups. However, this pattern operates to the benefit and to the detriment of homeowners, depending on local context. That is, homeowners experience stronger neighbourhood satisfaction than renters – in advantaged communities. However, in less advantaged communities homeowners’ neighbourhood satisfaction levels fall below that of renters. At both high and low ends of the neighbourhood advantage spectrum, disparities between owners and renters are more pronounced among blacks and Latinos compared with whites. Blacks’ and Latinos’ neighbourhood satisfaction benefits significantly from homeownership in affluent communities, but suffers as a result of residence in disadvantaged communities. Patterns are more modest among whites, with only a slight benefit among homeowners in desirable communities, and a slight disadvantage advantage among homeowners in less desirable communities.

All three groups also show a significant interaction between homeownership and the percentage of local black residents, though patterns are more noteworthy among blacks and Latinos. Black owners are more likely than renters to reactive negatively to increases in the local black population. In areas with few blacks, black homeowners’ neighbourhood satisfaction levels exceed those of renters, but these groups’ levels converge in communities with a larger black presence. Since blacks have generally shown interest in neighbourhoods with a sizeable presence of black neighbours (Ellen, 2000; Farley et al., 1994), their stronger aversion to more black neighbours once they are homeowners suggests the significance of race-associated factors (e.g. concerns about lower home values and prestige in black communities) as opposed to pure race ones (e.g. prejudice). Unlike blacks, Latino homeowners and renters show similar levels of neighbourhood satisfaction in neighbourhoods with few black residents. However, in more heavily black communities homeownership among Latinos is associated with weaker levels of neighbourhood satisfaction. Whites exhibit the weakest interaction; there is slight aversion to having more black neighbours among owners and renters, though it is stronger among the former.

Percentage Latino shows a meaningful interaction with homeownership, but solely among whites and Latinos. This interaction is rather modest for Latinos, such that both homeowners and renters show moderate aversion to having many Latino neighbours, though it is stronger among the latter. Latinos have generally expressed openness to residence among more ingroup members, and thus Latino homeowners’ stronger antipathy to having many Latino neighbours may result from economic and social concerns. Latinos may also perceive homeownership in ethnic communities as an indication of an inability to achieve upward mobility, signifying that they ‘fell short’ in their assimilation goals.

For whites, the interaction between homeownership and percentage Latino is significantly more pronounced. Both white homeowners and renters exhibit a strong, negative response to a large presence of Latino neighbours, though it is particularly striking among homeowners. In areas with a substantial Latino population, white homeowners’ neighbourhood satisfaction drops well below that of white renters. These patterns among whites depart somewhat from those of previous studies, which have generally uncovered milder aversion to Latino neighbours compared with black neighbours. However, the context of Los Angeles may contribute to these patterns. In recent years, whites in LA have witnessed an influx of Latino residents into their own communities, as well as into nearby expanding ethnic communities. Such patterns may arouse concerns among whites regarding their future social and political status, both locally and regionally, and may be felt more strongly among residents (i.e. homeowners) who anticipate staying in their communities for a longer period of time (Bobo and Zubrinsky, 1996; Ellen, 2000; Lewis et al., 2011; Logan and Zhang, 2010).

Finally, the presence of other homeowners in the community is more meaningful to the neighbourhood satisfaction of owners compared with renters, though this is only the case among blacks and Latinos. Homeowners’ local presence is associated with greater population stability, political involvement and activism, and investment in home improvement, in turn bolstering local home values, services (e.g. schools, parks), neighbourhood safety and aesthetics (Dietz and Haurin, 2003; Rohe and Stewart, 1996). That the percentage of local homeowners does not show the same conditional relationship with homeownership among whites may reflect the fact that whites’ communities are generally more likely to enjoy higher home values and better services, aesthetics and amenities even regardless of the presence of local homeowners (Massey and Denton, 1993).

Discussion and conclusion

Overall, results underscore that examining the consequences of homeownership for neighbourhood satisfaction requires attention to local context. Homeownership rendered residents more sensitive to the desirability of local characteristics, proving beneficial in advantaged communities and disadvantageous in disadvantaged communities. These conclusions are broadly applicable to blacks, Latinos and whites, but variations occurred across these groups. Homeownership was more salient among blacks and Latinos in determining their response to neighbourhood conditions, which can benefit them when residing in more desirable communities, which minority homeowners in this sample were slightly more apt to do than their renter counterparts. However, concern is merited given that black and Latino homeowners still experience significant obstacles to attaining residence in communities most conducive to their neighbourhood satisfaction.

White homeowners were most likely to secure access to desirable communities, but homeownership in these areas did not heighten neighbourhood satisfaction among whites to the same degree that it did for blacks and Latinos. However, in less desirable communities homeownership was generally less likely to dampen whites’ neighbourhood satisfaction to the same extent that it did among blacks. Whites may be more financially and emotionally resilient to the negative effects of neighbourhood stressors on home values, perhaps because of their advantage in other arenas, specifically pertaining to wealth. Whites’ greater financial security through larger and more diverse wealth portfolios may slightly subdue their response to the presence of neighbourhood characteristics that could either enhance or diminish their economic status.

A handful of additional factors pertaining to race and ethnicity may contribute to these patterns. For blacks, owning a home, particularly in a more advantaged community, may evoke a feeling of having ‘conquered the odds’ by achieving homeownership in the face of historical and current obstacles. For Latinos, immigration-based factors may also be relevant. Latino immigrants who aspire to assimilate into mainstream neighbourhoods and experience upward mobility may view homeownership among blacks, arguably the most stigmatised racial group in the US, as a sign of failure in doing so (Charles, 2000). Furthermore, Latinos may perceive homeownership in ethnic communities as an indication of an inability to achieve upward mobility, signifying that they ‘fell short’ in their assimilation goals.

Whites’ strong aversion to a larger Latino presence, particularly when they are homeowners, may reflect racial threat. The expansive Latino population and extensive ethnic enclaves in Los Angeles may elicit levels of economic, social and cultural threat among whites, which may not be replicated across all metropolitan areas (Lewis et al., 2011). While previous studies have pointed to whites’ particularly strong aversion to black neighbours (Charles, 2000; Clark, 1992; Krysan, 2002), the relatively small presence of blacks in LA, and in particular in white neighbourhoods, may evoke less threat and concern about a larger black presence. Thus, future studies should examine the relationship between neighbourhood satisfaction, homeownership and racial composition in cities with markedly different racial dynamics.

Patterns also have significant repercussions for communities, particularly economically disadvantaged ones with a larger presence of minority homeowners who may face especially weak neighbourhood satisfaction and obstacles to escaping. While population stability has generally been characterised as beneficial to neighbourhood quality, when it results from blocked mobility it may produce a population of disengaged residents and trigger the detrimental factors association with population instability (e.g. poor social cohesion). However, homeowners may also be motivated to engage in opportunities to improve local conditions in ways that could enhance all residents’ neighbourhood satisfaction. Identifying strategies to cultivate local social involvement among dissatisfied residents – especially homeowners – could inform initiatives to preserve and enhance neighbourhood quality.

Unpacking the global neighbourhood satisfaction measure would benefit future studies on this topic, as residents likely experience differing levels of satisfaction with various facets of the neighbourhood environment (e.g. local services and amenities, public safety, social ties, aesthetics). Satisfaction with services and amenities does not preclude dissatisfaction with social connections, and gratifying social ties can persevere despite frustration with scarce local resources. Furthermore, homeownership may not uniformly influence residents’ satisfaction with various neighbourhood dimensions. Homeowners may have higher expectations of community characteristics especially pertinent to home values (e.g. services, crime, prestige), leading them to evaluate them more harshly than characteristics less directly related to home values (e.g. social ties). Disaggregating the neighbourhood satisfaction construct would further clarify its relationship with homeownership, and would provide meaningful information to policymakers about how to enhance neighbourhoods in ways that are most beneficial to residents.

There is merit to examining the relationship between homeownership and neighbourhood satisfaction using data collected during a time period whose conditions were more representative of those of the last three to four decades, but examining neighbourhood satisfaction patterns after the housing market crash is a vital next step. Homeownership trends peaked at 69% in 2004, and later many noteworthy gains among blacks and Latinos in the mid to late 1990s were lost though foreclosures that resulted from the use of subprime loans and rising unemployment rates. Foreclosures after the housing bubble burst were concentrated among racial minorities and similarly among more socially and economically disadvantaged communities (Bromley et al., 2008; Immergluck, 2008; Rugh and Massey, 2010; Shlay, 2006; Vesselinov and Beveridge, 2011), bringing lower property values and crime and disorder (Immergluck and Smith, 2006a, 2006b; Teasdale et al., 2012). Since the current analysis showed that neighbourhood stressors (e.g. disorder and economic disadvantage) that mounted as a result of foreclosures can jeopardise all residents’ neighbourhood satisfaction, though particularly that of homeowners, it is necessary to focus future attention on the neighbourhood satisfaction levels among communities strongly affected by the housing market crash. Incorporating a range of crime-related factors, including perceptions of fear, crime and disorder, as well as objective crime rates, would benefit further analysis (Hipp, 2009; Sampson and Raudenbush, 2004).

Finally, while the housing market crisis has understandably disillusioned many Americans regarding the merits of homeownership, recent surveys have shown that many in fact remain optimistic about the psychological and financial benefits of owning a home (Belsky, 2013). A vast majority indicates a greater appreciation for homeownership in the wake of the housing market crash, and continues to embrace it as part of the American Dream. Patterns also suggest that Americans have become better primed to carefully assess their economic means and housing needs as they enter into homeownership decisions. Homebuyer education programmes can be valuable in assisting potential buyers in making sound decisions, providing awareness of the benefits and costs associated with homeownership and how they may vary according to community context.

It is also vital to ensure that minority homebuyers are presented with a full range of housing and neighbourhood options. While black and Latino homeowners’ greater likelihood of residence in communities with more minority residents may in part reflect racial preferences, the contribution of institutional factors must also be addressed. Enforcement of fair housing policies is key given ongoing discrimination in the housing and lending market that limits access to higher quality and less segregated communities. However, even in the presence of fair housing market treatment, effective home buyer education programmes and sufficient economic resources, minority homebuyers may still find themselves in communities that depart from their aspirations and expectations. A familiar pattern endures, where minorities who voluntarily exit racially segregated environments involuntarily find themselves in segregated communities as a result of other residents’ exit (Sharkey, 2012).

In conclusion, these findings speak to the ongoing dialogue surrounding the benefits of homeownership, and for whom. Homeownership may be considered a ‘double-edged sword’, as it can foster stronger neighbourhood satisfaction in relatively advantaged communities, and undermine it in less advantaged ones. They also made clear the continuing significance of race in shaping residential outcomes. Homeownership proved particularly salient in determining blacks’ and Latinos’ reaction to neighbourhood conditions, augmenting the benefits of residence in advantaged communities, yet further cementing the negative toll of residence in distressed ones. This may reflect the importance of homeownership, particularly in communities conducive to higher property values, for blacks’ and Latinos’ wealth accumulation. Given ongoing interracial disparities in the attainment of assets and desirable neighbourhood outcomes, findings raise important questions regarding the meaning and consequences of homeownership for minority households and their communities.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Ahlbrandt

(1984) Neighborhoods, People, and Community. New York: Plenum.

Alba

Logan

(1992) Assimilation and stratification in the homeownership patterns of racial and ethnic groups. International Migration Review 26: 1314–1341.

Alba

Nee

(2003) Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Belsky

(2013) The Dream Lives On: The Future of Homeownership in America. Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Bobo

Zubrinsky

(1996) Attitudes on residential integration: Perceived status differences, mere in-group preference, or racial prejudice? Social Forces 74: 883–909.

Bromley

Campen

Nafici

. (2008) Paying more for the American dream: The subprime shakeout and its impact on lower-income and minority communities. A joint report by the California Reinvestment Coalition, Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, Empire Justice Center, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, Ohio Fair Lending Coalition, and Woodstock Institute.

Bryk

Raudenbush

(1992) Hierarchical Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Campbell

Converse

Rodgers

(1976) The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Charles

(2000) Neighborhood racial composition preferences: Evidence from a multiethnic metropolis. Social Problems 47: 379–407.

10.

Chiswick

Miller

(2005) Do enclaves matter in immigrant adjustment? City & Community 4: 5–35.

11.

Clark

(1992) Residential preferences and residential choices in a multiethnic context. Demography 29: 451–466.

12.

Conley

(1999) Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

13.

Dietz

Haurin

(2003) The social and private micro-level consequences of homeownership. Journal of Urban Economics 54: 401–450.

14.

Ellen

(2000) Sharing America’s Neighborhoods: The Prospects For Stable Racial Integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Espenshade

Hempstead

(1996) Contemporary American attitudes towards U.S. immigration. International Migration Review 30: 535–570.

16.

Farley

Steeh

Krysan

. (1994) Stereotypes and segregation: Neighborhoods in the Detroit area. American Journal of Sociology 100: 750–780.

17.

Feagin

Sikes

(1994) Living with Racism: The Black Middle-Class Experience. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

18.

Fischer

Jackson

(1976) Suburbs, networks, and attitudes. In: Schwartz

(ed.) The Changing Face of the Suburbs. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 279–307.

19.

Flippen

(2010) The spatial dynamics of stratification: Metropolitan context, population redistribution, and black and Hispanic homeownership. Demography 47: 845–868.

20.

Fried

(2000) Continuities and discontinuities of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20: 193–205.

21.

Friedman

Rosenbaum

(2007) Does suburban residence mean better neighborhood conditions for all households? Assessing the influence of nativity status and race/ethnicity. Social Science Research 36: 1–27.

22.

Gabriel

Painter

(2003) Pathways to homeownership: An analysis of the residential location and homeownership choices of black households in Los Angeles. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 27: 87–109.

23.

Galster

(1987) Homeowners and Neighborhood Reinvestment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

24.

Galster

Hesser

(1981) Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior 13: 735–758.

25.

Gold

(1992) Refugee Communities: A Comparative Field Study. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

26.

Gottschalck

(2008) Net Worth and the Assets of Households: 2002. Current Population Reports P70-115. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

27.

Greif

(2009) Neighborhood attachment in the multiethnic metropolis. City & Community 8: 27–45.

28.

Grinstein-Weiss

Yeo

Anacker

. (2011) Homeownership and neighborhood satisfaction among low- and moderate-income households. Journal of Urban Affairs 33: 247–265.

29.

Haney

(2007) Broken windows and self-esteem: Subjective understandings of neighborhood poverty and disorder. Social Science Research 36: 968–994.

30.

Harris

(1999) Property values drop when blacks move in because…Racial and socioeconomic determinants of neighborhood desirability. American Sociological Review 64: 461–479.

31.

Harris

(2001) Why are whites and blacks averse to black neighbors? Social Science Research 30: 100–116.

32.

Herbert

Kaul

(2005) The Distribution of Homeownership Gains During the 1990s Across Neighborhoods. U.S. Department of Urban Housing and Development.

33.

Hipp

(2007) Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: Neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. American Sociological Review 72: 659–680.

34.

Hipp

(2009) Specifying the determinants of neighborhood satisfaction: A robust assessment in 24 metropolitan areas. Social Forces 88: 395–424.

35.

Hunter

(1974) Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Change of Chicago’s Local Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

36.

Immergluck

(1998) Progress confined: Increases in black home buying and the persistence of residential segregation. Journal of Urban Affairs 20: 443–457.

37.

Immergluck

(2008) From the subprime to the exotic: Expanded mortgage market risk and implications for metropolitan areas and neighborhoods. Journal of the American Planning Association 74: 59–76.

38.

Immergluck

Smith

(2006a) The external costs of foreclosure: The impact of single-family mortgage foreclosures on property values. Housing Policy Debate 17: 57–79.

39.

Immergluck

Smith

(2006b) The impact of single-family mortgage foreclosures on neighborhood crime. Housing Studies 21: 851–866.

40.

Jargowsky

(1997) Poverty and Place. New York: Russell Sage.

41.

Krysan

(2002) Whites who say they’d flee: Who are they, and why would they leave? Demography 39: 675–696.

42.

Krysan

Bader

(2007) Perceiving the metropolis: Seeing the city through a prism of race. Social Forces 86: 699–733.

43.

Krysan

Farley

(2002) The residential preferences of blacks: Do they explain persistent segregation? Social Forces 80: 937–980.

44.

Lee

Guest

(1983) Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction: A metropolitan-level analysis. Sociological Quarterly 24: 287–303.

45.

Lee

Campbell

Miller

(1991) Racial differences in urban neighboring. Sociological Forum 6: 525–550.

46.

Lewis

Emerson

Klineberg

(2011) Who we’ll live with: Neighborhood racial composition preferences of whites, blacks, and Latinos. Social Forces 89: 1385–1408.

47.

Logan

Zhang

(2010) Global neighborhoods: New pathways to diversity and separation. American Journal of Sociology 115: 1069–1109.

48.

McConnell

Marcelli

(2007) Buying into the American dream? Mexican immigrants, legal status, and homeownership in Los Angeles County. Social Science Quarterly 88: 199–221.

49.

Massey

Denton

(1993) American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

50.

Meyers

Painter

. (2005) Regional disparities in homeownership trajectories: Impacts of affordability, new construction, and immigration. Housing Policy Debate 16: 53–83.

51.

Mitchell

LaGory

(2002) Social capital and mental distress in an impoverished community. City & Community 1: 195–215.

52.

Mohan

Twigg

(2007) Sense of place, quality of life and local socioeconomic context: Evidence from the Survey of English Housing, 2002/03. Urban Studies 44: 2029–2045.

53.

Parkes

Kearns

Atkinson

(2002) What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods? Urban Studies 39: 2413–2438.

54.

Perkins

Taylor

(1996) Ecological assessments of community disorder: Their relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American Journal of Community Psychology 24: 63–107.

55.

Permentier

Bolt

van Haam

(2011) Determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of neighbourhood reputation. Urban Studies 48: 977–996.

56.

Rohe

Basolo

(1997) Long-term effects of homeownership on the self-perceptions and social interaction of low-income persons. Environment and Behavior 29: 793–819.

57.

Rohe

Stegman

(1994) The effects of homeownership on the self-esteem, perceived control and satisfaction of low-income people. Journal of the American Planning Association 60: 173–184.

58.

Rohe

Stewart

(1996) Homeownership and neighborhood stability. Housing Policy Debate 7: 37–81.

59.

Rohe

Watson

(2007) Chasing the American Dream: New Perspectives on Affordable Homeownership. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

60.

Rohe

Van Zandt

McCarthy

(2002) Homeownership and access to opportunity. Housing Studies 17: 51–61.

61.

Rosenbaum

Friedman

(2001) Differences in the locational attainment of immigrant and native-born households with children in New York City. Demography 38: 337–348.

62.

Ross

(2000) Neighborhood disadvantage and adult depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41: 177–187.

63.

Ross

Reynolds

Geis

(2000) The contingent meaning of neighborhood stability for residents’ psychological well-being. American Sociological Review 65: 581–597.

64.

Rugh

Massey

(2010) Racial segregation and the American foreclosure crisis. American Sociological Review 75: 629–652.

65.

Sampson

Raudenbush

(2004) Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of ‘broken windows’. Social Psychology Quarterly 67: 319–342.

66.

Sampson

Raudenbush

Earls

(1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277: 918–924.

67.

Sastry

Ghosh-Dastidar

Adams

. (2003) The design of a multilevel survey of children, families, and communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey. RAND Working Paper.

68.

Shapiro

Meschede

Osoro

(2013) The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black–White Economic Divide. Institute on Assets and Social Policy: Research and Policy Brief.

69.

Sharkey

(2012) Residential mobility and the reproduction of unequal neighborhoods. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 14: 9–32.

70.

Shlay

(2006) Low-income homeownership: American dream or delusion? Urban Studies 43: 511–531.

71.

Silver

Miller

(2004) Sources of informal social control in Chicago neighborhoods. Criminology 42: 551–583.

72.

Skogan

(1990) Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. Free Press.

73.

South

Deane

(1993) Race and residential mobility: Individual determinants and structural constraints. Social Forces 72: 147–167.

74.

South

Crowder

Chavez

(2005) Exiting and entering high-poverty neighborhoods: Latinos, blacks, and Anglos compared. Social Forces 84: 873–900.

75.

South

Crowder

Pais

(2008) Inter-neighborhood migration and spatial assimilation in a multi-ethnic world: Comparing Latinos, blacks, and Anglos. Social Forces 87: 415–443.

76.

Speare

(1974) Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography 11: 173–188.

77.

Stuart

(2000) Segregation in the Boston Metropolitan Area at the End of the 20th Century. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

78.

Swaroop

Krysan

(2011) The determinants of neighborhood satisfaction: Racial proxy revisited. Demography 48: 1203–1229.

79.

Taylor

Kocchar

Fry

. (2011) Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

80.

Taylor

(1996) Neighborhood responses to disorder and local attachments: The systemic model of attachment, social disorganization, and neighborhood use value. Sociological Forum 1: 41–74.

81.

Teasdale

Clark

Hinkle

(2012) Subprime lending, crime, and neighborhood disorganization: Beyond internal dynamics. American Journal of Criminal Justice 37: 163–178.

82.

Theodori

(2001) Examining the effects of community satisfaction and attachment on individual well-being. Rural Sociology 66: 618–628.

83.

Turner

Ross

Galster

. (2002) Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase I HDS 2000.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

84.

Vesselinov

Beveridge

(2011) Avenue to wealth or financial ruin? Home ownership and racial distribution of mortgage foreclosures. In: Niedt

Silver

(eds) Forging a New Housing Policy: Opportunity in the Wake of Crisis. Hempstead, NY: National Center for Suburban Studies, Hofstra University, pp. 45–55.

85.

Wachter

Megbolugbe

(1992) Racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership. Housing Policy Debate 3: 333–370.

86.

Wen

Lauderdale

Kandula

(2009) Ethnic neighborhoods in multi-ethnic America, 1990–2000: Resurgent ethnicity in the ethnoburbs. Social Forces 88: 425–460.

87.

Woldoff

(2002) The effects of local stressors on neighborhood attachment. Social Forces 81: 87–116.

88.

Yinger

(1995) Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.