69 lines
3.9 KiB
YAML
69 lines
3.9 KiB
YAML
cite: Blumenberg2014
|
||
author: Blumenberg, E., & Pierce, G.
|
||
year: 2014
|
||
title: A Driving Factor in Mobility? Transportation’s Role in Connecting Subsidized Housing and Employment Outcomes in the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Program
|
||
publisher: Journal of the American Planning Association
|
||
uri: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.935267
|
||
pubtype: article
|
||
discipline: development
|
||
|
||
country: United States
|
||
period: 1994-2001
|
||
maxlength: 84
|
||
targeting: implicit
|
||
group: poor women
|
||
data: baseline and follow-up survey;
|
||
|
||
design: experimental
|
||
method: RCT; multinomial regression model
|
||
sample: 3199
|
||
unit: household
|
||
representativeness: subnational, metropolitan
|
||
causal: 1 # 0 correlation / 1 causal
|
||
|
||
theory:
|
||
limitations: low levels of explanatory power for individual model outcomes, esp for disadvantaged population groups; possible endogeneity bias through unobserved factors (e.g. human capital); binary distinction automobile access, not graduated
|
||
observation:
|
||
- intervention: subsidy (housing mobility)
|
||
institutional: 0
|
||
structural: 1
|
||
agency: 0
|
||
inequality: spatial; gender; ethnicity
|
||
type: 1 # 0 vertical / 1 horizontal
|
||
indicator: 1 # 0 absolute / 1 relative
|
||
measures: employment rate
|
||
findings: no relationship between subsidy and employment outcomes; increased employment probability for people living in high transit areas, but no increased job gain for moving to high transit area itself
|
||
channels: high transit area employment paradox may be due to inherent difficulty of connecting household to opportunity in dispersed labor market just via access to transit
|
||
direction: 0 # 0 = no relationship no direction
|
||
significance: 0 # 0 nsg / 1 msg / 2 sg
|
||
- intervention: infrastructure (transport)
|
||
institutional: 0
|
||
structural: 1
|
||
agency: 0
|
||
inequality: spatial; gender; ethnicity
|
||
type: 1 # 0 vertical / 1 horizontal
|
||
indicator: 1 # 0 absolute / 1 relative
|
||
measures: employment rate
|
||
findings: increased employment probability for car ownership
|
||
channels: better transport mobility to access wider job opportunity network
|
||
direction: 1 # 0 = no relationship no direction
|
||
significance: 2 # 0 nsg / 1 msg / 2 sg
|
||
|
||
notes: 98% of sample is female
|
||
annotation: |
|
||
A study looking at the effects of a housing mobility intervention in the United States on employment for disadvantaged households,
|
||
and comparing its impacts to the ownership of a car for the same sample.
|
||
It follows the 'Moving to Opportunity' programme which provided vouchers to randomized households for movement to a geographically unrestricted area or to specifically to a low-poverty area (treatment group),
|
||
some of which are in areas with well-connected public transport opportunities.
|
||
The sample for the study is made up predominantly of women (98%).
|
||
No relationship between programme participation and increased employment probability could be established.
|
||
However, a positive relationship exists between owning an automobile and improved employment outcomes for low-income households,
|
||
as well as including those households that are located in 'transit-rich' areas.
|
||
Access to better transit itself is related to employment probability but not gains in employment -
|
||
the authors suggest this reflects individuals' strategic relocation to use public transit for their job.
|
||
However, moving to a better transit area itself does not increase employment probability,
|
||
perhaps pointing to a certain threshold required in transit extensiveness before it facilitates employment.
|
||
Ultimately, the findings suggest the need to further individual acess to automobiles in disadvantaged households or for extensive transit network upgrade which have to cross an efficiency threshold.
|
||
Some limitations of the study are its models low explanatory power for individual outcomes, more so among disadvantaged population groups,
|
||
as well as some remaining possibility of endogeneity bias through unobserved factors such as individual motivation or ability.
|