Urban ‘ Pioneers ’ : Why do Higher Income Households Choose Lower Income Neighborhoods? Ingrid Gould Ellen Keren Horn Katherine O’Regan Wagner School/Furman.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
U.S. Hispanic Population: 1998 Helping You Make Informed Decisions.
Advertisements

Urban and Regional Economics Weeks 8 and 9 Evaluating Predictions of Standard Urban Location Model and Empirical Evidence.
© 2013 Empire Justice Center How Detailed Data Analysis Reveals the True Face of Suburban Poverty PART 2 September 26, 2013 Presented by: Michael L. Hanley.
Matthew S. Rutledge, Natalia Orlova, and Anthony Webb Center for Retirement Research at Boston College 14 th Annual Retirement Research Consortium Conference.
1 Adjusting Poverty Thresholds Based on Differences in Housing Cost: Application of American Community Survey Poster Presentation Prepared for the Population.
NYU’s Institute for Education and Social Policy/Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy 1 Does Losing Your Home Mean Losing Your School? Effects.
Exploring Administrative Records Use for Race and Hispanic Origin Item Non-Response Sonya Rastogi, Leticia Fernandez, James Noon, Ellen Zapata and Renuka.
Indianapolis-Carmel MSA
The Rise and Decline of the American Ghetto Written by David M. Cutler., Edward L. Glaeser., and Jacob L. Vigdor Journal of Political Economy 107 (3)
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES: EVIDENCE FROM QUANTILE REGRESSION Velma Zahirovic-Herbert Swarn Chatterjee ERES 2011.
The Rural Housing Data Portal Information for Rural America Housing Assistance Council.
Migration Patterns and Mover Characteristics from the 2005 ACS Gulf Coast Area Special Products Kin Koerber Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.
CHR – Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Who wants to leave the neighbourhood? The effect on moving wishes of being different from the.
“A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods” Bayer, Ferreira, McMillian.
Job Accessibility and Racial Differences in Youth Employment Rates Keith R. Ihlanfeldt, David L. Sjoquist The American Economic Review Volume 80, Issue.
The Characteristics of Employed Female Caregivers and their Work Experience History Sheri Sharareh Craig Alfred O. Gottschalck U.S. Census Bureau Housing.
2010 Census and ACS in Oregon: Results and Resources Census Data Workshops November, 2011 Charles Rynerson Census State Data Center Coordinator Population.
Promoting the Economic and Social Vitality of Rural America: The Demographic Context Rural Education Conference New Orleans, LA April 14, 2003 by Dr. Daryl.
Comparing ACS with Census Sample and Current Survey Data Partnership and Data Services Training Susan Love April 12, 2005.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin ©2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, All Rights Reserved Chapter 8 Neighborhood Choice.
Labor Statistics in the United States Grace York March 2004.
Exam 1 results Mean: 71.5 Range: Mean (4.0): 3.3 Range (4.0): To convert your score: (Raw Score/85)*4.
1 Health Status and The Retirement Decision Among the Early-Retirement-Age Population Shailesh Bhandari Economist Labor Force Statistics Branch Housing.
Chapter 8 Neighborhood Choice McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Socio-Economic & Demographic Data Tools for Proactive Planning Robin Blakely-Armitage STATE OF NEW YORK CITIES: Creative Responses to Fiscal Stress March.
2012 Survey of California Home Buyers. Survey Methodology 800 telephone interviews conducted in August 2012 Respondents are home buyers that purchased.
The Gender Gap in Educational Attainment: Variation by Age, Race, Ethnicity, and Nativity in the United States Sarah R. Crissey, U.S. Census Bureau Nicole.
Veblen Effect in the U.S. Housing Market: Spatial and Temporal Variation Kwan Ok Lee and Masaki Mori National University of Singapore European Real Estate.
Baltimore City African American Middle Class Analysis and Metrics Matthew Kachura Program Manager BNIA-JFI, University of Baltimore January 10, 2008.
FOOD DESERTS Lori Kowaleski-Jones Department of Family and Consumer Studies University of Utah.
Mary Buchanan, Project Manager New Haven, Connecticut DATAHAVEN Data for Community Action Income Inequality and Change in Connecticut’s.
Seniors in Bexar County and the City of San Antonio COSA/Bexar County Joint Commission on Elderly Affairs August 11, 2015 San Antonio,
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC Demographic Changes Driving New Residential Development
2015 CALIFORNIA HOME BUYERS SURVEY 1. Survey Methodology 700 telephone interviews and 567 online surveys conducted in February – April 2015 Respondents.
11 The American Community Survey Steve Murdock, Ph.D. Director, Hobby Center for the Study of Texas Rice University.
URBAN INSTITUTE The Foreclosure Crisis in Three Cities: Children, Schools, and Neighborhoods Cross-site Findings Kathryn Pettit Baltimore Housing and Schools.
1 What Are the Determinants of Nonprofit Net Assets? Thad Calabrese Doctoral Candidate, New York University Baruch College - CUNY, School of Public Affairs.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Census Data for Transportation Planning Meeting presented by Kevin Tierney Cambridge Systematics,
Reconciling User Costs and Rental Equivalence: Evidence from the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey Thesia I. Garner* Randal Verbrugge* Division of Price.
Lori Latrice Martin, PhD Assistant Professor John Jay College of Criminal Justice
1 Family Sociology Race, Ethnicity, & Families. 2 Race, Ethnicity & Families How do we define race? How do we define ethnicity?
Reynolds Farley The University of Michigan Population Studies Center Institute for Social Research 426 Thompson Ann Arbor, Michigan August 1,
Student versus Non-Student Data: (Census Special Tabulation #137) Selected Summary File 3 Data for Tompkins County, NY.
Chapter 11 Preliminaries. Chapter 1 Introduction What are the key themes of microeconomics? What is a market? What is the difference between real and.
Race and Calhoun County: What Does the Data Say? Calhoun County Summit on the Healing of Racism September 22 nd 2006 Jason Reece, AICP Senior Research.
Weaving a story of poverty in Multnomah County. Per capita income, Portland MSA, US Metro, Multnomah County, Source: Regional Economic Information.
American Community Survey (ACS) 1 Oregon State Data Center Meeting Portland State University April 14,
ECN741: Urban Economics Homeownership Gaps Between Ethnic Groups.
Some ACS Data Issues and Statistical Significance (MOEs) Table Release Rules Statistical Filtering & Collapsing Disclosure Review Board Statistical Significance.
1 The High Cost of Segregation Exploring Racial Disparities in High Cost Lending Vicki Been, Ingrid Ellen, Josiah Madar, Johanna Lacoe Urban Affairs Association.
WHY SEGREGATION?. Patterns of Segregation in Los Angeles Income Segregation –Map of median income –Map with % earning over 100,000 –Map with % earning.
Irena Dushi, Alicia H. Munnell, Geoffrey T. Sanzenbacher, and Anthony Webb U.S. Social Security Administration and Center for Retirement Research at Boston.
American Community Survey “It Don’t Come Easy”, Ringo Starr Jane Traynham Maryland State Data Center March 15, 2011.
CensusCensus = building blocks Data - every 10 years from everyone Data – Long form (sample) or short form (100% data) Population – gender, race, age,
Over-skilling and Over- education Peter J Sloane, Director, WELMERC, School of Business and Economics, Swansea University, IZA, Bonn and University of.
1 ACS Statistical Issues and Challenges: One-, Three-, and Five-year Period Estimates Alfredo Navarro U.S. Census Bureau Association of Professional Data.
CensusCensus = building blocks Data - every 10 years from everyone Data – Long form (sample) or short form (100% data) Population – gender, race, age,
Untangling Community (County) Data: Valuable Resources for CD Practitioners Bo Beaulieu Purdue Center for Regional Development September 2013.
Rensselaer County Community Health Needs Assessment Sociodemographic Indicators.
How Do Location Decisions of Firms and Households Affect Economic Development in Rural America?
Table 1 Housing in the CPI and PCE Deflator, 2013 Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis † The CPI-U, or CPI for all urban.
Demand for Local Public Services: The Median Voter and Other Approaches.
Albany County Community Health Needs Assessment Sociodemographic Indicators.
Schenectady County Community Health Needs Assessment Sociodemographic Indicators.
PAI786: Urban Policy Class 5: Neighborhood Change.
Socio-Economic Impact Analysis: Rehabilitation of the Sherman Theater UEDA Community Development Summit October 16, 2014 Lisa Heuler Williams Policy Analyst.
2016 RENTER SURVEY 1. Survey Methodology 1,000 online surveys of California renters conducted in March Sample error: 3.1% at 95% confidence interval.
Joseph B Nichols 2008 NASM of the Econometric Society June 21, 2008
Residential Mobility, Heterogeneous Neighborhood effects and Educational Attainment of Blacks and Whites Li Gan Texas A&M University and NBER Yingning.
Homeownership Gaps Between Ethnic Groups
Presentation transcript:

Urban ‘ Pioneers ’ : Why do Higher Income Households Choose Lower Income Neighborhoods? Ingrid Gould Ellen Keren Horn Katherine O’Regan Wagner School/Furman Center New York University March 8, 2011

Motivation Q: why do some households move into neighborhoods where they earn more than their neighbors, so have lower income neighbors?  We want to understand such moves in part because they are an important source of neighborhood change. Standard economic theories of household sorting (neighborhoods, jurisdictions) predict sorting into fairly homogeneous communities with respect to income (Tiebout, Schelling).  Due to similar preferences for public services, comparable ability to pay for housing, preferences for living among similar neighbors.  With possibly some incentives to live near higher income neighbors.

Roadmap Data/definitions  AHS, NCDB Frame using housing choice theory Predictions (preferences, constraints)  For whom/where pioneering is more likely Empirical results  Modeling the likelihood of pioneering based on observable characteristics/housing markets.  Contrasting neighborhood choices of pioneers vs non pioneers  Selective AHS data on motivations and outcomes

Data American Housing Survey (AHS, internal census version)  National sample of 55,000 units surveyed bi-annually  Panel of housing units  Focus on units experiencing turnover (receive movers) ,  Extensive data on household characteristics  Internal version: census tract identifiers Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB)  Geolytics, Urban institute  Census tract data  Constant geographic boundaries

Disclosure statement Much of the research in this presentation was conducted while the authors were Special Sworn Status researchers of the U.S. Census Bureau at the New York Census Research Data Center (Baruch). Research results and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Census Bureau. This paper has been screened to insure that no confidential data are revealed.  Some numbers suppressed, not all samples/analyses can be released

Definitions A Pioneering move is:  When a household replaces a previous occupant whose income was at least 5 percent lower than it’s own.  Made by a household whose own income is not below 40 percent of area median income  Into a neighborhood whose median income is below the MSA median (lower income neighborhood)

Theory Place these decisions in a simple model of residential choice (Quigley, 1985), recognizing housing as a bundled good containing:  a housing unit [Hj], a neighborhood [Nj], which includes neighbors and services, and a location of given accessibility [Aj] The Utility of household i of income Y, U ij [H j, N j, A j, Y i – R j ] = V(ij) + ε ij Simplifying, have two neighborhood types: Low quality (income) and High, and if maximizing their utility, then P i (N l ) = prob [U il (N l, H l, A l, Y i - R l ) > U ih (N h, H h, A h, Y i - R h ) ]

Theory Extensions:  Households have more choices of neighborhoods, but not all desired combinations exist.  Simplifying H j,N j and A j into a vector of housing characteristics, X j U ij = α(Y i - R j ) + β i X j + ε ij  The likelihood of household i selecting unit j can then be expressed as P( U ij = max (U i1 …..U ik ) ) = e α(Yi-rj) + βiXj Σ n k =1 α(Y i - r n ) + β i X n (Vigdor, 2010)

Predictions: Different Residential Preferences H 1: Those who consume fewer neighborhood/public services: childless households H 2: Those who face less asset risk in making this choice: renters H3: Pioneers more likely to choose neighborhoods that are ‘ripe for improvement,’ have older housing stocks (Breukner and Rosenthal, 2009) H4: Those who prioritize access

Predictions: Limited information and/or constrained choices H5: First time homeowners H6: Minority households  Particularly in more segregated housing markets H7: Households in metropolitan areas with hot housing markets.  Particularly new homeowners H8: In housing markets where the quality tradeoffs are less extreme (lower crime).

Pioneering Moves: Probability of a pioneering move: Pion it = HH it + ηMSA + λ t + ε it Pion it represents the decision to make a pioneering move, by household i in time t. Hh it, a collection of household characteristics MSA it, a number of metropolitan characteristics λ t, a series of year dummies We pool six cross-sections of household moves (1991, 1993, and 1995; 2001, 2003, and 2005).

Probability of a Pioneering Move Table 1: Probability of Pioneering PooledOwnersRenters (1)(2)(3) Owner ***NA New Homeowner 0.056***0.036***NA Income 0.162***0.113***0.225*** Income Squared ***-0.012***-0.023*** Black 0.070***0.084***0.066*** Hispanic 0.054*** *** College Degree ***-0.077***-0.068*** Under *0.005 Over * Kids present ***-0.019**-0.014* Married ** ** MSA Controls XXX MSA and Year FE XXX *** sig at 1%, ** sig at 5%, * sig at 10%

Probability of a Pioneering Move (cont) Table 1: Probability of Pioneering PooledOwnersRenters (1)(2)(3) Total Crime * ** House Price Appreciation *0.123* Black/White Dissimilarity 0.330**0.412*0.258 Interactions B/W Segregation*Minority 0.072*** *** HP Appreciation*New Homeowner 0.180*0.477*** Household Controls XXX MSA and Year FE XXX *** sig at 1%, ** sig at 5%, * sig at 10%

Evidence of different preferences for neighborhoods AHS descriptive data on why in-mover households chose the neighborhood Estimate a simple regression model, controlling for household characteristics Y it = P it + HH it + ε it

Reasons for choosing the neighborhood Table 2: Motivations for Neighborhood Choice JobPeopleLeisureTransSchoolServicesLooksUnit Pioneer *0.012***-0.004*** ***0.004***-0.017***0.012** Income ***0.004*** *** ***-0.007* Owner ***-0.032***-0.006***-0.007*** ***0.049***0.110*** Minority **-0.008***0.007***-0.018*** Kids *** ***-0.005***0.105***-0.002*-0.008**0.023*** Year FEXXXXXXXX

Results from Residential Choice Use Residential Choice Model to estimate the importance of particular neighborhood characteristics to pioneers vs. non-pioneers. Find:  Evidence that pioneers have different preferences for neighborhood characteristics than non pioneers.  Pioneers are more likely to choose neighborhoods with Larger minority populations An older housing stock  No evidence that pioneers are choosing neighborhoods that are more centrally located

Why do Households Pioneer? Reason # 1: Savings? Table 4: Comparison of Current Housing to Previous Pay More for Current Housing Current Unit Quality Higher Current Neighborhood Quality Higher (1)(2)(3) Pioneer-*** Income+***+** NS Owner Occupied+*** Min+*** Kids+*** YR FEXXX

Why do Households Pioneer? Reason # 2: Accessibility? Table 5: Commute Time Pioneer *** Income 1.807*** Owner 2.627*** Minority 1.939*** Kids 1.015*** Year FEX

Table 6: How First Heard about Unit? AdvertisementBrokerFriend Pioneer **-0.032***0.024*** Income ***-0.030*** Owner Occupied ***0.315***-0.157*** White 0.061*** *** Table 7: How Many Units Visited Prior to Choosing Pioneer *** Income 1.024*** Owner Occupied 6.507*** White 1.018*** Why do Households Pioneer? Reason # 3: Constraints?

Conclusions Broad support for our expectations for who pioneers, and where, based on observable characteristics:  Renters, first time home owners, childless households, minorities  In MSAs with high housing appreciation, lower crime Additional evidence on why:  Pioneers do weight neighborhood characteristics differently than non pioneers  Selecting neighborhoods ‘ripe for redevelopment’  Less sensitive to minority composition  Access or Savings?  Constraints do seem to shape these decisions as well

Future Steps Test sensitivity of our results to our definition of pioneering moves. Residential Choice  Are household selecting neighborhoods undergoing specific changes?  Breaking out pioneers-identifying heterogeneous preferences within pioneers Improve our measures of accessibility?