Mind mapping the topic of homelessness
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent
Trainer
Hong
Kong, China
Abstract: The topic of homelessness
is a main one in Housing Studies. This article makes use of the mind
mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach to render an image on the
knowledge structure of homelessness. The finding of the review exercise is that
its knowledge structure comprises four main themes, i.e., (a) Descriptions of
basic concepts and information (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c)
Main research topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to
practices. There is also a set of key concepts identified from
the homelessness literature review. The article offers some academic and
pedagogical values on the topics of homelessness, literature review and the
mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach.
Key words: Homelessness, literature review, mind
map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach
Introduction
Homelessness
is a main topic in Housing Studies. It is of academic and pedagogical interest
to the writer who has been a lecturer on Housing Studies for a tertiary
education centre in Hong Kong. In this article, the writer presents his
literature review findings on homelessness using the mind mapping-based
literature review (MMBLR) approach. This approach was proposed by this writer
in 2016 and has been employed to review the literature on a number of topics,
such as supply chain management, strategic management accounting and customer
relationship management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach itself is not
particularly novel since mind mapping has been employed in literature review
since its inception. The overall aims of this exercise are to:
1.
Render an image of the knowledge structure of
homelessness via the application of the MMBLR approach;
2.
Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be
applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as homelessness.
The findings from this literature review
exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in
the topics of homelessness, literature review and the MMBLR approach. Additionally,
this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning on these three
topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR approach.
After that, an account of how it is applied to study homelessness is presented.
On the mind
mapping-based literature review approach
The mind mapping-based literature review
(MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer in 2016 (Ho, 2016). It makes use
of mind mapping as a complementary literature review exercise (see the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page
and the Literature on literature review
Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic
analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of
the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind map. The MMBLR
approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The approach is
not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in literature
review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. It is also an
interpretive exercise in the sense that different reviewers with different
research interest and intellectual background inevitably will select different
ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis (i.e., step 1 of the MMBLR
approach). To conduct the approach, the reviewer needs to perform a literature
search beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer gathers from a literature search
depends on what library facility, including e-library, is available to the
reviewer. So far, the approach has been employed by the writer for preliminary literature
review. The next section presents the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1;
afterward, a companion mind map is provided based on the MMBLR approach step 1
findings.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on homelessness: step 1 findings
Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is a thematic analysis on
the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho, 2016). In our case, this
is the homelessness topic. To do so, the writer gathers some academic articles
from some universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google Scholar. With the
academic articles collected, the writer conducted a literature review on them
to assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and findings (called points
here). The points from the homelessness literature are then grouped into four
themes here. The key words in the quotations are bolded in order to highlight
the key concepts involved.
Theme
1: Descriptions of basic concepts and information
Point 1.1.
“Homelessness as a concept can simply be defined as
the state of a condition where someone is without home/a shelter” (Vakili-Zad, 2006);
Point 1.2.
“In it declaration on the International Year of
Shelter for the Homeless, The United Nations …. acknowledged that a “homeless” person is not only someone who lives on the street or in a shelter, but
can equally be someone whose shelter or housing fails to meet the basic
criteria considered essential for health and human and social development” (Speak, 2013);
Point 1.3.
“…homelessness as a symptom of a
deep seated structural and socio-cultural problem is not that simple to
define. In fact, it is not an identified static state. It is an ever-changing
condition of a person or household representing a multi-layered spectrum with
many shades that overlap one another, which makes it very hard if not impossible
to distinguish and define” (Vakili-Zad, 2006);
Point 1.4.
“Homeless
is not just a matter of lack of shelter or lack of abode, a lack of a roof over
one’s head. It involves deprivation
across a number of different dimensions – physiological (lack of bodily
comfort or warmth), emotional (lack of love or joy), territorial (lack of
privacy), ontological (lack of rootedness in the world, anomie) and spiritual
(lack of hope, lack of purpose)” (Somerville, 2013);
Point 1.5.
“The definition of homeless
people is much narrower in Japan than in the US. In Japan it is common to
confine homeless people to the visible rough-sleepers or the shelterless—that
is, “the most extreme manifestation of homelessness” … Rough-sleepers in Japan
are people who literally sleep on the roads, who live in the makeshift shacks
made of cardboard or vinyl at the parks, the riverbeds and the station yards
and who are accommodated only temporarily in shelters managed by city
government” (Aoki,
2003);
Theme 2: Major underlying theories
and thinking
Point 2.1.
“An extensive body of
literature has been generated in the past 20 years documenting the myriad risks faced by homeless youths. Abusive
and neglectful pre-street backgrounds and victimization of various forms
accompanied by substance abuse have been linked to consistently high rates of
suicidality …, mortality ….., poor mental …. and physical health” (Kidd, Miner, Walker and
Davidson, 2007);
Point 2.2.
“Given homeless youths’
elevated rates of child maltreatment, it is likely that they are at high risk
for dating violence” (Tyler and Melander, 2012);
Point 2.3.
“ …
the prevention turn was not
instantaneous and was not driven by a single cause, rather an examination of
key homelessness prevention studies reveals three major drivers: the
cost-effectiveness of prevention, the societal stigma of high homelessness
populations and the benefits conferred on the individual” (Mackie, 2015);
Point 2.4.
“..‘….urban
hybrid spaces’ – spaces that serve dual roles as legitimate business
establishment and homeless habitation or hangout (e.g. bookstores, cafe’s, coffee
shops, late night diners, gas station mini-marts, donut shops)” (Perry, 2012);
Point 2.5.
“‘Socially marginalised’ groups include those whose behaviour or
circumstances may be viewed as having ‘transgressed’ accepted social norms …,
such as homeless people, ex-offenders and people with substance misuse problems
… While there is ample evidence of the ‘complex trauma’ typically experienced
in childhood or early adulthood by these populations …, there may nonetheless
be a strong societal tendency to attach ‘blame’ to behaviours considered
‘deviant’, particularly when exhibited by low-income groups” (Fitzpatrick and Stephens, 2014);
Point 2.6.
“‘Welfare systems’ (in Esping-Andersen)
refer to the operation of the labour market and the tax and social security
system, but do not include the income-in-kind that arises from services such as
education and health care …. The absence of the ‘housing system’ (the operation
of the housing market and policy) in conventionally defined welfare system
analysis has prompted an extensive literature that has centred around the
‘wobbly pillar’ debate—whether or not housing represents a weaker intervention
than the pillars of social security, health and education” (Fitzpatrick and Stephens, 2014);
Point 2.7.
“…the middle classes define themselves
through their perceived difference and distance from lower class people in
terms of appearance, taste and behaviour. Middle class worldviews tend to
delegitimate lifestyles associated with lower class lifeworlds, rendering “the
poor” strange and distant” (Hodgetts, Stolte, Nikora and Groot, 2012);
Point 2.8.
“As a
structural feature of society, urban
poverty involves groups of people with fewer resources than other people
and a history of being rendered socially distant ….. Terms used to invoke such
heterogeneous groups (who nonetheless defy easy classification) include the
“unsavable”, “undeserving”, “unhomed”, “deviant”, “disruptive”, “poor” or
“outcasts”…” (Hodgetts,
Stolte, Nikora and Groot, 2012);
Point 2.9.
“Clearly,
not all domiciled reactions to street
homelessness are purely punitive …. Exclusionary practices are often
combined with efforts to improve the quality of life for homeless people.
Resources allocated towards assisting homeless people are usually derived from
a mix of sympathetic responses to alleviate hardship and a perceived need to
preserve order, aesthetics and social norms in shared urban spaces” (Hodgetts, Stolte, Nikora and
Groot, 2012);
Point 2.10.
“Conceptual approaches to understanding homelessness can be seen to fall
along two intersecting axes … In one
direction, lies an axis focused on causation. Crossing this is an axis
concerned with meaning” (Speak, 2013);
Point 2.11.
“Despite their near-nightly habitation
in the DD [Daylight Donuts], few of these inhabitants readily identify
themselves as ‘homeless’. Indeed, most assiduously avoid identification as such. Some will protest, ‘I’m not homeless,
homeless. I consider myself displaced.’..” (Perry, 2012);
Point 2.12.
“Homelessness is experienced by individual (along
any of its dimensions) but it is also imagined, for example, by policy-makers,
academics and the general public. Such imaginings
(or ideological constructions) tend to take a life of their own, for
example, in terms of legislation” (Somerville, 2013);
Point 2.13.
“In
recent studies, consensus appears to be emerging around a three-level categorisation of homelessness prevention: primary,
secondary and tertiary …. primary
prevention seeks to prevent new entrants into homelessness, with interventions
often universally available such as poverty reduction or affordable housing
development. Secondary prevention initiatives tend to identify and end an
episode of homelessness very quickly and are frequently referred to as rapid
rehousing (the USA) or homelessness relief/alleviation (the UK). … Tertiary
prevention …. relates to interventions targeted at those experiencing long-term
homelessness or housing problems, aiming to reduce the impacts of longer-term
housing needs” (Mackie, 2015);
Point 2.14.
“Individuals experiencing
homelessness have numerous health
concerns, including; arthritis and other musculoskeletal disorders;
hypertension, respiratory tract infections, skin and foot problems, venous
stasis disease, scabies and body lice” (Crawley,
Kane, Atkinson-Plato, Hamilton, Dobson and Watson, 2013);
Point 2.15.
“It has been estimated that 80% of all homeless
people are hidden homeless. Community planners
remain challenged to identify
the actual numbers and health needs of this unique, ‘hidden’ population. The hidden
homeless may be described as individuals ‘provisionally accommodated’,
including, ‘those whose accommodation is temporary or lacks security of tenure.’…” (Crawley, Kane, Atkinson-Plato, Hamilton,
Dobson and Watson, 2013);
Point 2.16.
“Macro-economic change and individual or household poverty are
frequently perceived structural causes
of homelessness. However, many people benefit from such change, as
witnessed by the rise of educated middle classes in India and China, for
example. The problem is not the economic change itself but the way in which the
values embedded within dominant neo-liberal ideologies which propagate it are
interpreted” (Speak, 2013);
Point 2.17.
“People have experienced MEH [multiple exclusion homelessness] if
they have been ‘homeless’ (including experience of temporary/
unsuitable accommodation as well as sleeping rough) and have also experienced one or more of the following other ‘domains’
of deep social exclusion: ‘institutional
care’ (prison, local
authority care, mental health hospitals or wards); ‘substance misuse’ (drug, alcohol, solvent or gas misuse);
or participation in ‘street
culture activities’ (begging,
street drinking, ‘survival’ shoplifting or sex work)” (Fitzpatrick, Bramley and Johnsen,
2013);
Point 2.18.
“The effects of economic
globalisation are apparent in Japan. It brings a shift from manufacturing
industry to services in the industrial structure and the intensification of
intercorporate competition. These changes lead to the deyosebisation of
day-labourers from the day-labour market and the disemployment of casually
employed unskilled workers in the general labour market. And both of
deyosebisation and disemployment result in an increase in the number of
homeless people” (Aoki,
2003);
Point 2.19.
“The influence of values on homelessness extends beyond the institutional into the social
world. Phillipson
… notes
that economic growth drives change in social and family values with the
consequent impact on intergenerational relationships and extended family
support networks” (Speak, 2013);
Point 2.20.
“Young
adults are less likely
than older adults to have resources
in place to prevent homelessness or to cope should it occur. For example, they
are more likely to have low-paying jobs with few benefits and are less likely
to have health insurance, substantial savings, or experience with housing
matters, legal rights, or community resources than more experienced adults” (Zerger, Strehlow and
Gundlapalli, 2008);
Point 2.21.
“…the European
Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA). Their
ETHOS (European Typology of Homelessness
and Housing Exclusion) typology moves beyond the narrow conceptualisation of
rough sleeping, which dominates public perceptions and some government
strategies. They identify four conceptual categories of homelessness:
rooflessness, houselessness, insecure housing and inadequate housing” (Mackie, 2015);
Point 2.22.
“In geography,
considerable attention has been given to the regulation of public spaces and displacement of strangers who are
deemed to be “dirty”, “disruptive” and “out of place”…” (Hodgetts, Stolte, Nikora and
Groot, 2012);
Theme 3: Main research topics and
issues
Point 3.1.
“… one might hypothesise that lower levels of social protection in liberal regimes are likely to leave far larger
numbers of people marginalised than in more protective social democratic
regimes” (Fitzpatrick
and Stephens, 2014);
Point 3.2.
“According to Rossi, policy makers need to know the magnitude of
homelessness, to develop workable solutions. Rossi notes that the lack of credible and reliable descriptive
data is a major obstacle for the development of a policy” (Vakili-Zad, 2006);
Point 3.3.
“As a step towards a more
appropriate approach to the study of homelessness, some commentators have
adopted ‘social constructionism’, which is less concerned with causes and more focussed on
understanding the social meaning attached to the condition. It suggests that the phenomenon of
homelessness can be best understood through an exploration of the social
meanings attached to it by different actors and agents” (Speak, 2013);
Point 3.4.
“Basic research on counting the homeless
in North America and Europe has employed primarily cross-sectional survey methods. The methods were designed to
estimate the number of the homeless in a country, region, city or locality.
Most investigators have identified or suggested the conditions under which the
homeless find themselves (i.e., in shelters, on the streets, etc.) due to lack
of housing or shelter” (Vakili-Zad,
2006);
Point 3.5.
“Conducting
research with homeless youth poses myriad
methodological complications associated with studying both adolescents and
homeless persons, including confidentiality and consent issues, lack of trust,
and transience” (Zerger,
Strehlow and Gundlapalli, 2008);
Point 3.6.
“The cost per person of maintaining the same standard of living is
probably between 36% and 47% lower in a two-person household than in a
one-person household …Yet policies that encourage shared housing for formerly homeless people or people at risk of
becoming homeless are rare” He, O’Flaherty and Rosenheck, 2010);
Point 3.7.
“The observation that unhoused
individuals prefer to avoid identification
as ‘homeless’ is neither astonishing, nor novel. Most human beings seek to
avoid stigmatized labels” (Perry,
2012);
Point 3.8.
“Williams and Cheal … suggest there may be no
such thing as ‘homelessness’ and ask if it is in any way different from inadequate shelter. Dupont … deliberately avoids the
use of the term ‘homeless’ because it adds the loss of
familial roots to a lack of shelter” (Speak,
2013);
Point 3.9.
“…in the Global South context, the scale of homelessness, the linking of
home to kinship, the role of the extended family, the weaker position of women
in society and the different attitudes to ownership all serve to make an
industrialised ‘northern’ understanding inappropriate” (Speak, 2013);
Point 3.10.
“Across
the developed world, homelessness
prevention is being pursued with vigour alongside existing homelessness
interventions and yet there has been no pause for a systematic evaluation of
how prevention fits alongside existing systems” (Mackie, 2015);
Point 3.11.
“Much
of our conceptual understanding of homelessness is derived from studies
underpinned by ideas and definitions developed in, and for, the industrialised world. It
appears inadequate to help us address the growing phenomenon of homelessness in
the Global South. Moreover, with a few exceptions literature on homelessness in
the Global South tends to present
good empirical understanding but to shy away from reconceptualising” (Speak, 2013);
Point 3.12.
“There is an increase in the
number of elderly homeless albeit a
decrease in the proportion of elderly in the total homeless population. The
reasons for this increase are still debated. Some authors implicate the
deinstitutionalization movement,
others focus on economic policies and still others focus on the inability of
the elderly homeless to adequately receive and use the benefits they are entitled to by law” (Barak and Cohen, 2003);
Theme 4: Major trends and issues
related to practices
Point 4.1.
“For most people experiencing homelessness, intensive
services may not be necessary. The vast majority of homeless individuals and
families fall into homelessness after a housing or personal crisis that led
them to seek help from the homeless
assistance system” (Anon,
2012);
Point 4.2.
“Homeless
shelters are expensive to operate, and almost all homeless families and
individuals would rather live in regular housing than in a shelter. Subsidizing
movement of shelter residents into regular housing is therefore an appealing
strategy, and one that is widely used” (O’Flaherty,
2009);
Point 4.3.
“Malta has a
comparatively sizeable social housing sector (9000–10,000) and approximately
3300 households on its waiting list. There is, however, no official recognition of homelessness, no definition and thus, no
program to alleviate the problem” (Vakili-Zad, 2006);
Point 4.4.
“Many people experiencing homelessness report
difficulty in accessing healthcare
services and report being denied access to competent, compassionate
treatment” (Crawley, Kane, Atkinson-Plato, Hamilton,
Dobson and Watson, 2013);
Point 4.5.
“Since 1980s there is a noticeable change
in the homeless population in Western countries. …. Among the ‘‘new’’ homeless there are increasing
numbers of elderly subjects. The elderly homeless are a fragile and vulnerable group that suffers from high rates of physical and mental
problems as well as increased mortality” (Barak and Cohen, 2003);
Point 4.6.
“Some subgroups are especially overrepresented among the homeless young
adult population, including immigrants, racial and sexual minorities, and
victims of physical or sexual abuse …. Those “aging out” of the foster care
system are especially at risk” (Zerger,
Strehlow and Gundlapalli, 2008);
Point 4.7.
“The
largest group of the homeless in Chile is the
allegados, people
who seek a temporary solution to their problem by living in the homes of
friends and family or building additional rooms in their backyards” (ÅŒzler, 2012);
Point 4.8.
“The succession of Concertación
governments [in Chile] between 1990 and 2009 sought to
address the housing deficit through a continuation of the neoliberal policies
established by the dictatorship under Pinochet. These policies emphasized home
ownership with an understanding of housing as a commodity as opposed to a
social right … They relied primarily upon providing subsidies to improve
people’s opportunities in the housing market. This market-based approach proved unable to meet the needs of the
poorest homeless, and even for those who received housing the process involved
long wait times and frequently resulted in poor-quality housing in undesirable
locations” (ÅŒzler,
2012);
Point 4.9.
“There
is one reason why the definition [of homelessness] is so narrow in Japan. It is
that only these immediately visible forms of homelessness are regarded as being
important socially and politically—not
only by the citizenry, but also by city government. But the problem of latent
and invisible homeless people, who are now excluded from the definition of
homeless people, is getting more serious at present” (Aoki, 2003);
Point 4.10.
“In
Prague, an estimated 10,000 homeless people include a large proportion of them
- 30% - between 19 and 29 years
…. Homelessness in Prague in its overt form appeared only after the social changes related to the fall
of the communist regime. Over the twenty past years it seems that the number of
young homeless people gradually
increases” (Jakub,
Vágnerová and Csémy, 2011);
Point 4.11.
“In support of economic development city authorities around the
world strive to present the globalised
image of the ‘World Class City’, conforming to the
largely northern aesthetic and lifestyle values about the look, feel and
function of the urban landscape … In
this switch of values they exacerbate poverty and homelessness. For example, in
1999 the Metropolitan Corporation of Delhi evicted an estimated 3.5 million
residents of slum clusters across the city in support of their goal of Delhi
becoming a ‘World Class City’ by 2021” (Speak, 2013);
Each of the four themes has a set of
associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together
they provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the homelessness
topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on the writer’s
intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the homelessness
literature. The referencing indicated on the points identified informs the
readers where to find the academic articles to learn more about the details on
these points. Readers are also referred to the Literature on homelessness Facebook page for additional information
on this topic. The process of conducting the thematic analysis is an
exploratory as well as synthetic learning endeavour on the topic’s literature.
Once the structure of the themes, sub-themes[1]
and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to
move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2
finding, i.e., a companion mind map on homelessness, is presented in the next
section.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on homelessness: step 2 (mind mapping) output
By adopting the findings from the MMBLR
approach step 1 on homelessness, the writer constructs a companion mind map
shown as Figure 1.
Referring to the mind map on homelessness,
the topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large blob. Four
main branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes identified
in the thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key phrases represent
the points obtained from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have also been
bolded in the quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a whole, the
mind map renders an image of the knowledge structure on homelessness based on
the thematic analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the
learning process on literature review. The mind mapping exercise is speedy and
entertaining. The resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and
teaching material. This mind mapping experience confirms the writer’s previous
experience using on the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also referred to
the Literature on literature review
Facebook page and the Literature on
mind mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two topics.
Concluding
remarks
The MMBLR approach to study homelessness
provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have
been refined via a series of its employment on an array of topics (Ho, 2016).
No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been introduced in this
article. In this respect, the exercise reported here primarily offers some
pedagogical value as well as some systematic and stimulated learning on homelessness
in Housing Studies. Nevertheless, the thematic findings and the image of the
knowledge structure on homelessness in the form of a mind map should also be of
academic value to those who research on homelessness.
1.
Anon.
2012. “Opinion & Comment” Journal of
Housing & Community Development November/December: 8-13.
2. Aoki, H. 2003.
“Homelessness in Osaka: Globalisation, Yoseba and Disemployment” Urban Studies 40(2), Taylor and Francis:
361-378.
3. Barak, Y. and A. Cohen. 2003.
“Characterizing the elderly homeless: a 10-year study in Israel” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
37, Elsevier: 147-155.
4. Crawley, J., D. Kane, L. Atkinson-Plato,
M. Hamilton, K. Dobson and J. Watson. 2013. “Needs of the hidden homeless – no
longer hidden: a pilot study” Public
health 127, Elsevier: 674-680.
5.
Fitzpatrick,
S. and M. Stephens. 2014. “Welfare Regimes, Social Values and Homelessness:
Comparing Responses to Marginalised Groups in Six European Countries” Housing Studies 29(2), Routledge:
215-234.
6. Fitzpatrick, S., G. Bramley and S.
Johnsen. 2013. “Pathways into Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in Seven UK
Cities” Urban Studies 50(1) January, Sage: 148-168.
7. He, Y., B. O’Flaherty
and R.A. Rosenheck. 2010. “Is shared housing a way to reduce homelessness? The
effect of household arrangements on formerly homeless people” Journal of Housing Economics 19,
Elsevier: 1-12.
8.
Ho, J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature review – a ebook, Joseph KK Ho
publication folder October 7 (url address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).
9. Hodgetts, D., O. Stolte,
L.W. Nikora and S. Groot. 2012. “Drifting Along or Dropping into Homelessness:
A Class Analysis of Responses to Homelessness” Antipode 44(4): 1209-1226.
10. Jakub, M., M. Vágnerová
and L. Csémy. 2011. “Development and psychosocial characteristics of young
adult homeless in Prague” Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences 30, Elsevier: 1888-1893.
11. Kidd, S.A., S. Miner, D.
Walker and L. Davidson. 2007. “Stories of working with homeless youth: On being
“mind-boggling”” Children and Youth
Services Review 29, Elsevier: 16-34.
12. Literature
on homelessness Facebook page,
maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address:
https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-homelessness-907105879398468/).
13. Literature on literature review Facebook page,
maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).
14. Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained
by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).
15. Mackie, P.K. 2015.
“Homeless Prevention and the Welsh Legal Duty: Lessons for International
Policies” Housing Studies 30(1),
Routledge: 40-59.
16. O’Flaherty, B. 2009. “When should homeless families get subsidized
apartments? A theoretical inquiry” Journal
of Housing Economics 18, Elseiver: 69-80.
17.
ÅŒzler,
Åž.ÃŒ. 2012. “The Concertación and Homelessness in Chile” Latin American Perspectives Issue 185, Vol. 39(4) July: 53-70.
18. Perry, S.L. 2012. “Urban hybrid
space and the homeless” Ethnography 14(4),
Sage: 431-451.
19.
Somerville,
P. 2013. “Understanding Homelessness” Housing,
Theory and Society 30(4), Routledge: 384-415.
20. Speak, S. 2013. “‘Values’ as a tool
for conceptualising homelessness in the global south” Habitat International 38, Elsevier: 143-149.
21. Tyler,
K.A. and L.A. Melander. 2012. “Poor Parenting and Antisocial Behavior Among
Homeless Young Adults: Links to Dating Violence Perpetration and Victimization”
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
27(7), Sage: 1357-1373.
22.
Vakili-Zad,
C. 2006. “Counting the homeless in Malta” J
Housing Built Environ 21: 141-157.
23.
Zerger,
S., A.J. Strehlow and A.V. Gundlapalli. 2008. “Homeless Young Adults and
Behavioral Health – An Overview” American
Behavioral Scientist 51(6) February, Sage: 824-841.
