Mind mapping the topic of public housing
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent
Trainer
Hong
Kong, China
Abstract: The topic of public
housing 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 public housing. 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 public housing literature review. The article offers
some academic and pedagogical values on the topics of public housing,
literature review and the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR)
approach.
Key words: Public housing, literature review, mind
map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach
Introduction
Public housing
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 public housing 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 as 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
public housing 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 public housing.
The findings from this literature review
exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in
the topics of public housing, literature review and the MMBLR approach. Other
than that, 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 public housing
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). Also, 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. 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 public housing: 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 public housing topic. 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 public housing 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.
“....public housing is used to denote stock managed by elected state and territory
governments in Australia and elected local authority councils in the UK. Housing Association property refers to stock managed by
not-for-profit housing providers in the UK. In recent years, housing
associations are referred to as Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). In Australia, the equivalent to Housing Associations is Community Housing Organisations. The term Social Housing in both the UK and Australia is a generic term that includes both
public and RSL (UK) and community housing organisation stock (Australia). In
recent years, the term Social Housing has been used to denote any housing that has been subsidised to enable
low-income tenants to rent at below-market rents” (Jacobs, Atkinson, Spinney,
Colic-Peisker, Berry and Dalton, 2010);
Point 1.2.
“Social
residualisation
refers to the growing proportion of low-income and high needs households in
public housing. As public housing has declined in numbers so a shifting remit
to tackle housing need has led to the greater targeting of households.
Inevitably, without growing investment in the sector, the concentration of poorer and higher
service cost households has been significant” (Atkinson and Jacobs, 2008);
Theme 2: Major underlying theories
and thinking
Point 2.1.
“Socialist countries have provided
decent housing for their citizens; unlike industrialized capitalist and most
Third World countries, they have basically avoided the problems of homelessness
and urban slums. The socialist model of
housing provision is based, in principle, on an egalitarian political and
economic ideology” (Chen and Gao, 1993);
Point 2.2.
“....residential mobility—‘the exit option’—is the most
‘clear-cut’ response to a negative neighbourhood reputation because of the
negative effects on a person’s status, self-image and well-being” (Kearns, Kearns and
Lawson, 2013);
Point 2.3.
“...although the bulk of public housing units are rented to females,
they are frequently home to long- or short-term ‘male guests’ ... These men too
often victimize women physically and
sexually, which these women must bear on top of a variety of harassments on
the streets, bars and in other public places” (Dekeseredy, Schwartz, Alvi and Tomaszewski, 2003);
Point 2.4.
“...economic rationalists emphasise the need to reduce welfare expenditure and reliance on
benefits by those who live in relative poverty. Economic rationalists argue
that the priorities of government should be to establish the conditions for
individuals to accrue wealth and provide opportunities for private sector
interests to secure a foothold in the activities of government service
provision including health, education and housing” (Jacobs, Atkinson, Spinney,
Colic-Peisker, Berry and Dalton, 2010);
Point 2.5.
“All places have identities, but some places also have reputations. In an ongoing study of
deprived communities in Glasgow, two key findings were striking ... First, that
both in inner-city mass housing estates and in peripheral estates in the city,
there is a high recognition of the existence of negative area reputations:
between 60 and 70 per cent of residents in these areas identified that their
neighbourhoods had a poor external reputation, i.e. they agreed with the statement:
‘Many people in Glasgow think this neighbourhood has a bad reputation’..” (Kearns, Kearns and
Lawson, 2013);
Point 2.6.
“Eligibility criteria and rent schedules
are another often cited reason for the low level of employment among public
housing residents. .... These income
limits are frequently interpreted as a disincentive to work since
participation in the labor market may result in the loss of the public housing
rent subsidy” (Reingold, 1997);
Point 2.7.
“Employment opportunities for many
public housing residents are limited because they have poor work habits and/or lack
marketable skills. These types of deficiencies, however, are different from
limited economic opportunities that result from, for example, living in the
public housing unit that is situated in an urban area with declining local
labor market opportunities” (Reingold, 1997);
Point 2.8.
“Following
Lefebvre ... the public housing project can be seen as the concurrent outcome
of three processes: the formal
representation of space by the State,
the official practice that takes
place in the space, and the perceptions
of the space by citizens, including their daily activities. The dialectical
relationship among these forces produces a concrete space” (Kallus and Yone, 2002);
Point 2.9.
“In any discussion of public housing
policy, it is helpful to situate the activities and deliberations of
governments within the wider economic,
social and ideological context. Government policies towards public housing
are linked to the imperative of delivering economic growth ...; the pressures
arising from social and demographic change; and adherence to particular
ideologies” (Jacobs,
Atkinson, Spinney, Colic-Peisker, Berry and Dalton, 2010);
Point 2.10.
“Public housing has also been
thought of as a solution for inner-city
poverty and isolation, and as a basic human necessity for less well-off
people ... The view of many planners, architects and social workers was that
good housing was humane and necessary to the well-being of all people and would
greatly improve life chances for slum dwellers. They saw public housing as way
of fulfilling part of the state’s responsibility to ensure that decent,
affordable housing was available for all residents of the U.S.” (Stoloff, 2004);
Point 2.11.
“The
construction of public housing by the political establishment, characterized by
the homogeneous spread of uniform houses
based on functional building formulas, enables control over all levels of
life, including the smallest social unit—the family. The design of private
space—the ‘residential machine’ ....—enables penetration into the personal
space that belongs to the family, and enables control of its most intimate
aspects. The declared intention of this intervention was to use the housing
unit, as “an educational tool for proper family life”..” (Kallus and Yone, 2002);
Point 2.12.
“The narrative of public
housing dysfunction describes a steep decline in living conditions to the
point where much public housing became uninhabitable by the 1990s. One commonly
cited culprit in the decline of public housing has been the physical design of
the projects. Design principles emphasizing common outdoor space dominated
early public housing projects. In some respects a reaction to the dark, crowded
slums and the tenements that they replaced, early public housing projects
incorporated courtyards and buildings that were set apart from and at angles to
the street grid..... Over time, however, the open space deteriorated as
landscaping and maintenance were neglected. As conditions deteriorated the open
space was marked by crime and incivility” (Goetz, 2011);
Point 2.13.
“The process of increasing concentration of ethnic groups in the public housing
stock is fairly recent and does not seem to have come to a halt yet” (Musterd and Deurloo, 1997);
Theme 3: Main research topics and
issues
Point 3.1.
“Although
public housing is typically associated with high crime rates, little research has been done on fear of crime or
violent victimization experiences among public housing residents. Moreover,
there are few studies that look specifically at women’s fear of crime or violent
victimization experiences in public housing, despite the fact that women
constitute the majority of public housing residents” (Renzetti and Maier, 2002);
Point 3.2.
“APPROXIMATELY 600,000 older Americans live in congregate
public housing sites that provide homes for low income elders. Previous studies
suggest that residents of these sites report higher rates of depressive symptoms than elders living
in independent homes and apartments ... and that this morbidity has significant
adverse effects on their quality of life” (Rabins, Black, German, Roca, McGuire, Brant and Cook, 1996);
Point 3.3.
“Both
Bourgois .... and Websdale ... heard women express fear of the physical spaces
outside and around their public housing developments. While both note that some
women have toughened themselves and become street smart, Websdale, in
particular, notes that this fear of potential victimization on the streets could make it difficult for women to
get help if they are abused at home” (Renzetti and Maier, 2002);
Point 3.4.
“High-rise
housing (primarily
public housing) is often infused with alternative images in many Western cities
.... As Helleman and Wassenberg put it High-rise estates are associated with
problematic living conditions, deprived areas, isolated locations, a poor
population, a negative image, social isolation, pollution and crime . . .... This is not, however, the end of
high-rise housing. In Asia, Singapore and Hong Kong have similarly experimented
and scored high residential satisfaction” (Yuen, Yeh, Appold, Earl, Ting and Kwee, 2006);
Point 3.5.
“Peach and Bryon... argued that the
concentration of black single-parent households in the least desirable parts of
the public sector results from a combination of class, gender, family structure and the race factors” (Musterd and Deurloo, 1997);
Point 3.6.
“Public housing is generally viewed
as a failed endeavour that has
accentuated poverty and social disadvantage to the extent that it is now in
danger of falling by the wayside of mainstream policy debates and action. Its
remit has become so closely associated with providing for those on the lowest
incomes and highest needs that the sector and particular neighbourhoods have
generated problematic reputations. This has meant that not only has public
housing become a form of housing of last
resort, but that negative public perceptions have themselves also created a
socially excluding force, whereby tenants are seen as being in some way
different or deficient” (Atkinson
and Jacobs, 2008);
Point 3.7.
“The discussion of the social aspects of public housing also
includes efforts to examine the effects of access to housing resources on
ethnic inequality .... and on the position of various population groups in the
class structure ....—a position that derives from the analysis of social,
economic, and employment opportunities, and access to various services, as well
as the exchange value in the market of housing resources” (Kallus and Yone, 2002);
Point 3.8.
“This
social mechanism whereby residents
may, or may not, be able to contribute to the creation of their area’s reputation
is not the only means of reputation formation. The Swedish study also
recognised that ‘the local newspaper played a key role in the reputation
process. Local news and events were often reported in a stereotype fashion,
leading to creation of typecast perceptions’..” (Kearns, Kearns and Lawson, 2013);
Point 3.9.
“Ball
adopts what can be termed a ‘structuralist’
approach, noting that the production and allocation of housing operate in
accordance with the profit motive. The processes of consumption, according to
Ball, are of secondary importance. One of the merits of this perspective is
that it makes explicit the connections between housing policy and the broad
workings of the economy but, on the other hand, its portrayal of the state as a
monolithic entity seeking to advance the interests of capital is problematic” (Jacobs, Atkinson, Spinney,
Colic-Peisker, Berry and Dalton, 2010);
Theme 4: Major trends and issues
related to practices
Point 4.1.
“...the
success of public housing in Singapore was important in
establishing the government's political legitimacy and dominance. This was
possible in the early years of Singapore's independence because public housing
provision was held as testimony to the newly elected government's commitment to
bettering the material conditions of Singaporeans ... In later years, the
tangible blocks of flats became powerful symbols of success, monuments that attest
to the HDB's [the Housing and Development Board] achievements, a claim that is
effectively made by the government” (Teo and Kong, 1997);
Point 4.2.
“Another major development of the
1990s that pays attention to improving Singaporeans' quality of life through their housing environment is the
introduction in 1995 of executive condominiums, meant to house a "sandwich
class" between HDB [the Housing and Development Board] and private housing
..... The schemes will approximate private condominiums in that there will be
facilities such as a swimming pool or tennis court. The first 540 units will be
in Jurong East and Pasir Ris. First-time buyers will be given a S$40,000 grant
but must find their own financing, whereas applicants for HDB flats will have
HDB financing” (Teo and
Kong, 1997);
Point 4.3.
“As more public housing was built it was typically placed in
racially mixed or predominantly black neighbourhoods ..., and was therefore
more attractive to African-American families than to whites .... In older
projects, as whites moved out of public housing, blacks moved in. As the profile of residents changed the
political support for the program, always tenuous and fragile, waned even
further. The program became politically marginalized and chronically
underfunded” (Goetz, 2011);
Point 4.4.
“At
the outset of the program in the 1930s and 1940s, public housing residents were
low-income families, but typically the heads of households were employed.
Initially, families on welfare were generally excluded from public housing in
favour of working-class families ...
By the 1960s, larger numbers of welfare families were entering public housing
as pressures increased to reserve public housing for the neediest .... Over
time Congress mandated resident preference rules that gave priority
consideration to needy families” (Goetz, 2011);
Point 4.5.
“By
the early 1940’s, many planners felt that high-rises could provide a healthy,
unique living environment that would contrast favorably with surrounding slum
areas. However, guides to good design for two and three story buildings were
still being promulgated ... While high-rise
buildings were desirable for their space efficiency, they were not
necessarily the cheapest forms of housing development” (Stoloff, 2004);
Point 4.6.
“By the late 1970s, providing a
housing environment of quality also meant encouraging an environment of neighbourliness and friendliness through the setting
up of Residents' Committees, and the continued support given to community
centre activities. Both were geared towards organising activities for
residents, including social and recreational programmes (such as excursions and
get-together parties) and educational ones (such as forums and exhibitions)..”
(Teo and Kong, 1997);
Point 4.7.
“During the first decade of the
formation of the State of Israel, the enterprise of public housing reached a
peak in the creation of homes for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had
arrived and had as yet no roof over their heads. This vast undertaking was one
of the tests of the State as a sovereign
entity, whether it could take responsibility for its citizens and provide
for their basic needs and welfare” (Kallus and Yone, 2002);
Point 4.8.
“For the past three decades, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local public housing
authorities (PHAs) across the country have pursued an aggressive strategy of downsizing the nation’s public housing
stock. This has been accomplished to date through a mix of demolition,
redevelopment, and sale of public housing units in cities across the country.
This trend is similar to that seen in a number of advanced industrialized
nations, including Canada, Australia, and several European countries ....
Furthermore, the dismantling of public housing is not limited to the removal of
high-rise towers, but affects low-rise, row-house, and even single-family,
scattered site units as well” (Goetz,
2011);
Point 4.9.
“Immigrants
to Israel were
transported into the country by national institutions and dispersed throughout
the country and settled in accordance with the political considerations of the government. .... Housing for these
groups was directed mainly to peripheral areas that were at the margins in all
respects—physically, socially, and culturally, but considered important in
terms of territorial control.
Consequently entire residential areas were established in a way that made it
almost impossible for them to become, to some extent even to this day, ‘real
places’ and viable living areas” (Kallus and Yone, 2002);
Point 4.10.
“In
the 1940’s and 1950’s, income limits
had the effect of penalizing residents for upward
mobility. Families could be evicted if their income surpassed an upper
limit” (Stoloff,
2004);
Point 4.11.
“In
the late 1960’s, further incentives were introduced to encourage the
involvement of private developers
and real estate interests in the development of low-cost housing in the form of
public financing of private subsidized housing developments .... These programs
“…gave private developers tax breaks, low-cost mortgages, and rent subsidies to
house the poor,”...” (Stoloff,
2004);
Point 4.12.
“In
the past, most of the public housing estates in Singapore had a uniform, monotonous appearance. This is
rapidly changing. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is using highly
visible designs to add variety to the skyline of the estates and to the facades
of blocks. Motifs, domers and colours help to make each estate unique, so that
residents have a sense of identity” (Teo and Huang, 1996);
Point 4.13.
“Public housing was not
originally built to house the ‘poorest
of the poor,’ but was intended for select segments of the working class ...
Specifically, it was designed to serve the needs of the ‘submerged middle
class,’ who were temporarily outside of the labor market during the Depression”
(Stoloff, 2004);
Point 4.14.
“Some
of the earliest advocates of public housing supported tenant screening because they knew that to have a successful
housing development most residents must be employed .... Qualitative tenant
screening was the norm when public housing was first built in the late 1930's
.... These practices were challenged in the 1960’s” (Stoloff, 2004);
Point 4.15.
“Stories
of children dying in accidents or as collateral damage in the gang wars that
dominated public housing communities became part of the general perception of public housing in the 1990s. Not only were
these living environments detrimental to those trapped within them, but as
microenvironments of poverty and crime, they were increasingly seen as having
negative effects on the surrounding communities” (Goetz, 2011);
Point 4.16.
“The government [of Hong Kong] began
large numbers of squatters into multi-storied public housing blocks in the
early 1950s. Since income redistribution
was not on the agenda, there was little attempt to institute a means test to
identify the most needy. At that time, however, most of the squatters were
among the most deprived in society” (Wong and Liu, 1988);
Point 4.17.
“The sale of public housing
to residents has been a minor part of local housing authority programs for
decades. For the most part, PHAs [public housing authorities] have not been
anxious to participate in such programs because the units typically chosen for
purchase and the families wishing to participate in the program are both the
cream of the crop for local authorities. Significant sales of public housing
would mean the loss of the PHAs’ best housing stock and the loss of their best,
most stable families” (Goetz,
2011);
Point 4.18.
“Throughout the 1980s, to improve
quality of life in public housing estates, the HDB [the Housing and Development
Board of Singapore] sought to promote new
town character and community identity through the use of new building
designs, in which different building heights were combined to break the
monotony of the skyline. Greater use was also made of traditional forms such as
pitched roofs..., overhanging eaves and tall windows typical of a tropical
building” (Teo and Kong,
1997);
Point 4.19.
“Public housing has been the rising issue in Singapore in order
to provide sufficient homes for all. The demand for public housing flats is also increasing. To better
meet the demand, the Singapore government decided to reduce the waiting time of future owners for HDB [the
Housing and Development Board] flats, which needs their completion on
time and thus poses more schedule pressures to parties involved in the
construction of HDB projects” (Hwang
and Ng, 2013);
Point 4.20.
“Public housing in
Singapore is not generally viewed as a
sign of poverty or lower living standards as compared to that in other
countries. The housing sector in Singapore is dominated by HDB [the Housing and Development
Board] projects.
Over 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, and about 90% of
them own their HDB flats .... HDB flats are located in housing estates, which are self-contained
satellite towns with schools, supermarkets, clinics, hawker centers, as well as
sports and recreational facilities” (Hwang and
Ng, 2013);
Point 4.21.
“The Housing Department [of Hong Kong] launched the Marking Scheme for Tenancy Enforcement
in Public Housing Estates immediately after the SARS epidemic. The scheme operates
as a penalty-point system where sitting tenants will be expelled from public
housing if they receive sixteen points for the misdeeds they have committed.
Yet, the marking scheme itself was put onto the stage without any prior public
consultation. Besides, it has been criticised for its unfair and tenure-biased
enforcement” (Yau,
2012);
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
public housing topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on
the writer’s intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the public
housing 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 public housing 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 public housing, is presented in the next
section.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on public housing: step 2 (mind mapping) output
By adopting the findings from the MMBLR
approach step 1 on public housing, the writer constructs a companion mind map
shown as Figure 1.
Referring to the mind map on public housing,
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 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 public housing based on the
thematic analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the learning
process on literature review. The mind mapping process is speedy and
entertaining. The resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and
teaching material. This mind mapping exercise 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 public housing
provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have
been refined via a number 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 public
housing in the field of Housing Studies. Nevertheless, the thematic findings
and the image of the knowledge structure on public housing in the form of a
mind map should also be of academic value to those who research on this topic.
Bibliography
1. Chen, X.M. and X.Y. Gao. 1993.
“Urban economic reform and public-housing investment in China” Urban Affairs Quarterly 29(1) September,
Sage: 117-145.
2.
Dekeseredy,
W.S., M.D. Schwartz, S. Alvi and E.A. Tomaszewski. 2003. “Perceived collective
efficacy and women’s victimization in public housing” Criminal Justice 3(1): 5-27,
3.
Goetz,
E.G. 2011. “Where have all the towers gone? The dismantling of public housing
in U.S. cities” Journal of Urban Affairs
33(3): 267-287.
4.
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).
5.
Hwang,
B.G. and S.Y. Ng. 2013. “Identifying the critical factors affecting schedule
performance of public housing projects” Habitat
International 38, Elsevier: 214-221.
6.
Jacobs,
K., R. Atkinson, A. Spinney, V. Colic-Peisker, M. Berry and T. Dalton. 2010.
“What future for public housing? A critical analysis” Research paper February, Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute.
7.
Kallus,
R. and H.L. Yone. 2002. “National Home/Personal Home: Public Housing and the
Shaping of National Space in Israel” European
Planning Studies 10(6), Taylor & Francis: 765-779.
8.
Kearns, A., O. Kearns and L. Lawson. 2013. “Notorious Places:
Image, Reputation, Stigma. The Role of Newspapers in Area Reputations for
Social Housing Estates” Housing Studies
28(4), Routledge: 579-598.
9.
Literature
on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph,
K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).
10. Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained
by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).
11. Literature
on public housing Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-public-housing-280576845709059/).
12. Musterd, S. and R. Deurloo. 1997.
“Ethnic segregation and the role of public housing in Amsterdam” Tijdschriftvoor Economische ed Sociale Geografie 88(2):
158-168.
13. Rabins, P.V., B. Black, P. German, R.
Roca, M. McGuire, L. Brant and J. Cook. 1996. “The Prevalence of Psychiatric
Disorders in Elderly Residents of Public Housing” Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 51A(6): M319-324.
14. Reingold, D.A. 1997. “Does inner city
public housing exacerbate the employment problems of its tenants” Journal of Urban Affairs 19(4), JAI
Press: 469-486.
15. Renzetti, C. and S.L. Maier.
2002. ““Private” Crime in Public Housing: Violent Victimization, Fear of Crime
and Social Isolation Among Women Public Housing Residents” CRVAW Faculty Journal Articles. Paper
29. (url address: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/crvaw_facpub/29).
16. Stoloff, J. 2004. "A Brief History of Public Housing" Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA,, Aug
14, 2004 . 2009-05-26
17. Teo, P. and S. Huang. 1996. “A Sense of
Place in Public Housing: a Case Study of Pasir Ris, Singapore” Habitat Intl. 20(2), Pergamon: 307-325.
18. Teo, S.E. and L. Kong. 1997. “Public
Housing in Singapore: interpreting “quality in the 1990s” Urban Studies 34(3), Sage: 441-452.
19. Wong, Y.C. and P.W. Liu. 1988. “The
Distribution of Benefits among Public Housing Tenants in Hong Kong and Related
Policy issues” Journal of Urban Economics
23: 1-20.
20.
Yau,
Y. 2012. “Ruling out trouble: Unacceptable behavior and its control in Hong
Kong’s public housing” Habitat
International 36, Elsevier: 11-19.
21. Yuen, B., A. Yeh, S.J. Appold, G.
Earl, J. Ting and L.K. Kwee. 2006. “High-rise Living in Singapore Public
Housing” Urban Studies 43(3) March,
Routledge: 583-600.
Pdf version at: https://www.academia.edu/31718682/Mind_mapping_the_topic_of_public_housing
ReplyDelete