Special Issue Double Feature: Housing and Climate Change
Article #1: “Housing and Urban Heat: Assessing Risk Disparities''
Authors: C.J. Gabbe, Evan Mallen, Alexander Varni
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2093938
Published Online: 21 Jul 2022
Article #2: “Resident-Owned Resilience: Can Cooperative Land Ownership Enable Transformative Climate Adaption for Manufactured Housing Communities”
Authors: Zachary Lamb, Linda Shi, Stephanie Silva, Jason Spicer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.2013284
Published Online: 17 Feb 2022
Article #1: “Housing and Urban Heat: Assessing Risk Disparities''
Authors: C.J. Gabbe, Evan Mallen, Alexander Varni
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2093938
Published Online: 21 Jul 2022
Article #2: “Resident-Owned Resilience: Can Cooperative Land Ownership Enable Transformative Climate Adaption for Manufactured Housing Communities”
Authors: Zachary Lamb, Linda Shi, Stephanie Silva, Jason Spicer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.2013284
Published Online: 17 Feb 2022
Extreme weather events, including heat, floods, and wildfires, have increased in frequency by 100% since the 1980s (Smith and Matthews, 2015, National Centers for Environmental Information). According to the most recent yearly data from National Centers for Environmental Information, there were 18 natural disasters in the United States in 2022 which collectively cost over 1 billion dollars in damages, resulted in 474 fatalities, and displaced more than 3 million Americans. In the age of climate change, housing access, type, and location are crucial factors in controlling the impact of these climate events. Those living in affordable housing and manufactured housing (also known as mobile homes) are disproportionately affected. Understanding how housing mitigates climate disasters or leaves residents vulnerable to them is crucial for policymaking at every level of government, from the federal (such as the Green New Deal) to the local (zoning and building codes). In this post, we feature two complementary articles from Housing Policy Debate’s September 2024 focus issue on housing and climate change devoted to furthering that understanding.
C.J. Gabbe, Evan Mallen, and Alexander Varni’s “Housing and Urban Heat: Assessing Risk Disparities'' analyzes San Jose, California, parcel by parcel, to explore how different housing and neighborhood characteristics relate to heat risk. The authors hypothesize that low-income residents in attached homes (i.e. apartments, condos, and townhouses) are most likely to live in hotter parts of the city and have characteristics that hinder heat adaptation suffer the worst effects, second only to those in mobile homes. Meanwhile, Zachary Lamb, Linda Shi, Stephanie Silva, and Jason Spicer’s “Resident-Owned Resilience: Can Cooperative Land Ownership Enable Transformative Climate Adaption for Manufactured Housing Communities” suggests a possible solution to increase the adaptive capability of mobile home communities facing climate disasters. Their study investigates the benefits of resident ownership through interviews with leaders of ROCs (resident owned communities) and mapped corresponding socioeconomic and hazard-related financial loss data, and concludes in favor of ROC adaptability. Together, these two articles give readers a clearer understanding of the housing types most vulnerable to climate change, and a possible path towards improvement.
Housing Types, Neighborhood Characteristics, and Heat Risk
In their article, Gabbe et al. begin by identifying the factors that contribute to heat risk, and how these factors may vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. One such factor is tree canopy, which affects how much shade is provided. Another is access to air conditioning, and particularly central air conditioning. Sociodemographic characteristics of a neighborhood also matter; past research has found that areas with predominantly non-White residents are often hotter, being more densely populated and having less vegetative cover as result of redlining and other exclusionary practices (Gronlund, 2014; Harlan et al., 2006; Hoffman et al., 2020). Similarly, earlier studies have indicated that neighborhoods with largely low-income residents have more heat-related vulnerabilities, especially if they are populated by the older residents or those with chronic health problems that cause heat sensitivity, those who can’t afford A/C, or renters reliant on landlords for A/C repairs (Wright et al., 2020). Structural factors such as the age of a residence and if it is an attached or unattached dwelling or a mobile home, also affect heat risk. Poor insulation or lack of built-in central A/C are features that are more common in some housing types than others, particularly older residences or mobile homes (Baniassadi & Sailor, 2018; Kenny et al., 2019; Nahlik et al., 2017; White-Newsome et al., 2012).
To analyze these risk factors, the authors focus on San Jose, a large northern California city with a mild Mediterranean climate, high levels of socioeconomic disparity, and a variety of housing types as a case study. Researchers then calculated tree canopy coverage with data from San Jose’s Tree inventory; central A/C prevalence using data modeled from the American Housing Survey; and land surface temperature (LST), a measurement of the temperature of a particular area, which was calculated with satellite data from NASA and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Landsat Collection 2 Analysis Ready Data. These factors compose Gabbe et al.’s Heat Risk Index (HRI) for San Jose. The researchers draw neighborhood sociodemographic and housing data including housing type, age, and density, and resident race, income, and age, from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The authors then ran a series of linear regression models to identify associations between parcels’ heat risk, housing characteristics, and neighborhood socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.
Findings and Recommendations
The authors’ results revealed that renters were less likely than owners to have any type of A/C. Affordable and attached market-rate housing fared slightly worse than other housing types with respect to tree canopy coverage. Housing age also significantly corresponded with heat risk, with older homes having greater heat risks. Additionally, neighborhoods with higher percentages of Asian and Latino residents had less tree coverage and higher land surface temperatures.
Based on these findings, the authors make several policy recommendations. First, they advocate for increased efforts to expand A/C access for low-income and senior households, through programs such as the New York City program that will provide a free A/C unit for low-income residents with a documented medical condition, and through utility assistance programs that help low-income families afford to cool their homes. Expanding access to shade across underserved communities is also critical; the authors recommend a combination of tree-planting and human-created shade structures. Lastly, they note that affordable housing fares better than rental market-rate apartments with respect to heat risk is promising since affordable housing is home to many residents who may be vulnerable to heat such as seniors, children, and those with underlying medical conditions. It is crucial, the authors write, that affordable housing funding programs continue to increase energy efficiency standards, following models such as California’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program, which explicitly address extreme heat in its program criteria.
Increasing Mobile Home Resiliency through Resident Ownership
While Gabbe et al. briefly touch upon the exceptional challenges that mobile home communities face, Lamb et al.’s article, “Resident-Owned Resilience: Can Cooperative Land Ownership Enable Transformative Climate Adaption for Manufactured Housing Communities” delves into this issue. Mobile homes face many disadvantages compared to traditional housing. Due to zoning restrictions, they are often located in non-residential areas that leave them on the outskirts of community resources. Mobile home communities are often found in lots, trailer parks, or campground areas with inadequate electricity, water, or sewage infrastructure. In some cases, poor construction can also make mobile units themselves especially sensitive to damage; before 1976, there was no national standard for mobile home construction, and many older units are in poor condition and lack basic safety features as a result. Poor infrastructure both where the units are located and within the units themselves leaves residents exceptionally exposed to natural hazards and pollution (Wallis, 1991).
Lamb et al.’s literature review describes the financial and governmental barriers mobile home owners face when trying to adapt to climate change pressures. Mobile homes, they write, are classified as personal property rather than real estate; as a result, mobile homeowners do not have many of the rights granted to traditional homeowners or tenants. Mobile homeowners tend to have shorter loan terms, pay higher interest rates, and have fewer rights in the face of foreclosure. They are also ineligible for some forms of federal disaster aid. The lots upon which mobile home communities are located are often privately owned by others, and residents rent their space through monthly fees. There is little recourse for residents if property owners decide to sell or raise fees. Finally, mobile homeowners tend to have fewer financial resources to confront challenges, including hazard impacts. As mobile homes are cheaper to purchase than traditional non-mobile alternatives, many mobile home residents tend to have low incomes, and may struggle with utility costs in addition to the harsh loans and fees often associated with mobile homeownership.
Research (Choi, Zandt, & Matarrita-Cascante, 2018; Sazama & Willcox, 1995) has uncovered growing evidence that limited-equity cooperatives can help residents build resilience to housing insecurity. In a limited-equity cooperative, or resident owned community, residents can purchase a share of the community’s land and property. The land is collectively managed by a resident board. Boards often restrict resale values and/or eligible buyer income to keep housing affordable. Though resident owned communities have been shown to help residents weather the fluctuation of market prices, Lamb et al. explore through a study of ROC USA, an independent nonprofit organization and leading network in assisting mobile housing communities in becoming resident-owned cooperatives, whether or not they can help residents weather climate change.
To do this, the authors mapped, characterized, and assessed the hazard risks faced by ROC USA communities in nine states where ROC USA communities were prevalent, using data from ROC USA, the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index, socioeconomic data from the US Census, FEMA flood insurance rate maps, and SHELDUS, the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database. They then used qualitative research to evaluate resident ownership’s potential to expand adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity was defined for the purposes of this study as consisting of three factors: access to resources, ability to build institutional and social capacity, and access to information and skills. Lamb et al. reviewed ROC USA’s management guide, property condition reports, observed the regional ROC USA cooperative leadership training session, and interviewed 27 people, including ROC USA staff, certified technical assistance providers, and resident leaders.
Findings and Recommendations
Lamb et al.’s analysis finds that ROC USA does indeed help residents increase their ability to adapt to climate hazards. ROC USA helps residents access financial resources. For example, one Midwest ROC co-op built a tornado shelter largely with funds from a grant secured through a ROC network connection. With respect to institutional and social capacity, residents reported feeling greater autonomy and community support when they were able to make decisions about their own housing. This sense of empowerment enabled residents to tackle problems presented by weather related hazards with greater ease. In one interview, residents reported being able to organize together and remove a fallen tree by themselves much quicker than in a non-resident owned community, where such repairs would have to go through the permission and assistance of a private owner. Finally, ROC USA also helps residents gain skills and information, for example by facilitating access to engineering studies, environmental assessments, and property condition reports. ROC USA’s technical assistance providers also help residents create and maintain a functioning, sustainable community by instructing residents on various financial and management processes both during and after the acquisition process.
Lamb et al. advocate for several policy shifts, both within ROC USA and at the state and local level, to capitalize upon this apparent success. They urge technical assistance providers to factor climate change projections into the improvements they recommend, and to help communities invest in efficient energy sources and low-carbon housing. On the state level, the authors advocate for legal reforms to support residents in acquiring ownership, and tax incentives for private owners and lending institutions to facilitate resident purchases. Lamb et al. also suggest that increased subsidies for ROCs be included in federal legislation oriented towards adapting to climate change like that called for under the Green New Deal.
Gabbe et al’s article helps policymakers understand the threat posed by climate change and what kinds of neighborhoods and housing are most vulnerable. Lamb et al. zooms in on resident ownership as a promising solution for one of the most vulnerable community and housing types. Despite their different approaches, both groups of researchers underline the vulnerability of low-income households, and point to the need for investment in adaptive capacity, whether it be through increasing tree canopy, promoting air conditioning access, or empowering residents to take ownership of their own communities.
About the Authors:
C. J. Gabbe is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University. His research focuses on land use planning, housing policy, climate adaptation, and environmental justice.
Evan Mallen is a Senior Analyst with the Georgia Institute of Technology Urban Climate Lab. His research focuses on urban environmental planning and design, climate adaptation planning, and urban heat risk assessments.
Alexander Varni is a graduate of Santa Clara University, with majors in Environmental Studies and Communication. His research interests include climate adaptation, environmental communication, and environmental justice.
Zachary Lamb is an assistant professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at University of California Berkeley. His research focuses on how urban design and planning shape uneven impacts from and adaptations to climate change.
Linda Shi is an assistant professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University. Her research examines how land governance institutions shape the equity and justice of climate adaptation.
Stephanie Silva is a Master in City Planning candidate in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT. Her work focuses on the design and implementation of more equitable climate adaptation and housing plans.
Jason Spicer is an assistant professor in the urban planning program at the University of Toronto. He researches alternative economic ownership and governance models.
C.J. Gabbe, Evan Mallen, and Alexander Varni’s “Housing and Urban Heat: Assessing Risk Disparities'' analyzes San Jose, California, parcel by parcel, to explore how different housing and neighborhood characteristics relate to heat risk. The authors hypothesize that low-income residents in attached homes (i.e. apartments, condos, and townhouses) are most likely to live in hotter parts of the city and have characteristics that hinder heat adaptation suffer the worst effects, second only to those in mobile homes. Meanwhile, Zachary Lamb, Linda Shi, Stephanie Silva, and Jason Spicer’s “Resident-Owned Resilience: Can Cooperative Land Ownership Enable Transformative Climate Adaption for Manufactured Housing Communities” suggests a possible solution to increase the adaptive capability of mobile home communities facing climate disasters. Their study investigates the benefits of resident ownership through interviews with leaders of ROCs (resident owned communities) and mapped corresponding socioeconomic and hazard-related financial loss data, and concludes in favor of ROC adaptability. Together, these two articles give readers a clearer understanding of the housing types most vulnerable to climate change, and a possible path towards improvement.
Housing Types, Neighborhood Characteristics, and Heat Risk
In their article, Gabbe et al. begin by identifying the factors that contribute to heat risk, and how these factors may vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. One such factor is tree canopy, which affects how much shade is provided. Another is access to air conditioning, and particularly central air conditioning. Sociodemographic characteristics of a neighborhood also matter; past research has found that areas with predominantly non-White residents are often hotter, being more densely populated and having less vegetative cover as result of redlining and other exclusionary practices (Gronlund, 2014; Harlan et al., 2006; Hoffman et al., 2020). Similarly, earlier studies have indicated that neighborhoods with largely low-income residents have more heat-related vulnerabilities, especially if they are populated by the older residents or those with chronic health problems that cause heat sensitivity, those who can’t afford A/C, or renters reliant on landlords for A/C repairs (Wright et al., 2020). Structural factors such as the age of a residence and if it is an attached or unattached dwelling or a mobile home, also affect heat risk. Poor insulation or lack of built-in central A/C are features that are more common in some housing types than others, particularly older residences or mobile homes (Baniassadi & Sailor, 2018; Kenny et al., 2019; Nahlik et al., 2017; White-Newsome et al., 2012).
To analyze these risk factors, the authors focus on San Jose, a large northern California city with a mild Mediterranean climate, high levels of socioeconomic disparity, and a variety of housing types as a case study. Researchers then calculated tree canopy coverage with data from San Jose’s Tree inventory; central A/C prevalence using data modeled from the American Housing Survey; and land surface temperature (LST), a measurement of the temperature of a particular area, which was calculated with satellite data from NASA and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Landsat Collection 2 Analysis Ready Data. These factors compose Gabbe et al.’s Heat Risk Index (HRI) for San Jose. The researchers draw neighborhood sociodemographic and housing data including housing type, age, and density, and resident race, income, and age, from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The authors then ran a series of linear regression models to identify associations between parcels’ heat risk, housing characteristics, and neighborhood socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.
Findings and Recommendations
The authors’ results revealed that renters were less likely than owners to have any type of A/C. Affordable and attached market-rate housing fared slightly worse than other housing types with respect to tree canopy coverage. Housing age also significantly corresponded with heat risk, with older homes having greater heat risks. Additionally, neighborhoods with higher percentages of Asian and Latino residents had less tree coverage and higher land surface temperatures.
Based on these findings, the authors make several policy recommendations. First, they advocate for increased efforts to expand A/C access for low-income and senior households, through programs such as the New York City program that will provide a free A/C unit for low-income residents with a documented medical condition, and through utility assistance programs that help low-income families afford to cool their homes. Expanding access to shade across underserved communities is also critical; the authors recommend a combination of tree-planting and human-created shade structures. Lastly, they note that affordable housing fares better than rental market-rate apartments with respect to heat risk is promising since affordable housing is home to many residents who may be vulnerable to heat such as seniors, children, and those with underlying medical conditions. It is crucial, the authors write, that affordable housing funding programs continue to increase energy efficiency standards, following models such as California’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program, which explicitly address extreme heat in its program criteria.
Increasing Mobile Home Resiliency through Resident Ownership
While Gabbe et al. briefly touch upon the exceptional challenges that mobile home communities face, Lamb et al.’s article, “Resident-Owned Resilience: Can Cooperative Land Ownership Enable Transformative Climate Adaption for Manufactured Housing Communities” delves into this issue. Mobile homes face many disadvantages compared to traditional housing. Due to zoning restrictions, they are often located in non-residential areas that leave them on the outskirts of community resources. Mobile home communities are often found in lots, trailer parks, or campground areas with inadequate electricity, water, or sewage infrastructure. In some cases, poor construction can also make mobile units themselves especially sensitive to damage; before 1976, there was no national standard for mobile home construction, and many older units are in poor condition and lack basic safety features as a result. Poor infrastructure both where the units are located and within the units themselves leaves residents exceptionally exposed to natural hazards and pollution (Wallis, 1991).
Lamb et al.’s literature review describes the financial and governmental barriers mobile home owners face when trying to adapt to climate change pressures. Mobile homes, they write, are classified as personal property rather than real estate; as a result, mobile homeowners do not have many of the rights granted to traditional homeowners or tenants. Mobile homeowners tend to have shorter loan terms, pay higher interest rates, and have fewer rights in the face of foreclosure. They are also ineligible for some forms of federal disaster aid. The lots upon which mobile home communities are located are often privately owned by others, and residents rent their space through monthly fees. There is little recourse for residents if property owners decide to sell or raise fees. Finally, mobile homeowners tend to have fewer financial resources to confront challenges, including hazard impacts. As mobile homes are cheaper to purchase than traditional non-mobile alternatives, many mobile home residents tend to have low incomes, and may struggle with utility costs in addition to the harsh loans and fees often associated with mobile homeownership.
Research (Choi, Zandt, & Matarrita-Cascante, 2018; Sazama & Willcox, 1995) has uncovered growing evidence that limited-equity cooperatives can help residents build resilience to housing insecurity. In a limited-equity cooperative, or resident owned community, residents can purchase a share of the community’s land and property. The land is collectively managed by a resident board. Boards often restrict resale values and/or eligible buyer income to keep housing affordable. Though resident owned communities have been shown to help residents weather the fluctuation of market prices, Lamb et al. explore through a study of ROC USA, an independent nonprofit organization and leading network in assisting mobile housing communities in becoming resident-owned cooperatives, whether or not they can help residents weather climate change.
To do this, the authors mapped, characterized, and assessed the hazard risks faced by ROC USA communities in nine states where ROC USA communities were prevalent, using data from ROC USA, the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index, socioeconomic data from the US Census, FEMA flood insurance rate maps, and SHELDUS, the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database. They then used qualitative research to evaluate resident ownership’s potential to expand adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity was defined for the purposes of this study as consisting of three factors: access to resources, ability to build institutional and social capacity, and access to information and skills. Lamb et al. reviewed ROC USA’s management guide, property condition reports, observed the regional ROC USA cooperative leadership training session, and interviewed 27 people, including ROC USA staff, certified technical assistance providers, and resident leaders.
Findings and Recommendations
Lamb et al.’s analysis finds that ROC USA does indeed help residents increase their ability to adapt to climate hazards. ROC USA helps residents access financial resources. For example, one Midwest ROC co-op built a tornado shelter largely with funds from a grant secured through a ROC network connection. With respect to institutional and social capacity, residents reported feeling greater autonomy and community support when they were able to make decisions about their own housing. This sense of empowerment enabled residents to tackle problems presented by weather related hazards with greater ease. In one interview, residents reported being able to organize together and remove a fallen tree by themselves much quicker than in a non-resident owned community, where such repairs would have to go through the permission and assistance of a private owner. Finally, ROC USA also helps residents gain skills and information, for example by facilitating access to engineering studies, environmental assessments, and property condition reports. ROC USA’s technical assistance providers also help residents create and maintain a functioning, sustainable community by instructing residents on various financial and management processes both during and after the acquisition process.
Lamb et al. advocate for several policy shifts, both within ROC USA and at the state and local level, to capitalize upon this apparent success. They urge technical assistance providers to factor climate change projections into the improvements they recommend, and to help communities invest in efficient energy sources and low-carbon housing. On the state level, the authors advocate for legal reforms to support residents in acquiring ownership, and tax incentives for private owners and lending institutions to facilitate resident purchases. Lamb et al. also suggest that increased subsidies for ROCs be included in federal legislation oriented towards adapting to climate change like that called for under the Green New Deal.
Gabbe et al’s article helps policymakers understand the threat posed by climate change and what kinds of neighborhoods and housing are most vulnerable. Lamb et al. zooms in on resident ownership as a promising solution for one of the most vulnerable community and housing types. Despite their different approaches, both groups of researchers underline the vulnerability of low-income households, and point to the need for investment in adaptive capacity, whether it be through increasing tree canopy, promoting air conditioning access, or empowering residents to take ownership of their own communities.
About the Authors:
C. J. Gabbe is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University. His research focuses on land use planning, housing policy, climate adaptation, and environmental justice.
Evan Mallen is a Senior Analyst with the Georgia Institute of Technology Urban Climate Lab. His research focuses on urban environmental planning and design, climate adaptation planning, and urban heat risk assessments.
Alexander Varni is a graduate of Santa Clara University, with majors in Environmental Studies and Communication. His research interests include climate adaptation, environmental communication, and environmental justice.
Zachary Lamb is an assistant professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at University of California Berkeley. His research focuses on how urban design and planning shape uneven impacts from and adaptations to climate change.
Linda Shi is an assistant professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University. Her research examines how land governance institutions shape the equity and justice of climate adaptation.
Stephanie Silva is a Master in City Planning candidate in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT. Her work focuses on the design and implementation of more equitable climate adaptation and housing plans.
Jason Spicer is an assistant professor in the urban planning program at the University of Toronto. He researches alternative economic ownership and governance models.