Housing and health: the nature of the connection
Alex Marsh
There has been surprisingly little scientific research on
housing and health (Hunt, 1997, pp. 161-2).
Everyone with a grain of sense knows that it's bad for
your health if you don't have somewhere decent to live (Frank
Dobson, 1997).
Much of early public health policy in the UK was directed at the
improvement of poor housing environments. With infectious disease
both deadly and no respecter of social class, policy was as much
inspired by the urge for self-preservation on the part of the
middle classes as a concern for the welfare of the 'poor'.
Improving housing was seen as central to improving public health,
even if the mechanisms involved were only pinned down with any
precision with the passage of time. The health dimensions of
housing policy were prominent through to at least the slum
clearance programmes of the 1960s.
After a prolonged absence, housing has resurfaced as an element
in policy debates around public health and the improvement of the
health of the nation. The issues of amenities, dampness,
inadequate heating and energy efficiency are at the forefront of
contemporary concerns (DoH, 1999, paras
4.28-4.31). There is ample evidence to suggest that these
are features of the contemporary housing stock which can be
deleterious. Action to address such problems with the existing
stock is to be welcomed.
The renewed focus on the socio-economic determinants of health
and the recognition that investment in the housing stock can play
an important role in health improvement is a valuable change of
emphasis in policy. Yet, arguably much needs to be done if we are
to attain a satisfactory appreciation of the nature of the
connection between housing and health. This paper draws upon DETR
funded research looking into effects of poor housing upon health
using the National Child Development Survey (NCDS) - a
longitudinal dataset - involving myself and colleagues at the
University of Bristol (Marsh et al., 1999).
Four questions will be considered:
- How secure is our understanding of the link between housing
and health?
- How should we be measuring housing deprivation?
- Is it sufficient to focus on the direct pathways between poor
housing and poor health?
- Can we eliminate housing deprivation as a major influence
upon health?
How secure is our understanding of the link between housing
and health?
There is a well-established cross-sectional literature on the
impact of various aspects of poor housing upon current health. The
health risks posed by homelessness are also incontrovertible. Our
knowledge of the longitudinal impact of housing upon health is
much more limited. There is evidence that experience of poor
housing environments in childhood carries implications for health
status in adulthood, although the importance of childhood
experiences relative to poor socio-economic circumstances in
adulthood can be debated. Housing environments frequently do not
feature in longitudinal analyses of health status and when they do
single or simple indicators are typically employed. The move in
epidemiological studies towards a life-course perspective on
health risk presents the possibility of a greatly enhanced
understanding of the determinants of health status. However, the
role of housing both as a potential health risk in itself and as
one of the intervening links in the chain which allows a
particular health risk to develop into later illness has yet to be
fully explored.
Our research using the NCDS strongly indicates that experience
of housing deprivation has a substantial impact on the risk of
cohort members suffering severe ill health or disability. We
estimated that, after controlling for a range of other factors,
experience of multiple housing deprivation increased the risk of
severe ill-health or disability across the life course by 25% on
average.
How should we be measuring housing deprivation?
Studies based on secondary data are constrained by the nature of
the data collected. At a methodological level, one of the most
important findings to emerge from our study using the NCDS was the
need to look again at the indicators that we use to assess housing
circumstances. Can they give us any insight into the nature of
housing deprivation in contemporary society?
The housing information collected on a non-specialist survey
such as the NCDS is largely concerned with longstanding issues
around amenities. For example, the last sweep of NCDS, in 1991,
contained the following variables that could potentially be used
as part of a housing deprivation index:
- Cohort member has been homeless
- Dissatisfaction with the area they live in
- Dissatisfaction with present accommodation
- Accommodation has had serious problems of damp or mould
- Overcrowding (more than one person per room)
- Front door of the accommodation on or above the third floor
of the building
- Living in non self-contained accommodation (rooms, caravans,
etc)
- Not having sole access to a bath
- Not having sole access to a kitchen
- Lacking or having to share an indoor toilet.
Our analysis indicates that the reliability of a housing
deprivation index based on these types of variable is reasonably
satisfactory for the early sweeps of the NCDS (see Chapter 5 and
Appendix 3). Yet, reliability plummets for later sweeps.
Furthermore, it is clear that respondents' subjective assessments
of their housing - both their dwelling and its broader locality -
make a particularly important contribution to the indices and are
strongly associated with health status.
These observations do not mark the NCDS as unusual. The results
are, in fact, somewhat better than those reported for other
non-housing specific surveys. We are drawn to the conclusion that,
while questions focusing on issues of amenity and overcrowding may
have been a good guide to the nature of housing deprivation up to
and including the 1960s, there is now a need to examine
alternative conceptions of deprivation which are more suitable for
the 1990s and beyond.
Is it sufficient to focus on the direct pathways between
poor housing and poor health?
A concern with lack of amenities, shared facilities and
overcrowding is very much a concern with infectious disease, while
damp and mould can cause asthma and other respiratory diseases.
Overcrowding, damp and living above the ground floor can also
carry with them implications for mental health. The discussion
around housing and health thus tends to be concerned with
elaborating upon the direct pathways from poor housing to health.
There is much less consideration of the indirect effects of poor
housing upon health. The increasing emphasis in epidemiological
debate is upon the psycho-social origins of disease. In this
context, the lack of detailed examination of the role of housing
inequalities in the rise of the various ailments that dominate the
current public health agenda is perhaps surprising. Following
Wilkinson's (1996) emphasis upon
inequality and social cohesion one might have thought that the
role that the housing market plays in translating income
inequalities into very visible signals of position within the
social hierarchy would have attracted somewhat more attention. The
potential of relative housing disadvantage to act as an indirect
pathway to ill health, by inducing chronic stress and thereby
inducing physical ailments, seems significant and warrants further
exploration.
Housing is, to be sure, there in the background in current
discussions: allusions to housing problems feature in the
discussion as illustrations of the sort of issues involved when we
think about the socio-economic determinants of health. But in a
situation where housing deprivation is not a question of the
absence of amenities or overcrowding, the question of how we
conceive of housing deprivation remains. Equally the work needed
to spell out precisely the mechanisms by which housing influences
health remains to be done.
Housing deprivation will inevitably be broader than the lack of
amenities, and incorporate considerations of neighbourhood.
However, a nuanced view of the impact of housing on health would
need to broaden the scope of the inquiry beyond poor housing in
poor neighbourhoods. Ghodsian and Fogelman
(1988) find, for example, that for NCDS cohort members
living in the best off areas during childhood there was a marked
difference in self-reported health between those with good
amenities and those without. They argue that: 'it is reasonable to
conclude that the disadvantages for subsequent feelings about ones
health associated with having grown up with inadequate amenities
appear to be greater if experienced in the contrasting setting of
a well off neighbourhood' (Ghodsian and
Fogelman 1988, p.75). Clearly, this suggests a strong
subjective and relative component to housing deprivation. It could
also be argued that the housing career or trajectory of
individuals may determine whether particular housing circumstances
are an indirect health risk or not: it may depend on whether
climbing or descending the housing 'ladder' brought you to
particular housing circumstances.
If greater emphasis is placed upon relative housing deprivation
then the interpretation of the role of housing tenure needs to be
considered. The owner/renter distinction is typically invoked as
an indicator of differences in broader socio-economic inequalities
and it clearly has some power to identify important cleavages
within society. But that is not to argue that a relatively
unfavourable tenure position, in and of itself, may be a cause of
ill-health. Yet, with contemporary discourse referring to renters
as 'damaged citizens' (Murie, 1998) and to
the 'normalisation' of ownership (Gurney,
1999) one could construct an argument that residing in
rented accommodation may - regardless of the quality of the
housing environment - work through perceptions of social status to
have an adverse effect upon residents' health. Clearly such an
argument needs to be treated with some care and requires further
elaboration.
Can we eliminate housing deprivation as a major influence
upon health?
Emphasis upon remedying basic deficiencies in the housing stock
- inadequate heating, overcrowding, etc. - carries with it the
implication that we could, in principle at least, reach a point at
which housing circumstances cease to be a significant public
health concern. The move to a greater concern with the subjective
assessments of residents and with housing inequalities opens the
way - as it does with the broader move from a focus upon absolute
to relative poverty - for housing circumstances to continue as a
feature of health debate and policy. As Robson observed two
decades ago: '[e]ven if, by absolute standards, the very worst
conditions were "solved", a new set of "very
worst" would automatically be created. Dealing as one is with
relative and with rising expectations the problem of housing, like
the poor, will ever be with us' (1979).
Linking housing and health
The socio-economic determinants of health have returned to
policy debates and housing circumstances are identified as a key
influence upon public health. Yet, while our knowledge of the link
between housing and health is sufficient to underpin such action,
I would suggest that our knowledge is less extensive and
comprehensive than it might first appear. There are questions
about the appropriate ways to both conceptualise and measure
housing deprivation. There remains considerable work to elaborate
fully the range of potential indirect impacts of housing
circumstances upon health and to articulate the mechanisms which
underlie these impacts. Beyond that task lies the need to test
whether - and which - such impacts and mechanisms are significant
in practice. Housing is likely to remain a component of the health
policy debate for some time to come. If the suggestions presented
above find support then housing is likely to be a permanent
fixture of the debate. And a host of difficult questions for both
housing and health policy will have to be faced.
REFERENCES
DoH [Department of Health] (1999), Saving
lives: Our Healthier Nation White Paper, Cm 4386, The Stationery
Office: London.
Dobson, F. (1997), Healthy homes for
healthy lives: Frank Dobson addresses National Housing Federation
[16/10/1997], Department of Health Press Release 97/282.
Ghodsian, M. and Fogelman, K. (1988),
A longitudinal study of housing circumstances in childhood and
early adulthood, NCDS User Support Group Working Paper, 29.
Gurney, C. (1999), 'Pride and prejudice:
Discourses of normalisation in public and private accounts of home
ownership', Housing Studies, Vol. 14, no 2, pp. 163-183.
Hunt, S. (1997), 'Housing-related
disorders', in J.Charlton and M. Murphy (eds.), The health of
adult Britain 1941-1994, Vol.1, Decennial Supplement No. 12, HMSO:
London.
Marsh, A., Gordon, D., Pantazis, C. and
Heslop, P. (1999), Home sweet home? The impact of poor
housing upon health, The Policy Press: Bristol.
Murie, A. (1998), 'Secure and contented
citizens? Home ownership in Britain', in A. Marsh and D. Mullins
(eds.) (1998), Housing and public policy, Open University Press:
Buckingham.
Robson, B. (1979), 'Housing, empiricism
and the state', in D. Herbert and D. Smith (eds.), Social problems
and the city, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Wilkinson, R. (1996), Unhealthy
societies: The afflictions of inequality, Routledge: London.
Alex Marsh
Centre for Urban Studies
School for Policy Studies
University of Bristol
8 Priory Road
Clifton
Bristol
BS8 1TZ
Tel: (0117) 954 5584
E-mail:
alex.marsh@bristol.ac.uk
|