Increased awareness of the civil rights of individuals with disabilities led to the passage of several laws beginning in 1961 and culminating with the passage of the American with Disabilities Act in 1990. All these laws were aimed at improving access to public built environments and transportation. However, the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) of 1988 focused on assuring the availability of accessible multi–family dwelling units, thus addressing the need for accessible housing directly for the first time in the United States.
This study was designed to evaluate the adequacy of the FHAA in protecting the rights of disabled people to accessible multi–family housing, and to learn more about the law's impact on the level of satisfaction with living environment among people with disabilities.
A random sample of multi–family dwellings was drawn from HUD subsidized housing lists encompassing four states. Information was gathered by administering a satisfaction questionnaire to the disabled tenant and conducting a FHAA compliance survey of the complex. The data yielded two sample groups based on whether or not the complex complied with the FHAA guidelines. Results of responses from each sample group were compared and analyzed.
The study shows that the level of satisfaction with living environment varies greatly among people with disabilities depending upon the design attributes of the built environment. It also suggests that those individuals living in complexes that comply with the FHAA are more satisfied with their behavioral and natural environment, indicating that the Act has made a positive difference in the quality of disabled tenants’ daily lives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmanI., & LowM. S. (1992). Place attachmentNew York : Plenum Press.
2.
AltmanI., & WernerC. (1985). Home environmentsNew York : Plenum Press.
3.
AmerigoM. (2002). A psychological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. In AragonesJ. I., FrancescatoG., & GarlingT. (Ed.), Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction, and behavior (pp. 82–99). Westport, Connecticut : Bergin & Garvey.
4.
AndersonJ. R., & WeidemannS. (1980). Planning and monitoring change in multifamily housing. In ThorneR. (Ed.), People and the man–made environment (pp. 116–135). Sydney, Australia : University of Sydney.
5.
AndersonJ. R., WeidemannS., ChenowethR., & FrancescatoG. (1974). Residents’ satisfaction: Criteria for evaluation of housing for low and moderate–income families. In Paper of the National Conference of the American Institute of Planners (pp. 1–24). Washington, D. C. : American Institute of Planners.
6.
AragonesJ. I. (2002). The dwelling as place: Behaviors and symbolism. In AragonesJ. I., FrancescatoG., & GarlingT. (Ed.), Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction, and behavior (pp. 163–182). Westport, Connecticut : Bergin & Garvey.
7.
BabbieE. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont : Wadsworth Publishing Company.
8.
BigbyC. (2002). Aging people with a lifelong disability: Challenges for the aged care and disability sectors. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability27(4), 231–241.
9.
BigbyC. (2004). Aging with a lifelong disability: A guide to practice, program and policy issues for human services professionalsLondon : Jessica Kingsley.
10.
BourdieuP. (1981). La Poétiquede L'espace (V. Eskenazi, Trans.). Paris : Universitaires de France.
11.
BradyJ. (1994). Jim Brady plays his hand. NorthWest Airline Magazine, 13–16.
12.
BrownS. E. (2001). What is disability culture?Disability Culture: Institute on Independent Living Newsletter.
13.
BruinM. J., CookC. C. (1997). Understanding constraints and residential satisfaction among low–income single–parent families. Environment and Behavior, 29, 532–553.
14.
CarpF. M. (1987). Environment and aging. Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 10, 329–360.
15.
CaseD. (1996). Contributions of journeys away to the definition of home: An empirical study of a dialectical process. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 1–15.
16.
ChapmanT., & HockeyJ. (1999). Ideal homes? Social change and domestic lifeLondon : Routledge.
17.
ChristensenD. L., CarpF. M., CranzG. L., & WileyJ. A. (1992). Objective housing indicators as predictions of the subjective evaluations of elderly residents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 225–236.
18.
DavisE. E., & Fine–DavisM. (1981). Predictors of satisfaction with housing and neighborhood: A nationwide study in the Republic of Ireland. Social Indicators Research, pp. 477–497.
19.
DespresC. (1991). The meaning of home: Literature review and directions for future research and theoretical development. Journal of Architectural Research, 8, 96–155.
20.
DillmanD. A. (1978). Mail and telephone survey: The total design methodsNew York : John Wiley & Sons.
21.
DillmanD. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design methodNew York : John Wiley & Sons.
22.
DobkinI., & PetersonM. J. (1999). Gracious spaces: Universal interiors by designNew York : McGraw–Hill.
23.
DoveyK. (1985). Home and homelessness. In AltmanI. & WernerC. (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 33–64). New York : Plenum Press.
24.
ForceJ. E., & MachlisG. E., (1997). The human ecosystem part II: Social indicators in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, 10, 369–382.
25.
FrancescatoG., WeidemannS., AndersonJ. R., & ChenowethR. (1974). Evaluating residents’ satisfaction in housing for low and moderate–income families: A multi–method approach. In CarsonD. H. (Ed.), Man–environment interactions: Evaluation and applications (Vol. 5, pp. 285–296). Washington, D. C. : Environmental Design Research Association.
26.
FrancescatoG., WeidemannS., AndersonJ. R., & ChenowethR. (1979). Residents’ satisfaction in HUD–assisted housing: Design and management factors. Washington, D. C. : U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
27.
GolantS. M. (1992). Housing America's elderly: Many possibilities, few choicesNewberry Park, CA : Sage.
28.
GoodA., & FitzgeraldE. (2005). Understanding dependency: Challenges for planners. In National Council on Aging and Older People (NCAOP), Planning for an Ageing Population: Strategies Considerations, Dublin, NCAOP.
29.
GuerinD. A. (1992). Interior design research: A human ecosystem model. Home Economics Research Journal20(4), 254–263.
30.
GuerinD. A., YustB. L., & CoopetJ. G. (2000). Occupant predictors of household energy behavior and consumption change as found in energy studies since 1975. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal29(1), 48–80.
31.
HaM., & WeberM. (1994). Residential quality and satisfaction: Toward developing residential quality indexes. Home Economics Research Journal22(3), 296–308.
32.
HummonD. (1992). Community attachment. In AltmanI. & LowS., (Eds.), Place attachmentLondon : Plenum Press.
33.
JohnsonP. J., & AbernathyT. J., (1983). A research note on: Sources of urban multifamily housing satisfaction. Housing and Society10(1), 36–42.
34.
KahanaE., LovegreenL., KahanaB., & KahanaM. (2003). Person, environment, and person–environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders. Environment and Behavior35(3), 434–453.
35.
KleinH. A. (1993). Home satisfaction: Related health and psychological variables. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 12, 439–451.
36.
Korsec–SerfatyP. (1985). Experience and use of the dwelling. In AltmanI. & WernerC. (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 65–86). New York : Plenum Press.
37.
KronJ. (1983). Home psych: The social psychology of home and decorationNew York : C. N. Potter.
38.
LaneS., & KinseyJ. (1980). Housing tenure status and housing satisfaction. The Journal of Consumer Affairs14(2), 341–366.
39.
LaPlanteM. P. (1991). The demographics of disability. The Milbank Quarterly, 69(Suppl. 2), 55–77.
40.
LawrenceR. J. (1985). A more human history of homes: Research methods and application. In AltmanI. & WernerC. (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 113–132). New York : Plenum Press.
41.
LawrenceR. J. (1987). Housing, dwellings and homes: Design theory, research and practice. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons.
42.
LyndonD.) (1987). The state of the art of design for accessibility. Architecture76(1), 58–61.
43.
MachlisG. E., ForceJ. E., & BurchW. R. (1997). The human ecosystem part I: The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, 10, 347–367.
44.
MaransR. (1976). Perceived quality of residential environments: Some methodological issues. In CraiksK. H. & ZubeE. H. (Eds.), Perceiving environmental quality: Research and applications (pp. 123–147). New York : Plenum Press.
45.
MaransR., & RodgersW. (1975). Towards an understanding of community satisfaction. In HawleyA. & RockV. (Eds.), Metropolitan America in contemporary perspectives (pp. 299–352). New York : Halsted Press.
46.
MaransR., & SpreckelmeyerK. F. (1981). Evaluating built environments: A behavioral approach Inst, for Social Research, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan.
47.
MichelsonW. (1977). Environmental choice, human behavior, and residential satisfactionNew York : Oxford University Press.
48.
MooreJ. (2000). Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental Psychology20(3), 207–217.
49.
MoosR., & LemkeS. (1979). Multiple environmental assessment proceduresPalo Alto, California : Center for Health Care Evaluation, Department of Veterans Affairs and Stanford University Medical Centers.
50.
PfeifferD. (1994-95). The disability movement and its history. First published as Hip Crip 101 in Mainstream: Magazine of the Able-Disabled, 19(4), 32–37.
51.
PrattG. (1981). The house as an expression of social worlds. In DuncanJ. (Ed.). Housing and identity: Cross–cultural perspectives (pp. 181–197). London : Croom Helm.
52.
PreiserW., RabinowitzH., & WhiteE. (1988). Post occupancy evaluationNew York : Van Nostrand Reinhold.
RapoportA. (1985). Thinking about home environments: A conceptual framework. In AltmanI. & WernerC. (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 255–286). New York : Plenum Press.
55.
RapoportA. (1995). A critical view of the concept home. In BenjaminD. & SteaD., (Eds.), The home: Words, interpretations, meanings and environments. Ethnos–capes: Current Challenges in the Environmental Social Sciences. Aldershot : Avebury.
56.
SaegertS. (1985). The role of housing in the experience of dwelling. In AltmanI. & WernerC. (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 287–310). New York : Plenum Press.
57.
SaileD. G.The ritual establishment of home. In AltmanI. & WernerC. (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 87–112). New York : Plenum Press.
58.
SainsburyS. (1973). Measuring disabilityLondon : G. Bell & Sons, Ltd.
59.
SeamonD.A geography of the lifeworldLondon : Croom Helm.
60.
SidneyM. S. (2003). Unfair housingKansas : University Press of Kansas.
61.
SmithS. G. (1994). The essential qualities of a home. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 31–46.
62.
SniderE. L. (1980) Some social indicators for multiple housing. Social Indicators Research, 8, 157–173.
63.
SommervilleP. (1997). The social construction of home. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 14.
64.
ThompsonR. (1988). Baby boom's mid–life crises. In RosenbaumM. (Ed.), Editorial research reports (pp. 2–10). Washington D. C. : Congressional Quarterly Inc.
65.
TognoliJ. (1987). Residential environments. In StokolsD., AltmanI. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 65–84). New York : Wiley Interscience.
66.
TognoliJ., & HorwitzJ. (1982). From childhood home to adult home: Environmental transformations. In BartP., ChenA., & FrancescatsG. (Eds.), Knowledge for designProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Environmental Design Research Association (pp 321–328). Washington, D. C.
67.
TurnbullJ., ThomeR., AndersonJ. R., WeidemannS., & ButterfieldD. (1983). An evaluation of the interaction between elderly residents and high–rise flat accommodations in Sydney, Australia. In JoinerD.et al. (Eds.), People and physical environment research (pp. 367–380). New Zealand : New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development.
68.
United States. Disabilities affect onefifth of all Americans. Census Brief, 5.
69.
United States2000). Disability Status: 2000.
70.
United States. Bureau of the Census. (1998, May). Neighborhood Pride: Most People Like Where They Live.
71.
United States Congress (1988, June 17). House, Judiciary Committee. House Report No. 100–711 (SuDoc Y1. 18:100–711). Government Printing Office.
72.
United States. Department of Housing and Urban Development Delivering on the Promise: Self–Evaluation to Promote Community living for People with DisabilitiesUnited States. Department of Housing and Urban Development Final fair housing accessibility guidelines. Federal Register.
73.
United States. Department of Justice. (Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and commercial facilities; final rule. (The Americans with Disabilities Act, PUB.L. 101–336. Federal Register, 56(144).
74.
United States. General Accounting Office. (2001, June 21). HUD Multifamily Housing: Improved Follow–up Needed to Ensure that Physical Problems are Corrected. (GAO–01–668).
75.
United StatesStatutes at large (1988, September 13). Fair Housing Amendments Act of1988 (100–430, 102 Stat. 1619). Vol. 102, part 2, 1044–2124.
76.
United States. Millennial Housing Commission. (2002). Meeting Our Nation's Housing Challenges: Report of the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission Washington D. C. : The Commission.
77.
WeidemannS., & AndersonJ. R. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In AltmanI. & WernerC. (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 153–182). New York : Plenum Press.
78.
WeidemannS., AndersonJ. R., ButterfieldD. I., & O'DonnellP. (1982). Residents’ perceptions of satisfaction and safety: A basis for change in multifamily housing. Environment and Behavior14(6), 695–724.
79.
WiesenfeldE. (1992). Public housing evaluation in Venezuela: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12213–223.
80.
ZimringC., WinemanJ., & CarpmanJ. (1988). The new demand–driven post–occupancy evaluation. Journal of Architectural and Planning Rezearch5(4), 273–283.
