IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/houspd/v33y2023i5p1228-1248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Opinion About Visitability Mandates in the United States: Favorable but Divisible

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqueline Chattopadhyay

Abstract

Americans commonly want to stay in their current homes as they age, but few houses accommodate the physical impairments that aging often brings. One public policy tool to gradually make the housing stock more age- and disability-friendly is a “visitability” mandate—a requirement that new dwellings meet specific design standards that make them minimally usable by people with mobility limitations. Using original, nationally representative survey data from 2020, this paper analyzes public opinion about visitability mandates. Specifically, it analyzes who has relatively warmer versus cooler feelings toward people who benefit from visitability mandates. The data indicate that Americans on average feel warmly toward visitability mandate beneficiaries, but these sentiments differ by ideology, party identification, gender, age, self-assessed health status, and health experiences. Because public opinion influences the political viability of policy ideas, these findings have applied relevance for city planners, architects, home builders, public administrators, and elected officials.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqueline Chattopadhyay, 2023. "Public Opinion About Visitability Mandates in the United States: Favorable but Divisible," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5), pages 1228-1248, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:33:y:2023:i:5:p:1228-1248
    DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2022.2070652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2022.2070652
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10511482.2022.2070652?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:33:y:2023:i:5:p:1228-1248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RHPD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.