Smoking in social housing among adults in England, 2015-2020

Objectives: To analyse associations between living in social housing and smoking in England and evaluate progress toward reducing disparities in smoking prevalence among residents of social housing compared with other housing types. Design: Nationally-representative, cross-sectional survey between January 2015 and February 2020. Setting: England. Participants: 105,562 adults (≥16y). Primary and secondary outcome measures: Linear and logistic regression were used to analyse associations between living in social housing (vs. other housing types) and smoking status, cigarettes per day, time to first cigarette, exposure to smoking by others, motivation to stop smoking, quit attempts, and use of cessation support. Analyses adjusted for sex, age, social grade, region, and survey year. Results: Adults living in social housing had twice the odds of being a smoker (ORadj=2.17, 95%CI 2.08-2.27), and the decline in smoking prevalence between 2015 and 2020 was less pronounced in this high-risk group (-7%; ORadj=0.98, 95%CI 0.96-1.01) than among adults living in other housing types (-24%; ORadj=0.95, 95%CI 0.94-0.96; housing tenure*survey year interaction p=0.020). Smokers living in social housing were more addicted than those in other housing (smoking within 30 minutes of waking: ORadj=1.50, 95%CI 1.39-1.61), but were no less motivated to stop smoking (ORadj=1.06, 95%CI 0.96-1.17) and had higher odds of having made a serious attempt to quit in the past year (ORadj=1.16, 95%CI 1.07-1.25). Among smokers who had tried to quit, those living in social housing had higher odds of using evidence-based cessation support (ORadj=1.22, 95%CI 1.07-1.39) but lower odds of remaining abstinent (ORadj=0.63, 95%CI 0.52-0.76). Conclusions: There remain stark inequalities in smoking and quitting behaviour by housing tenure in England, with declines in prevalence stalling between 2015 and 2020 despite progress in the rest of the population. In the absence of targeted interventions to boost quitting among social housing residents, inequalities in health are likely to worsen.

Comparison of Turkey and the Netherlands Social Housing Policies

In this study, social housing policies developed for the housing needs of the poor citizens in Turkey and the Netherlands were examined. In this context, the aim of the study is to compare the extent of social housing policies implemented in Turkey and the Netherlands by presenting both countries policies on this subject. Another goal of this study is to develop suggestions based on research results. Most important roles in determining the social housing policies in Turkey belong to central administration. In the Netherlands, the central administration has transferred its authorization to local municipalities and housing associations. The data obtained were analyzed with the Maxqda data analysis program. At the end of the analysis, similar and different aspects of social housing policies have been presented. As a result, although there are similarities found in housing finance, it has been observed that there are different policies in terms of housing supply. In this context, policy transfer is a recommended approach that will contribute to the solution.

User Involvement: Effective Performance in Sustainable Social Housing

In the development of sustainable social housing, the residents, operating staff, and administrative staff - as users - face challenges in relation to a lack of involvement. The aim of this research is to contribute with results regarding these challenges. These contributions to the discussion are based on the results of a qualitative evaluation of sustainable social housing. The results suggest that it can be an advantage to utilise user experiences in the development of future sustainable social housing with a view to strengthening the user involvement process. The argument is that a greater degree of user involvement respects people’s experiences as being a contribution to the development of new projects. In addition, the research suggests that the early involvement of residents, operating staff, and administrative staff can strengthen the sense of project ownership and community, as well as the project’s social sustainability. It is claimed that user involvement can promote social sustainability, which is a significant factor, since the intention behind a project’s sustainability is that the residents will later have ownership and an interest in ensuring that it works in accordance with its intentions.

A Comparative Look at Social Housing in Developed and Developing Countries

Provision of housing is vital to all the members of any country, and even a fundamental right of every person in a society to be housed properly. While the state has a primary role to play in reallocation of resources to meet the needs of the majority and ensure ‘public good', the economic status of developing nations has made this a complex issue. The developing world has increasingly come to rely on voluntary action, especially the social enterprise movements. There are marked differences in the approaches to tackling the social housing issue in the developed and developing world, from the point of view of the role played by social enterprises in this area. This chapter takes a comparative look at the role played by social entrepreneurs and social enterprises in the area of social housing in the developing and developed world by looking at some specific examples and case studies and concludes that in the developing world the social enterprise movement has a stronger role to play.