![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
Mixed tenure is the predominant development and regeneration strategy and is a key component of UK housing and urban policy. It is purported to provide wide-ranging social, environmental and economic benefits to residents. While there is a large literature on mixed tenure, policy makers are likely to rely on reviews and summaries of the evidence rather than primary studies. But can they rely on such reviews? Using systematic review methods this paper critically appraises recent reviews for the evidence that mixed tenure policies and strategies have achieved any of these expected benefits. Of the six UK reviews of primary studies, most drew on less than half the available primary studies, none provided a critical appraisal of individual studies and made no comment on conflicting evidence between and within studies. While the reviews gave indications of the deficiencies of the evidence base, rather than focus on the implications of these deficiencies, four of the six reviews emphasised the positive effects of tenure mix.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted as part of the GoWell Glasgow Community Health and Wellbeing Research and Learning Programme (www.gowellonline.com). GoWell is a collaborative partnership between the Glasgow Centre for Population Health, the University of Glasgow and the Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, sponsored by Glasgow Housing Association, the Scottish Government, NHS Health Scotland and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Information scientist Candida Fenton, thank Hilary Thomson for her advice on systematic reviews and thank her and Matt Egan for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper. LB is funded by the Chief Scientist Office at the Scottish Government Health Directorate as part of the Evaluating the Health Effects of Social Interventions programme at the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Science Unit (U130059812). ES is part of the Evaluating the Health Effects of Social Interventions programme at the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Science Unit and funded by GCPH as part of GoWell. AK's input to the GoWell programme is funded by the University of Glasgow.
Notes
1 1995 was chosen as the start point for the search for reviews for the following reasons. The recent policy interest in mixed communities was prompted by studies of (un)balanced communities, starting with Page's (Citation1993) study. Shortly thereafter, Atkinson's (1995) review, as far as is known, was the first such review of the evidence undertaken in the UK. A start date in the mid-1990s also made it possible to include all reviews produced in the period of ‘evidence-based policy’ promoted under the New Labour Government, in addition pre-dating the prioritisation of mixed-tenure solutions by New Labour's Urban Task Force, and subsequent similar policy statements.
2 Again, the two journal articles that were more probably aimed at an academic audience rather than policy makers would be excluded.
3 Interestingly, this is the only example found where a limited review was used to reach a negative conclusion about the evidence for beneficial effects of mixed tenure; such scepticism was rarely exhibited in other works.
4 The report continues in similar positive vein stating that mixed income or mixed tenure developments are said to: ‘provide an important platform for addressing social, economic and health inequalities over the longer term’ (p. 26); ‘offer a sustainable model for development’ (p. 26); ‘provide far better opportunities for low income families’ (p. 26); ‘stem the cycle of decline’, ‘upgrade community conditions over time’ (p. 39); and ‘promote healthier communities on declining estates’ (p. 51).
