Mixed Messages about Mixed Tenure: Do Reviews Tell the Real Story?

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of the six reviews

	Wood (2003)	Kleinhans (2004)	Atkinson (2005)	Holmes (2006)	Tunstall & Fenton (2006)	Bailey & Manzi (2008)
Journal article/report	Journal article	Journal article	Report	Report	Report	Report
Type of review	Narrative	Narrative	Systematic (search)	Narrative	Narrative	Narrative
Stated purpose	‘To test the robustness of … [MT] policy … by examining studies that present contrary evidence’	‘Review of the actual consequences of diversification in UK & Netherlands’	‘To look at existing research literature’	‘Summarise studies to inform future policies towards the promotion of successful mixed communities’	‘Present a summary of evidence about the promotion of mixed communities’	‘To review some of the recent research’
Inclusion criteria	Not stated	Not stated	‘Focus directly relevant to social mix in neighbourhood & robust methodological approach’	Not stated	Not stated	‘Range of studies’
Exclusion criteria	Not stated	Not stated	‘Low quality’	Not stated	Not stated	Not stated
Timeframe for search	Not stated	Not stated	Not stated	Not stated	Not stated	Not stated
Search terms	Not specified	Not specified	Specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Data sources	Not specified	Not specified	Specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified
Languages/countries included	Not stated	Yes	Yes	Yes	Not stated	Not stated
Tabular summary	No	No	No	No	No	No
Number of articles reviewed	Not stated	Not stated	Not stated	7	Not stated	Not stated
Study quality appraised	No	No	No	No	No	No

Table 2. Primary studies of mixed tenure cited to support claims of evidence of effect, no effect or absence of evidence in the six reviews

Year	UK Primary studies of mixed tenure	Wood (2003)	Kleinhans (2004)	Atkinson (2005)	Holmes (2006)	Tunstall & Fenton (2006)	Bailley & Manzi (2008)	Cited by Reviews
1997	Cole et al. (1997)		✓					1
	Page & Boughton (1997)		✓			✓		2
1998	Atkinson & Kintrea (1998)		✓			✓		2
	Harding (1998)					✓	✓	2
	Ramwell & Saltburn (1998)					✓		1
1999	Jupp, B. (1999)	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	5
	Wood & Vamplew (1999)	✓						1
	Scottish Homes Research (1999)	✓						1
2000	Atkinson & Kintrea (2000)	✓	✓	✓		✓		4
	Pawson et al. (2000)	✓	✓	✓			✓	4
2001	Beekman et al. (2001)		✓	✓		✓	✓	4
	Atkinson & Kintrea (2001)	✓	✓	✓				3
2002	Knox & Alcock (2002)		✓			✓		1
2003	Groves et al. (2003)	*	✓			✓	✓	3
	Martin & Watkinson (2003)	*	✓		✓	✓		3
2004	Manzi & Smith-Bowers (2004)	*	*				✓	1
2005	Allen et al. (2005)	*	*	✓	✓	✓	✓	4
	Andrews & Reardon Smith (2005)	*	*	*		✓	✓	2
	Meen et al. (2005)	*	*	*	✓			1
	Silverman et al. (2005)	*	*	*	✓	✓	✓	3
2006	Rowlands et al. (2006)	*	*	*	✓		✓	2
	Tunstall & Coulter (2006)	*	*	*	*	*	✓	1
2007	Bailey et al. (2007)	*	*	*	*	*	✓	1
	Number of primary studies reviewed	6	11	6	5	13	12
	% possible studies cited	46%	73%	35%	24%	62%	52%
This list was generated from the UK mixed tenure studies cited in these reviews. This may not be an exhaustive list as there may be mixed tenure primary studies that none of the reviewers cited. Other studies not about mixed tenure and reviews were cited in these reviews but are not included in this list.*Primary study published after the Review publication date

Table 3. Evidence of mixed tenure as reported in the six reviews assessed summarised as: no effect, positive or negative effects, mixed evidence or absence of evidence

	Wood (2003)	Kleinhans (2004)	Atkinson (2005)	Holmes (2006)	Tunstall & Fenton (2006)	Bailey & Manzi (2008)	Summary of evidence (number of studies cited)
Social cohesion
Promotes social interaction/cohesion	No effect^[5, 9]	No effect ^[3, 4, 5, 7, 9]	No effect ^[1, 4, 5, 9]	No effect ^[1, 12]	No effect ^[1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 14, 17]	No effect ^[1, 9]	No effect (8 no effect, 3 negative)
	Negative effect ^[19]	Negative effect ^[6, 7]
Social capital
Creates social capital, encourages norms & values, provides role models	No effect*	No effect ^[9]	No effect ^[1]	No effect ^[1]		No effect ^[1]	No effect (2 no effect)
Residents' attitudes & outsiders' views
Augments neighbourhood satisfaction		No effect ^[6, 9] Positive effect ^[9, 13]		No effect ^[1, 12] Positive effect ^[15]		Positive effect ^[1,17]	Mixed evidence (4 positive, 4 no effect)
Improves area desirability/popularity			Positive effect ^[1]	Positive effect ^[1, 11]	Positive effect ^[1]	Positive effect^[1]	Positive effect (2 positive)
Property values rise	Negative effect ^[19]			Positive effect ^[11], No effect ^[15]	Positive effect ^[11, 17]	No effect^[11, 15, 17]	Mixed evidence (3 no effect, 2 positive, 1 negative)
Overcomes place-based stigma	Positive effect ^[4] No effect ^[19]	Positive effect ^[3, 11] No effect ^[7, 14]	Positive effect ^[4, 5], No effect ^[1]	Positive effect ^[1, 11]	Positive effect ^[1, 18]	Positive effect ^[1]	Mixed evidence (6 positive, 4 no effect)
Crime
Diminishes crime, ASB and fear of crime	Negative effect ^[19]	No effect ^[14]	Mixed evidence ^[14]	Mixed evidence ^[11]	Positive effect ^[14]	Positive effect ^[6]	Mixed evidence (4 negative, 2 positive, 2 no effect, 2 mixed)
					No effect ^[6]	No effect ^[1]
					Negative effect^[2, 17, 10]
Economic impacts
Increases income mix, reduces inequalities		No effect ^[2, 3, 4]		Mixed evidence ^[17]	Mixed evidence ^[17]	No effect ^[15]	No effect (5 no effect, 1 mixed)
				No effect ^[1, 15]
Creates job opportunities	No effect ^[16]			No effect ^[1]			No effect (2 no effect)
Increases employment rates		No effect ^[6, 14]			No effect^[6, 8, 9, 14]	No effect ^[6, 8, 9]	No effect (6 no effect)
Environment & amenities
Improves physical environment**		Positive effect ^[3, 4, 6, 9, 14]		Positive effect ^[1, 12]		Positive effect ^[1]	Positive effect (7 positive)
Attracts additional services	Absence of evidence*		Absence of evidence ^[14]		No effect ^[6, 14]	No effect ^[6]	No effect (3 no effect, 2 absence of evidence, 1 negative)
						Absence of evidence ^[17]
						Negative effect ^[18]
Residential sustainability
Renters can buy, supports kinship networks, reduces turnover		Positive effect ^[11]	Positive effect ^[1, 14]	Positive effect ^[11]	Positive effect^[1, 14]	Positive effect ^[1, 14, 17]	Mixed evidence (4 positive, 4 negative)
				Negative effect ^[11, 15, 17]	Negative effect ^[18]	Negative effect ^[15, 17]
Notes: * Indicates statement is made without referring to specific primary studies
**Although most reviewers say this is due to planning and regeneration initiatives rather than Mixed Tenure per se; some may be due to owners' higher standards [1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14]
References cited by reviews for specific outcomes of mixed tenure:
1. Allen et al. (2005)
2. Andrews & Reardon Smith (2005)
3. Atkinson & Kintrea (1998)
4. Atkinson & Kintrea (2000)
5. Atkinson & Kintrea (2001)
6. Beekman et al. (2001)
7. Cole et al. (1997)
8. Harding (1998)
9. Jupp (1999)
10. Manzi & Smith-Bowers (2004)
11. Martin & Watkinson (2003)
12. Meen et al. (2005)
13. Page & Boughton (1997)
14. Pawson et al. (2000)
15. Rowlands et al. (2006)
16. Scottish Homes Research (1999)
17. Silverman et al. (2005)
18. Tunstall & Coulter (2006)
19. Wood & Vamplew (1999)

Table 4. Comparing reviewers' concluding statements in the body of the papers/reports to abstract or executive summaries

	Summary of citations in the review	Conclusion in abstract or executive summary	Conclusion or summary in review	Our assessment of match
Wood (2003)	Mixed evidence (5 no effect, 3 negative effect, 1 positive, 1 absence of evidence)	‘much of the research evidence that exists … questions the effectiveness of the strategy [of tenure diversification]’.	‘Much of the empirical evidence …, while limited, appears … to be weighted against these outcomes … The literature examined here demonstrates that most of the arguments put forward for the practice of diversification are at best inadequate’.	Summary, evidence in the body of review and conclusions match
Kleinhans (2004)	Mixed evidence (16 no effect, 10 positive, 2 negative)	‘The review shows ambivalent results that necessitate modest expectations, especially with regard to area reputation, cross-tenure social interaction and residential attitudes. This ambivalence is partly due to unclear policy goals and policy terms as well as vagueness about the relevant spatial level … positive role-model effects in neighbourhoods have not yet been adequately studied and therefore remain based on conviction’.	‘The main conclusion is that the evidence base is not as insubstantial as has often been suggested. It is not the lack of empirical findings but their ambivalent nature that is probably the reason for many authors to claim a small evidence base … most research literature partly or completely refutes several policy assumptions. The only exceptions are improvements in the quality of housing and the physical living environment’.	Summary, evidence in the body of review and conclusions match
Atkinson (2005)	Mixed evidence (6 no effect, 5 positive, 1 mixed, 1 absence of evidence)	No abstract or executive summary	‘MT areas seem to deliver lower management costs, reduced or non-existent stigma and a broader range of services. However,… social networks of such areas are no more likely to be integrated between owners and renters than many other communities … and this has not been interpreted as a failure of these policies … [MT] has been an effective antidote to the problems associated with areas of mono-tenure social renting … elevat[ing] some areas to relatively unremarkable normality’, signalling ‘a success’.	Conclusions are more positive than evidence in the body of review. Summary is not available
Holmes (2006)	Mixed evidence (9 positive, 9 no effect, 3 negative, 2 mixed)	Mixed income and MT communities were ‘overwhelmingly judged successful’, ‘non-issues to residents’, ‘can attract young families’. ‘Tenure is not fixed, and it alters in a community’.	‘Mixed income communities can give low-income residents access to successful environments. … The research studies show that they are a tested way of delivering high quality, popular neighbourhoods which achieve socio-economic integration’	Summary and conclusions are more positive than evidence in the body of review
Tunstall & Fenton (2006)	Mixed evidence (14 no effect, 8 positive, 4 negative, 1 mixed)	‘A review of the evidence suggests that some of these goals [of MT] are more likely to be achieved than others’	There is a ‘measured optimism about the benefits of [MT] … Benefits that rely on there being increased mix, such as more and more varied services, are well evidenced. Where the benefits of mix rely on less measurable attitudes and behaviours and on interaction between residents, there is evidence, but… less decisive’	Summary and conclusions are more positive than evidence in the body of review
Bailey & Manzi (2008)	Mixed evidence (12 no effect, 9 positive, 3 negative, 1 absence of evidence)	‘MT communities have the potential to facilitate social interaction’ and ‘counteract social exclusion and adverse neighbourhood effects associated with mono-tenure…’. ‘Residents are not normally aware of tenure’, ‘The quality of design … has proven to be a major influence on social interaction’. ‘There is no evidence that MT … affects house prices’.	TM is ‘not a universal remedy for the problems of neighbourhoods’, ‘a necessary but not a sufficient precondition for sustainable communities’. ‘Attention needs to be paid to the design and layout of homes and their surroundings, the provision of the full range of facilities, as well as accessibility and integration into the wider locality’.	Summary and conclusions are more positive than evidence in the body of review

Wood , M. 2003 . A balancing act? Tenure diversification in Australia and the UK . Urban Policy and Research , 21 ( 1 ) : 45 – 56 .

 Google Scholar

Kleinhans , R. 2004 . Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: a review of recent literature . Journal of Housing and the Built Environment , 19 ( 4 ) : 367 – 390 .

 Google Scholar

Atkinson, R. (2005) Neighbourhoods and the Impacts of Social Mix: Crime, Tenure Diversification and Assisted Mobility, CNR Paper (ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research)

 Google Scholar

Holmes , C. 2006 . Mixed Communities: Success and Sustainability. Foundations 0176 , York : Joseph Rowntree Foundation .

 Google Scholar

Tunstall , R. and Fenton , A. 2006 . In the Mix. A Review of Mixed Income, Mixed Tenure and Mixed Communities , London : English Partnerships/ Joseph Rowntree Foundation /Housing Corporation .

 Google Scholar

Bailey , N. and Manzi , T. 2008 . Developing and Sustaining Mixed Tenure Housing Developments. Round-up , York : Joseph Rowntree Foundation .

 Google Scholar

Cole , I. , Gidley , G. , Ritchie , C. , Simpson , D. and Wishart , B. 1997 . Creating Communities or Welfare Housing? A Study of New Housing Association Developments in Yorkshire/Humberside , Coventry : Chartered Institute of Housing .

 Google Scholar

Page , D. and Boughton , R. 1997 . Improving the Design and Management of Mixed Tenure Estates in London. A Study undertaken for Notting Hill , London : Notting Hill Housing Association .

 Google Scholar

Atkinson , R. and Kintrea , K. 1998 . Reconnecting Excluded Communities: The Neighbourhood Impacts of Owner Occupation , Edinburgh : Scottish Homes . Research Report 61

 Google Scholar

Harding , A. 1998 . Hulme City Challenge: Did it Work? , Manchester : Manchester City Council .

 Google Scholar

Ramwell , R. and Saltburn , H. 1998 . Trick or Treat? City Challenge and the Regeneration of Hulme , Preston : North British Housing Association .

 Google Scholar

Jupp , B. 1999 . Living Together: Community Life on Mixed Tenure Estates , London : Demos .

 Google Scholar

Wood , M. and Vamplew , C. 1999 . Neighbourhood images in Teesside: Regeneration or Decline , York : Joseh Rowntree Foundation .

 Google Scholar

Scottish Homes . 1999 . Assessing the Impact of Tenure Diversification: The Case of Niddrie , Edinburgh : Scottish Homes .

 Google Scholar

Atkinson , R. and Kintrea , K. 2000 . Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts . Policy & Politics , 28 ( 1 ) : 93 – 108 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pawson , H. , Kirk , K. and McIntosh , S. 2000 . Assessing the Impact of Tenure Diversification: The Case of Niddrie , Edinburgh : Scottish Homes .

 Google Scholar

Beekman , T. , Lyons , F. and Scott , J. 2001 . Improving the Understanding of the Influence of Owner Occupiers in Mixed Tenure Neighbourhoods , Edinburgh : Scottish Homes .

 Google Scholar

Atkinson , R. and Kintrea , K. 2001 . Disentangling area effects: evidence from deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods . Urban Studies , 38 ( 12 ) : 2277 – 2298 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Knox , M. and Alcock , D. 2002 . Approaches to Community Governance: Models for Mixed Tenure Communities , Bristol : The Policy Press .

 Google Scholar

Groves , R. , Middleton , A. , Murie , A. and Broughton , K. 2003 . Neighbourhoods that Work: A Study of the Bournville Estate, Birmingham , Bristol : The Policy Press .

 Google Scholar

Martin , G. and Watkinson , J. 2003 . Rebalancing Communities: Introducing Mixed Incomes into Existing Rented Housing Estates , York : Joseph Rowntree Foundation .

 Google Scholar

Manzi , T. and Smith Bowers , B. 2004 . So many managers, so little vision: registered social landlords and consortium schemes in the UK . European Journal of Housing Policy , 4 ( 1 ) : 57 – 75 .

 Google Scholar

Allen , C. , Camina , M. , Casey , R. , Coward , S. and Wood , M. 2005 . Mixed Tenure, Twenty Years On—Nothing Out of the Ordinary , Coventry : Chartered Institute of Housing/JRF .

 Google Scholar

Andrews , C. L. and Reardon Smith , W. 2005 . Challenging Perceptions: Case Studies of Dispersed and Mixed Tenure New Build Housing Developments , London : Housing Corporation and Sovereign Housing .

 Google Scholar

Meen , G. , Gibb , K. , Goody , J. , McGrath , T. and Mackinnon , J. 2005 . Economic Segregation in England: Causes, Consequences and Policy , Bristol : Policy Press/ Joseph Rowntree Foundation .

 Google Scholar

Silverman , E. , Lupton , R. and Fenton , A. 2005 . A Good Place for Children? Attracting and Retaining Families in Inner Urban Mixed Income Communities , Coventry : Chartered Institute of Housing .

 Google Scholar

Rowlands , R. , Murie , A. and Tice , A. 2006 . More than Tenure Mix: Developer and Purchaser Attitudes to New Housing Estates , Coventry : Joseph Rowntree Foundation/ Chartered Institute of Housing .

 Google Scholar

Tunstall , R. and Coulter , A. 2006 . Twenty-five Years on Twenty Estates: Turning the Tide? , Bristol : Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation .

 Google Scholar

Bailey , N. , Haworth , A. , Manzi , T. and Roberts , M. 2007 . Creating and Sustaining Mixed Income Communities in Scotland: A Good Practice Guide , Edinburgh/York : CIH/JRF/SCR/TCPA .

 Google Scholar