![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
In affordability analyses by researchers and governments, various methods and indicators are applied. The conceptual advantages and weaknesses of the different affordability indicators have been extensively discussed in literature. The purpose of this article is to contribute to this debate by a case study of Flanders on the link between objective and subjective indicators of housing affordability. More specifically, the study tries to identify objective norms that maximize this relationship. The data is taken from the EU-SILC 2016 and the Flemish Housing Survey 2013. The analysis suggests that in Flanders a ratio with variable norms (by income groups) more closely reflects the subjective perception of affordability problems than the ratio indicators with fixed norms. As regards the residual income (RI) method, the RI with increased budget norms scores slightly better than the RI with basic budget norms on the association measures.
Keywords:
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Sunega & Lux (Citation2016) set the threshold at 167% of the median housing expenses-to-income ratio in a given country.
2 All the objective and subjective affordability indicators in this study have 2 values.
3 Liquid assets are easily converted into cash, in terms of time and effort.
4 The HFCS dataset does not contain a regional variable, which makes it impossible to use these data for Flanders.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Kristof Heylen
Dr Kristof Heylen is Research Expert at the Research Institute for Work and Society (HIVA) of KU Leuven. His research focuses on the social and financial aspects of housing, including housing affordability, housing subsidies and equity issues.