Forced housing mobility and mental wellbeing: evidence from Australia

Abstract

This article examines the links between forced housing mobility and the mental wellbeing of Australians in an era of heightened risks in both labour and housing markets. Specifically, we examine how the links between forced housing mobility and mental wellbeing may vary according to states of employment and housing tenure insecurity. Using the 2001–2018 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, we implement hybrid models across four mental wellbeing dimensions and uncover three key findings. First, there is strong evidence that forced moves impair mental wellbeing. Second, the adverse wellbeing impacts of forced moves are greater for those experiencing employment insecurity than those in secure employment. Third, forced moves can depress the wellbeing of both owner purchasers and private renters, but the wellbeing penalty is greater in the case of the former. Overall, our analysis emphasises the importance of harnessing housing as a policy instrument for promoting wellbeing. Our findings also highlight the need for policies that mitigate loss of home ownership and reforms that improve tenure security for renters.

Keywords:

• Forced moves
• residential mobility
• mental health
• wellbeing
• housing tenure
• insecure employment

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Voluntary housing moves include moves for one or more of the following reasons in the HILDA Survey questionnaire: to be closer to amenities/services/public transport, to live in a better neighbourhood, to get a larger/better place, to get a place of my own/our own, to get a smaller/less expensive place and a housing/neighbourhood reason. None of these moves are accompanied by difficulty paying rent or mortgage in the year of the move.

2 Non-housing-related moves include moves for one or more of the following reasons in the HILDA Survey questionnaire: to get married/move in with partner, to be closer to friends and/or family, to follow a spouse or parent/whole family move, marital/relationship breakdown, personal/family reasons, health reasons, change of lifestyle, to be nearer place of work, to look for work, to start a new job with a new employer, to start own business, decision to relocate own business, work transfer, work reasons and and temporary relocation. None of these moves are accompanied by reported difficulty in paying rent or mortgage in the year of the move.

3 Household annual disposable income is divided by the OECD modified equivalence scale, which allocates the first adult 1 point, with a further 0.5 points for each additional person aged 15 years or older and 0.3 points for each child <15 years old. This value is converted to 2018 price levels.

4 Housing cost divided by household’s disposable income, then multiplied by 100%.

5 These ‘not in the labour force’ person-periods are not excluded from the analysis pertaining to hypotheses 1 and 3.

6 These rent-free person-periods are not excluded from the analysis pertaining to hypotheses 2 and 3.

Additional information

Funding

Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellowship (project FT200100422) funded by the Australian Government. While conducting this research, Jack Hewton was the recipient of a 2020 MRes Stipend Scholarship funded by Curtin University. This research was also supported partially by the Australian Government through the ARC Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP190101461). This article uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this article, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to DSS or the Melbourne Institute.