Housing unaffordability and mental health: dynamics across age and tenure

Abstract

This paper examines changing trends in housing affordability in the Netherlands and its link to mental health across tenures and age cohorts. Using the LISS panel dataset over 11 years (2008 to 2019), we assess trends in the prevalence of unaffordable housing and subsequently examine its relationship with psychological wellbeing based on ‘Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5)’ responses. Our research shows a clear overall increase in the experience of unaffordable housing. Increases are, however, starkly differentiated by tenure and age, occurring almost entirely within the rental sector and disproportionately affecting younger adults. We also find a clear link between living in housing that is unaffordable and poorer mental health scores, and this association is particularly strong among renters and younger people. The results underscore how changes in housing systems have intensified housing precarity, specifically within the rental sector, and reveal how this may contribute to worsening mental health at the population level and shape tenure-based health inequalities.

Keywords:

• Housing affordability
• mental health
• tenure
• age cohorts
• the Netherlands

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 This value is based on a stricter criteria of social housing than some other measures. The OECD measure which includes all dwellings falling below the social rent-regulated threshold (most of which are owned by social housing associations but also including regulated rentals owned by private landlords) puts the rate at 34%. Looking at comparable data for the OECD countries, only Austria (at 23.6%) and Denmark (21.4%) surpass a fifth of units. For comparison the OECD average is 6.9% while the share in Australia is 4.4%, the United States is 3.6%, Canada is 3.5%, and Germany is 2.7% (OECD, 2022c).

2 The woningwaardestelsel is a point-based system that assesses dwellings based on a set of criteria, such as size, amenities, quality and tax value. Up to a threshold, maximum rents are prescribed. Dwellings beyond this level (which related to a maximum rent of €752 per month in 2021) fall into the liberalised sector without any rent caps (Rijksoverheid, 2021a).

3 While historically the woningwaardestelsel point system was largely evaluated based on dwelling size and some elements of amenities’ quality, in 2011, locational bonus points were added for the Amsterdam region (Donnerpunten) and, in 2015, subsequently replaced by a broader policy of the tax assessment value (WOZ) contributing to the points (Howard et al., 2021; Hochstenbach & Ronald, 2020). In Amsterdam, for example, only around 1% of housing association dwellings and 18% of private rental units in 2003 were in the unregulated sector, whereas this had increased to 8% and 54% respectively by 2019 (Hochstenbach & Ronald, 2020).

4 As of 2022, some tentative national government proposals signal a shift in policies that would (partly) curb continued social housing liberalisation and may limit continued rental contract precaritisation. This has followed from growing attention to affordability and access issues in the Dutch housing system (e.g. including some significant housing protests taking place and expansive media coverage). However, it is not clear at this stage what will be implemented and the extent to which this may be a significant reversal of liberalisation trends. Moreover, the research period that is the focus this paper’s analysis cannot capture such potential upcoming policy shifts and future research is needed to determine whether this will result in a reduction in housing affordability stress and its potential consequences on mental wellbeing.

5 Time divisions roughly reflect three housing market stages: an initial post-crisis period with house prices largely stagnating at a high level, a more rapid decline from 2012 reaching a nadir in 2013/14, and a subsequent substantial increase in the economic recovery period from 2015/16 (CBS Gemeente Amsterdam, 2020d).

6 Analyses of HAS trends using different income affordability cut-offs are available from authors upon request.

7 Available from authors upon request. Note: multicollinearity checks were applied which motivated the limitation of our selection to the two key variables of ethnicity and gender in our supplementary analyses.

8 Available from authors upon request.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported with funding from the Dutch Research Council under Grant Vl.Veni.201S.031; the Australian Research Council under Grant DP190101188; and the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia under Grant APP1196456.