|
ili
<br /> and pushed the number of renter households Table 4. Crowding, State and Counties of Hawaii,
<br /> paying more than 40 percent of their income for HHPS 1992 through 2016
<br /> shelter to 43 percent in 2006, 45 percent by Crowded
<br /> 2011, and 46 percent in 2014.' and/or I Total Doubled Doubled
<br /> The shelter-to-income picture shows some Year Households Crowdeda Upb Up
<br /> c
<br /> important differences across counties (Table 3) 1992 247,349 23.2% 32.0%
<br /> that suggest different levels of housing 1997 272,234 10.6% 27.2%
<br /> affordability across the State. In Honolulu Honolulu 2003 292,003 10.1% 10.0% 17.6%
<br /> County, the percentage of households paying 2006 303,149 8.1% 9.7% 15.2% I
<br /> less than 30 percent of their income for shelter 2011 310,882 13.3% 13.8% 22.9%
<br /> 2016 317,459 11.4% 11.9% 21.0%
<br /> was 58.4 percent. The percentage paying more 1992 34,266 26.8% 25.9%
<br /> than 40 percent, on the other hand, decreased 1997 39,252 10.4% 24.8%
<br /> 6.2 percent between 2011 (30.6%) and the 2003 43,687 11.0% 8.7% 17 3% 1
<br /> present (24.4%). Maui 2006 49,484 7.7% 9.6% 15.3%
<br /> 2011 54,132 10.7% 13.0% 19.2%
<br /> 2016 55,059 9.8% 14.1% 21.4%
<br /> e. Crowding and Doubling-up 1992 39,789 18.7% 26 0%
<br /> 1997 46,271 7.9% 24 3%
<br /> Crowding and doubling-up are frequently used Hawaii 2003 54,644 7.0% 9.3% 14.4%
<br /> measures of housing condition. Both are 2006 61,213 6.9% 11.2% 15.9%
<br /> accepted as indicators of housing issues. They 2011 67,096 8 4% 11.3% 17.2%
<br /> are thought of as measures of pent-up demand 2016 66,989 7.4% 11.1% 16.0% I
<br /> for housing and as a sign that household 1992 16,981 17 4% 26 3%
<br /> formation may be constricted. 1997 18,817 9.1% 25.4%
<br /> Kauai 2003 20,460 6.0% 12.5% 16.1%
<br /> 2006 21,971 6.6% 11.9% 15.5%
<br /> I
<br /> We sometimes hear that Hawai`i's doubling-up 2011 23,201 10.5% 11.7% 18.1%
<br /> rate is a cultural phenomenon caused by our 2016 23,369 8.9% 11 5% 19 2%
<br /> propensity for extended family living. Our 1992 338,385 22.2% 30.3%
<br /> relatively large household size supports that 1997 376,574 10.2% 26.5%
<br /> idea. However, survey questions measured 2003 410,794 9.6% 10.0% 17.1%
<br /> doubling up for financial reason only and show state 2006 435,818 7.8% 10.0% 15.3%
<br /> substantial doubling rates for all ethnic groups. 2011 455,311 12 1% 13.2% 21 4%
<br /> 2016 462,876 10.5% 12.0% 20.2%
<br /> In past studies, crowding was measured using Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006,
<br /> the Census method (the ratio of persons in the 2011,2016
<br /> a Based on more than one person per room for 1992-2011,
<br /> household to rooms in the unit they occupy). then 2 persons per bedroom for 2016.
<br /> This year we are switching to the persons per b. More than one family group in a single housing unit (See
<br /> bedroom definition, which we believe is the more Glossary)
<br /> appropriate measure for housing planning. c. Before 2003, question asked if a household was crowded
<br /> or doubled up After 2003, HHPS measured crowded and
<br /> doubled up separately and then combined them
<br /> Table 4 shows HHPS crowding and doubling-up
<br /> data for the State and each of the counties.
<br /> The doubling-up measure is a measure that
<br /> includes having more than two generations in the
<br /> household, having unrelated individuals in the
<br /> household, or having same-generation relatives
<br /> in the household. In all cases, the Housing
<br /> Demand Survey shows that doubled-up persons
<br /> are in the household because they cannot afford
<br /> ACS,Table B25070, 2006-2014. to live elsewhere
<br /> Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2016 Page 8
<br /> ©SMS, Inc December,2016
<br /> l;
<br />
|