• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Summary
 Main
 Glossary of terms
 Reference
 Back Cover














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 776
Title: Rural housing quality and income poverty in north-central Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027174/00001
 Material Information
Title: Rural housing quality and income poverty in north-central Florida
Series Title: Bulletin Agricultural Experiment Stations, University of Florida
Physical Description: x, 51 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Davis, C. G ( Carlton George ), 1936-
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Housing, Rural -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Cost and standard of living -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 51.
Statement of Responsibility: Carlton G. Davis.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027174
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000362542
oclc - 02509051
notis - ACA1020
lccn - 76621892

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
    Title Page
        Page ii
    Abstract
        Page iii
    Table of Contents
        Page v
    List of Tables
        Page vi
    List of Figures
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Summary
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Glossary of terms
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Reference
        Page 51
    Back Cover
        Back cover
Full Text
August 1975


Rural Housing Quality

and Income Poverty

in North-Central Florida
Carlton G. Davis


Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
J.W. Sites, Dean for Research
^__________


Bulletin 776
















RURAL HOUSING QUALITY AND

INCOME POVERTY IN

NORTH-CENTRAL FLORIDA

Carlton G. Davis


Associate Professor
Food and Resource Economics Department
University of Florida


This publication is a contribution from the Center for Rural
Development, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univer-
sity of Florida, Gainesville.


This public document was promulgated at an annual cost
of $2,091.15, or $1.05 per copy to disseminate findings
relating to a study of rural housing quality in a 30-county
area of north central Florida.







ABSTRACT
A study of rural housing in a predominantly rural 30-county
area of Florida indicates a relatively high incidence of substandard
and inadequate housing. This incidence suggested that a low
quality of life problem exists for rural residents of the area,
since poor housing goes hand in hand with low income. There was
a high positive correlation between the number of rural residents
occupying substandard and/or inadequate housing and the inci-
dence of below-poverty-level incomes.
Only 12 percent of owned occupied rural farm units possessed
both hot and cold water facilities, compared to 88 percent of oc-
cupied rural nonfarm units. Of total owned rural units having
only cold water facilities, 15 percent were rural farm units while
85 percent were rural nonfarm units. Of total owned units with-
out piped water facilities, 18 percent were rural farm units
while 82 percent were rural nonfarm units. Of total owned rural
farm units, only 12 percent had flush toilet facilities. Rented
rural farm units represented an even smaller proportion (7 per-
cent) of total rural farm units possessing flush toilet facilities.
Inadequate plumbing and inhouse overcrowding are major prob-
lems.
State projections of 1985 area housing needs tend to underesti-
mate the increased demand for housing via change in family and
per capital incomes. Concerned public action in providing sub-
sidized low cost housing appears to be a necessary condition for
improving the long term housing quantity and quality of area
rural residents.

KEY WORDS: Rural housing, substandard housing, deteriorating
housing, dilapidated housing, inadequate housing, planning dis-
tricts, north-central Florida, rural farm, rural non-farm, poverty,
income.








TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
A B S T R A C T ....................... ....................... ............... .............................................................. ... ...... ... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................ ...........................v...........
L IS T O F T A B L E S ................................ ...................................................... ......................................... vi
L IS T O F F IG U R E S ........................................ ....... ...... ....................... ................................. ... vii
S U M M A R Y ....................................... ............ ....................... .......... ............. ................................... ix
IN T R O D U C T IO N .............................................................1....... .................................. ...... ... 1
National Rural Housing Characteristics: An Overview .............. .............. 1
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ........... ........................... ......... ................................. 4
DATA SOURCE AND METHODOLOGY ........ ..................................................... 5
D ata S ou rce ...................................... ........... ........... ....................................................... 5
M eth od olog y .......... ... ............................................................................. ...... 5
STUDY AREA POPULATION AND INCOME CHARACTERISTICS. 5
P opu nation ........................ ................................. 7
In com e ...... ................. .. ........ ........... ....... .. ................ .................. 12
Personal Income Per Capita ... .................................................... 12
F am ily In com e ...................................... ....................................... ................................. ... 14
AREA HOUSING PROFILE ..................... ...... ...... .. ........... .................................... 15
Rural Housing Adequacy and the Quality of Life ....................... ....... ... 27
W after Supply Facilities ......................................... ......................... ..... ....... ................ 27
T oilet F facilities ........... ..............................3............ ... .... ....................... ....... 33
Bath and Room Facilities ..3... ............ ...................... ....................................... 33
P lu m bin g F facilities ............................................ ......................................................... 41
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ................................................ 41
GLOSSARY OF TERMS .......................................................... ........... .......... ....... 49
R E F E R E N C E S .................. ........................................... .................................. ...................... 5 1








LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Rural housing units classified as sound and having all plumbing
facilities, by regions, United States, 1960 ............................................. ............ 3
2. Substandard housing units by regions, United States, 1970 ................ 3
3. Population distribution of multi-county study area by resi-
dence, location and race, 1960 and 1970 .............. ............................ ........... 8
4. Population distribution of multi-county study area by resi-
dence, location and race, 1960 and 1970 .................................. ......................... 9
5. Population projections for 1970-1985 in multi-county study area...... 10
6. Rural population, by planning districts and counties, in multi-
county study area, 1960 and 1970 ........... ........................ .......................... ..... 11
7. Personal income per capital, by planning districts and counties,
in m ulti-county study area, 1959 and 1970 ....................................... ......... ..... 13
8. Families and persons with less than poverty income levels, by
planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1969. 16
9. Distribution of all persons and of persons below the poverty
level, by planning districts and counties, in multi-county study
area, 1969 ............................. ................................... ......... .... ...... ........... 18
10. Rankings with respect to proportion of occupied substandard
housing and ratio of poverty level families per substandard
housing units, by planning districts and counties, in multi-
coun ty study area, 1970 .................................. ...... ............... ........................ 22
11. Rankings by projected increase of occupied housing units, by
planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area,
1 9 7 0 -1 98 5 ... ........... .... .. ........... ..................................... ............................ .............. ........... 2 4
12. Rural population, personal income per capital changes, selected
years, and population and occupied housing projections, plan-
ning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970
to 1985 .. ....................................................... 25
13. Owner-occupied rural housing units water supply facilities,
by planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area,
1 9 7 0 ..................................................... ...... .................................. ................................. .......... 2 8
14. Renter-occupied rural housing units water supply facilities,
by planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area,
1 9 7 0 ................................................................................................ ..................................................................... 3 0
15. Occupied rural housing units toilet facilities, planning districts
and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970 ..................................... 34
16. Occupied rural housing units bath facilities, planning districts
and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970 .................................................. 36
17. Average number of rooms in occupied rural housing units,
planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970..... 38
18. Occupied rural housing units plumbing facilities, planning dis-
tricts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970 .................................. 42







LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. T hirty-county study area .... .... ...... ............... ....................................................... 6










SUMMARY
Numerous studies have documented the existence of a signifi-
cant "quality of life" differential between residents of rural and
urban America. Most of these studies have tended to concentrate
on money income as the single most important measure of rural-
urban quality of life disparities. In recent years, however, in-
creasing attention has been given to the dynamic inter-relation-
ships between socio-economic well-being and inhouse spacial re-
quirements. Within this frame of reference, there has been a
rapid increase in the demand for research relating to housing
characteristics of rural and urban residents. This report is an
initial attempt to meet the demand for informative research
relating to problems of rural housing in the state of Florida.
A study of the characteristics of rural housing in a predomi-
nantly rural 30-county area of the state indicates a relatively high
incidence of substandard and inadequate rural housing for the
year 1970. The level of the incidence suggests that a problem of
a relatively low "quality of life" exists for rural residents of the
area.
Poor rural housing goes hand in hand with low income. There
was a high positive correlation between rural residents occupy-
ing substandard and/or inadequate housing and those with below-
poverty-level income. The overall state ratio of poverty level
families per substandard housing units was 1.5:1. Individual
study area county ratio ranged from a low of 0.6:1 to a high of
3.6:1. The higher the ratio the more poverty level families are
living in non-substandard housing facilities, while a ratio of one
would indicate every poverty level family were living in sub-
standard housing. With few exceptions, the ratios tend not to
deviate numerically to any significant degree from one. The ratios
tend to be numerically close to one in counties and planning dis-
tricts where family income was relatively low. Thus, the greatest
concentrations of substandard and/or inadequate housing were
to be found in planning districts and counties with a high con-
centration of persons and families below designated poverty in-
come thresholds. Predominantly rural districts and counties tended
to have a relatively high proportion of substandard and inade-
quate housing units, as well as individuals and families with in-
comes below designated poverty thresholds. The ratios of poverty
level families per subsidized housing unit were relatively high
for counties with high incidence of poverty and substandard
housing units. This tendency suggests, among other things, lim-
ited public housing assistance for residents.







Public agencies charged with the monitoring and development
of long term state housing programs has projected a 55 percent
increase in occupied area housing units between 1970 and 1985.
Area population is also projected to increase by a similar per-
centage over this period. The implication of these projections is
that 1985 area housing supply is likely to be adequate to meet
increased housing demand generated by population changes. This
is the case since the projected rate of change in population and
housing units are identical. This appears unlikely, however, in
terms of the historical relationship of population and income
changes with expanded demand for housing. Population changes
tend to directly increase the demand for housing through the
increased need of new residents for shelter. However, increased
income tends to increase indirectly the demand for housing
through increased demand for "quality" housing. In many in-
stances, quality changes take the form of a shift from multiple
family units to single family units. Thus, moderate to rapid in-
come changes of residents suggest that housing unit stocks must
be in excess of population changes if housing shortages are to be
averted. Assuming area income changes for 1970-1985 similar
to that of 1960-1970, it appears likely that residents of predomi-
nantly rural areas with high to moderate rate of growth in
incomes will experience housing shortages. This is likely to be the
case in Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Taylor, and Union
counties of District 3 and Nassau, Putnam, St. Johns, and Baker
counties in District 4. In addition, housing shortages are likely
to be somewhat more acute in counties in District 5 and in Osce-
ola and Seminole counties of District 6.
Only 12 percent of owned occupied rural farm units possessed
both hot and cold water facilities, compared to 88 percent of oc-
cupied rural nonfarm units. Of total owned rural units having
only cold water facilities, 15 percent were rural farm units while
85 percent were rural nonfarm units. Of total owned units with-
out piped water facilities, 18 percent were rural farm units while
82 percent were rural nonfarm units.
Of total owned rural farm units, only 12 percent had flush
toilet facilities. Rented rural farm units represented an even
smaller proportion (7 percent) of total rural farm units possessing
flush toilet facilities. A similar pattern of relatively low propor-
tion of farm and nonfarm units possessing complete bath and
plumbing facilities is the general case for the area. In addition,
there is strong indication that inhouse overcrowding might be a
serious problem for occupants of substandard and inadequate
rural housing.







Because of the magnitude of the problem of low quality rural
housing, it is unlikely that significant improvement in housing
quality will result from improved area economic activities. Incre-
mental income changes via improved economic activities are likely
to be absorbed by high consumption propensities among low in-
come households. The net result is that major investment in rural
housing is unlikely to occur via the interplay of normal market
forces. Further research is crucial to the identification of socially
appropriate and economically feasible alternative production sys-
tems for meeting area housing needs. The complexity of the in-
ter-relationship between residents' socio-economic well-being and
inhouse spacial requirements suggests, among other things, that
a multi-disciplinary problem solving approach might be a fruitful
line of attack on this generally neglected problem area.











INTRODUCTION
The 1967 Poverty Commission's findings with respect to the
relatively low quality of life in rural America was a major factor
in national and regional reaffirmation of commitment to improv-
ing the level of living in rural areas [16]. In spite of the many
and varied anti-poverty programs implemented over the last
decade, the net effects of such programs in improving the quality
of life for rural people are increasingly being questioned [8, 11,
12, 17]. Growing recognition of the limited success of earlier pro-
grams in bringing about improvements in the quality of life in
rural America was a major factor in the passage of the 1972
Rural Development Act. The 1972 Act was intended as a further
reaffirmation of commitment towards equalization of the levels
of living between rural and urban people.' The 1972 reaffirmation
was earlier stated in Title IX of the Agricultural Act of 1970.
This Act states:
The Congress commits itself to a sound balance between
rural and urban America. The Congress considers this bal-
ance so essential to the peace, prosperity and welfare of all
our citizens that the highest priority must be given to the
revitalization and development of rural areas.
Under the 1970 and 1972 Acts, the Secretary of Agriculture is
designated as the President's rural development director. In addi-
tion to authorizing federal assistance for private and public rural
development programs, Title V of the 1972 Rural Development
Act authorized federal appropriations to land grant institutions
for research focusing on rural development problems.

National Rural Housing Characteristics: An Overview
Rural housing has been identified as a crucial rural develop-
ment problem at both the national and regional levels [17]. The
Bureau of the Census 1960 classification of housing standard is
based on quality of construction. Housing classified as "sound" is
presumably free of defects or has only defects that can be cor-
rected through routine maintenance. "Deteriorating" housing is
considered to be those in need of more repair than would be ef-
fected through routine maintenance. "Dilapidated" housing is

1 Funding levels and administrative policies have generated controversy
regarding the seriousness of this commitment.







considered a danger to the health, safety, and well-being of oc-
cupants. Thus, the 1960 census definition of "substandard hous-
ing" includes deteriorating and dilapidated dwellings lacking
complete plumbing facilities. The 1970 census definition on the
other hand, defines substandard housing in terms of dwellings
lacking complete plumbing facilities. This change in definition
naturally results in certain noncomparability in substandard
housing data for 1960 and 1970. Throughout this report refer-
ence to 1960 data will be in terms of the 1960 Census definition,
while data for 1970 will be in terms of the later definition. Any
exception to this procedure will be explicitly noted.2
The focus on rural housing as a national problem has been
intensified by the findings of the Select Committee on Nutrition
and Human Needs of the 92nd Congress. The Committee reported
that:
... in housing as in hunger, it is clear that greatest need
parallels lowest income. Nonwhites, including blacks, In-
dians and Mexican Americans, occupy a disproportionate
share of the Nation's bad housing. Between 1960 and 1970,
the share of substandard housing occupied by black house-
holds actually increased ... the experts' best estimate is that
almost 60 percent of America's inadequate housing is in
rural areas. If a 'decent home" is what the Nation's accepted
housing codes say is the minimum essential for health and
safety, then our official housing goal of 26 million units over
a 10 year period is far too low and could be as much as 45
million units [17, p. 7].
In 1960, 8.5 million occupied housing units in the United States
were classified as less than sound or substandard, of which more
than one-half (4.8 million) were in rural areas [11]. These fig-
ures assume additional significance in light of the fact that the
rural population made up only about one-third of the U.S. popu-
lation. One farm family in four was considered to be living in
dilapidated or deteriorating housing. This contrasts with an es-
timated 1 urban family in 12. Generally, rural home owners
tended to have better housing than farm housing occupants [11].
On a regional basis, the quality of rural housing was poorest in
the South. The proportion of rural housing estimated as being
sound and having adequate plumbing facilities for the year 1960
is given by geographical areas in Table 1. Table 2 shows the
percentage of estimated substandard housing units in 1970 by
residence and geographical regions. The tables point out dramati-

2 For an excellent discussion of the effects of and/or analytical problems
resulting from the change in census definition, see [6], Vol. 1, Table 1,
pp. 5-11.







Table 1. Rural housing units classified as sound and having all plumb-
ing facilities, by regions, United States, 1960.
Region Rural farm Rural nonfarm Rural total
................ .percent.................
South 36.5 47.2 44.8
North Central 58.9 60.3 59.9
North East 64.9 71.3 70.8
West 69.7 65.4 66.1
Source: [16].


cally the relatively disadvantaged position of southern rural
households with respect to one of the essential amenities of life-
adequate shelter. To the extent that substandard housing and in-
house facilities reflect social and economic well-being, it is obvious
that there is a need for major improvement in the quality of this
component of rural life.
Plumbing deficiency is a major component of housing quality.
In 1960 more than 4 million housing units were reported to be
without inside piped water. Nine in ten of these units were lo-
cated in rural areas. However, a significantly larger proportion
of nonfarm rural units were found to exhibit these particular
characteristics, compared with farm occupied units. Six million


Table 2.-Substandard housing units by regions, United States, 1970.

Non-metropolitan Rural All
Region areas housing housing
.................. percent...................
East South Central 25.2 31.4 17.7
West South Central 14.8 19.1 9.0
Mountain 8.0 11.2 5.2
Pacific 4.8 5.3 2.9
New England 7.4 7.3 4.7
Middle Atlantic 5.7 7.2 4.1
East North Central 8.6 9.6 5.1
West North Central 9.8 12.3 7.2
South Atlantic 18.9 21.7 10.8

United States 12.8 15.0 6.8
Source: (12].







occupied housing units were estimated to be without flush toilet
facilities. However, 5.4 million of these units were located in
rural areas. Flush toilet facilities were found to be lacking in
more than one-third of the total occupied rural farm dwellings
and in about one-fourth of all occupied rural nonfarm dwellings
[16].
By 1970 the number of occupied substandard housing units in
the U.S. was reported to be 4.4 million. Specifically, the number
of substandard non-metropolitan units experienced a decline
from just over 5 million in 1960 to 2.6 million in 1970. Percent-
age-wise, 62 percent of all non-metropolitan units were estimated
to be substandard, compared with 38 percent of the metropolitan
units in 1960. Also, in 1970, substandard non-metropolitan units
accounted for 59 percent of total occupied metropolitan units.
Substandard metropolitan units accounted for 41 percent of all
occupied units at that time. The decline in substandard housing
is found to be closely correlated with increases in family income.
In 1969 there were an estimated 2.5 million families with incomes
less than $3,000 in non-metropolitan areas, and 2.6 million fam-
ilies lived in substandard housing in 1970. In 1959 there were
5.3 million families with incomes less than $3,000, and 5.3 million
lived in substandard housing in 1960 [15].3

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The purpose of the report is to present findings from a study
of the 1970 characteristics of rural housing in north-central
Florida. Specifically, the report seeks to, (a) analyze, describe,
and quantify the quality characteristics of rural housing in a
predominantly rural area of the state as a means of reducing the
paucity of information relating to rural housing quality, quantity,
and need, (b) highlight the importance of the housing variable as
a social indicator, (c) explore the relationship between money
income and rural housing quality, and (d) provide information
to state agencies concerned with short term and long term rural
development programs of the state, particularly as such pro-
grams might relate to the state's housing needs in the decades
ahead.4

3 Discussion in this section regarding changes in substandard housing units
between 1960 and 1970 is in terms of the 1970 census definition of sub-
standard housing. The data source was one which utilized recomputed
1960 data in terms of the 1970 definition [15].
4 The growing interest in the problems of housing in the state is evidenced
by the activities and housing studies prepared by the Office of the Gover-
nor, the Governor's Task Force on Housing and Community Development
and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs [5, 6].







DATA SOURCE AND METHODOLOGY
Data Source
Data used in the report were obtained from a wide variety of
published and unpublished secondary sources. However, in the
analysis of housing characteristics, heavy reliance was placed on
published and unpublished data from the Bureau of the Census
Population and Housing Reports for the years 1960 and 1970.
It is recognized that utilization of census data is likely to
suffer from many inherent shortcomings of such data. In this
regard, the use of such data is rationalized on the grounds that,
(a) despite shortcomings, it is the most comprehensive data
source available and (b) it provides information that, if handled
with caution and objectivity, does provide rough quantitative
measures of important social and economic variables.

Methodology
The methodological framework of the study is dictated, to a
great extent, by the highly normative nature of variables to be
quantified in meeting the study objectives. The general objective
of the study is to identify, describe, and quantify rural housing
characteristics within a "quality of life" framework. Quality,
as a concept, is normative in nature, since the term implicitly
expresses a value judgment of what is desirable or "what ought
to be."
Two categories of inferior housing are used as rough indica-
tors of "housing quality." These are, (a) substandard and (b)
inadequate housing. Substandard housing is defined strictly in
terms of the Bureau of the Census 1960 and 1970 classification
of the soundness of physical structures.5 Five indicators are util-
ized in measuring rural housing inadequacies. The five indicators
are (a) water supply facilities, (b) toilet facilities, (c) bath
facilities, (d) average number of rooms, and (e) plumbing facili-
ties. The five indicators of housing inadequacy are then examined
in relation to the concept of substandard housing as basis for
determining the incidence of inferior housing.


STUDY AREA POPULATION AND INCOME
CHARACTERISTICS
The area covered by the report is shown in Figure 1. The study

5 For definition of these two concepts, see page 2 and footnote 3 of text.
Also see page 27 of text.


































Stare plannmg d strct
Sbouundirls
0 Growth nodes
(25,000 population wnd oveil


Figure 1.-Map showing thirty-county study area.


area includes a 30-county region of north-central Florida repre-
senting state planning districts 3, 4, 5 and 6 [3].6
The stock of housing units is affected by population and income
shifts. The impact of population tends to be direct, in that
changes in the stock of housing units is a reaction to the needs
of new residents for shelter. However, shifts in housing unit

6 Planning districts were created under the Florida State Comprehensive
Planning Act of 1972 which became effective on July 1, 1972. The law
states ". the Secretary (of Administration) may specify particular
... geographic boundaries that agencies shall use in preparing studies,
reports and plans for the purpose of establishing consistency and uni-
formity in the planning process". The law also established a Division of
State Planning to coordinate planning among federal, state and local
levels of government, coordinate all state agency planning and program-
ming activities, serve as the state planning and development clearinghouse
and designate regional and area-wide clearinghouses [3].


'~~"~~~~.i'
' ~
'''







stocks in relation to increased incomes tends to be a derived de-
mand phenomenon. It is a derived demand in that higher incomes
stimulate housing stock growth by influencing the demand for
housing quality. Housing quality demand tends to reduce multi-
ple family occupancy of single housing units. Thus, on the aver-
age, fewer persons need occupy each housing unit. The significant
implication of the income phenomenon is that increased demand
for housing quality improvements requires a growth in housing
stock in excess of population growth [10].

Population
Tables 3 and 4 show changes in the population distribution of
the study area by residence and race over the 1960-1970 period.
Table 5 gives projected population changes up to the year 1985.7
In 1960 the study region's total population was approximately 1.5
million people, representing 30 percent of the state's total popula-
tion. The region's rural population at that time was 551,196,
which represented 11 percent of the state's population and 43
percent of the state's rural population. By 1970 the region's popu-
lation had increased to over 1.9 million, which represented 29
percent of the state's population. The region's rural population
declined to 541,457, representing 8 percent of the state's popula-
tion and 41 percent of the state's rural population.
Table 5 in particular suggests some interesting demographic
characteristics of the region. First, although the area's popula-
tion is expected to reach over 3 million by 1985, the area's popu-
lation is expected to retain its 1970 ranking in terms of the
relative proportion of the state's population (29 percent). Sec-
ond, Planning Districts 3 and 4 are projected to sustain a decline
in their proportion of the study area population, while Planning
Districts 5 and 6 will experience net increases in their proportion
of area population. Third, Districts 5 and 6 are expected to
sustain significant increases in their respective population over
the 1970-1985 period. Specifically, Districts 5 and 6 are expected
to sustain rates of change in population well above that of the
area and the state, over the period, while the converse is expected
for Districts 3 and 4.
Table 6 shows changes in rural population of the area by plan-
ning districts for the same period. Planning District 5 has the
largest rural population of the region's four planning districts
7 Population projection figures are frcm estimates made by the Population
Statistics Division of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Florida [1, 2].










Table 3.-Population distribution of multi-county study area by residence, location and race, 1960 and 1970.
Proportion of Proportion of urban Proportion of rural
Residence/Race Population state population pop. in Florida pop. in Florida
1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
Study area ......number...... ......percent...... ......percent...... ......percent......


(30 counties)
Urban
Rural
White
oo Black
Other
Urban white
Urban black
Urban other
Rural white
Rural black
Rural other


1,490,458 1,968,290
939,262 1,426,833
551,196 541,457
1,173,008 1,608,032
315,521 352,860
1,929 7,398
722,658 1,154,170
215,359 266,724
1,235 5,939
450,350 453,862
100,152 86,136
694 1,459


30.1
19.0
11.1
23.7
6.4


14.6
4.3


9.1
2.0


29.0 25.7


21.0
8.0
23.7
5.2
0.1
17.0
3.9
0.1
6.7
1.3


2
2


25.7


19.7
5.9


6.1 42.7 41.0
6.1 -
- 42.7 41.0


21.1
4.9
0.1 -
34.9
7.8
0.1


Source: [13, 14].


34.3
6.5
0.1










Table 4.-Population distribution of multi-county study area by residence, location and race, 1960 and 1970.


Residence/Race


Study area
(30 counties)
Urban
Rural
White
Black
Co
Other
Urban white
Urban black
Urban other
Rural white
Rural black
Rural other


Proportion of
Population area population
1960 1970 1960 1970
...... number...... ...... percent......
1,490,458 1,968,290 100.0 100.0
939,262 1,426,833 63.0 72.5
551,196 541,457 37.0 27.5
1,173,008 1,608,032 78.7 81.7
315,521 352,860 21.2 17.9
1,929 7,398 0.1 0.4
722,658 1,154,170 48.5 58.6
215,369 266,724 14.4 13.6
1,235 5,939 0.1 0.3
450,350 453,862 30.2 23.1
100,152 86,136 6.7 4.4
694 1,459 0.1


Proportion of
pop. in Florida
1960
.... .percent.
100.0
100.0







76.9
22.9
0.1


urban Proportion of rural
pop. in Florida
1970 1960 1970
..... ...... percent......
100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 -







80.9 -
18.7 -


U.4 --
- 81.7
- 18.2
- 0.1


83.8
15.9


Source: [13, 14].







Table 5.-Population projections for 1970-1985 in multi-county study
area.
Population
Projected Projected change
District/County 1970 1985 1970 1985


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwanee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker

District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

District 6:
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia


............ number............... percent....
215,142 301,200 40.0
104,764 169,800 62.1
14,625 17,900 22.4
25,250 33,600 33.1
5,480 6,900 25.9
3,551 4,600 29.5
7,787 8,000 2.7
2,892 3,100 7.1
13,481 15,100 12.0
15,559 16,800 8.0
13,641 14,700 7.8
8,112 10,700 31.9


662,263
32,059
528,865
4,454
20,626
36,290
30,727
9,242

132,825
19,196
17,004
12,756
69,030
14,839

958,062
230,006
35,992
69,305
344,311
25,269
83,692
169,487


919,200
54,300
723,600
6,500
27,300
47,400
47,300
12,800

242,100
52,900
36,900
17,000
111,800
23,500

1,597,400
329,500
59,800
100,400
602,100
65,200
191,800
248,600


38.8
69.4
36.8
45.9
32.4
30.6
53.9
38.5

82.3
175.6
117.0
33.3
62.0
58.4

66.7
43.3
66.1
44.9
74.9
158.0
129.2
46.7


Area
Florida

Source: [2].


1,968,290 3,059,900
6,789,443 10,669,700


55.5
57.2







Table 6.-Rural population, by planning districts and counties, in
multi-county study area, 1960 and 1970.
Proportion rural of Change in rural
District/County Rural population total population population
1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
...... number. ............ percent ..........
District 3: 104,064 105,711 60.2 49.1 1.6
Alachua 37,358 32,648 50.4 31.2 -12.6
Bradford 7,640 9,777 61.4 66.9 28.0
Columbia 10,612 11,051 52.9 43.8 4.1
Dixie 4,479 5,480 100.0 100.0 22.3
Gilchrist 2,868 3,551 100.0 100.0 23.8
Hamilton 7,705 7,787 100.0 100.0 1.1
Lafayette 2,889 2,892 100.0 100.0 0.1
Madison 10,915 9,744 77.1 72.3 -10.7
Suwannee 8,417 8,729 56.3 56.1 3.7
Taylor 5,138 5,940 34.0 43.6 15.6
Union 6,043 8,112 100.0 100.0 34.2

District 4: 135,757 97,471 24.0 14.7 -28.2
Clay 12,678 16,748 64.9 52.2 32.1
Duval 67,424 10,734 14.8 2.0 -84.0
Flagler 4,566 4,454 100.0 100.0 -2.5
Nassau 9,913 13,671 57.7 66.3 37.9
Putnam 21,184 26,980 65.8 74.3 27.4
St. Johns 15,300 18,375 50.9 59.8 20.1
Baker 4,692 6,509 63.7 70.4 38.7

District 5: 74,299 100,893 78.8 76.0 35.8
Citrus 9,268 19,196 100.0 100.0 107.1
Hernando 7,904 12,944 70.5 76.1 63.8
Levy 10,364 12,756 100.0 100.0 23.1
Marion 34,894 41,158 67.6 59.6 18.0
Sumter 11,869 14,839 100.0 100.0 25.0

District 6: 237,076 237,382 36.1 24.8 0.1
Brevard 51,156 34,392 45.9 15.0 -32.8
Indian River 12,951 10,982 51.2 30.5 -15.2
Lake 30,229 39,249 52.7 56.6 29.8
Orange 58,606 57,692 22.2 16.8 -1.6
Osceola 7,831 13,107 41.2 51.9 67.4
Seminole 27,992 31,709 50.9 37.9 13.3
Volusia 48,311 50,251 38.6 29.6 4.0

Area 551,196 541,457 37.0 27.5 -1.8
Florida 1,290,177 1,321,306 26.1 19.5 2.4

Source: [13, 14].






in both 1960 and 1970. Specifically, the respective 1960 and 1970
proportions of rural population to total district population were
60 and 49 percent for District 3; 24 and 15 percent for District
4; 79 and 76 percent for District 5; and 36 and 25 percent for
District 6. The proportion of the region's population classified
as rural was significantly greater than that of the state as a
whole. With the exception of District 4, where the proportion of
rural population was lower than that of the state, the same was
true of the four planning districts.
The region's rural population experienced a net decline of
almost 2 percent between 1960 and 1970. This contrasts with a
little more than a 2 percent increase in the state's rural popula-
tion over the same period. On a district basis, the most significant
decline in the rural population occurred in District 4, where the
rural population decreased by 28 percent over the decade.8 Dis-
tricts 3 and 6 experienced minor increases in their rural popula-
tion over the two periods. By far the greatest increase in the
rural population of the four districts occurred in District 5,
where the rural population increased by almost 36 percent over
the decade.
Income
Personal Income Per Capita
Personal income per capital is a rough measure of the degree of
disparity in economic opportunity between regions. From this
point of view, the figures given in Table 7 would suggest, among
other things, disparities in economic opportunities among coun-
ties, planning districts and the rest of the state.
According to the data in Table 7, there has been virtually no
change in the per capital income of the four planning districts in
the study area relative to that of the state over the 1959-1970
period. The only exception was in District 6. Specifically, in 1959,
Districts 3 and 5 had per capital incomes well below the state
figure of $1,929. At that time Districts 4 and 6 had per capital
incomes slightly above that of the state. By 1970, however, three
of the four districts (3, 5 and 6) in the study area had per capital
incomes below the state's figures. The net increase in 1970 oc-
curred as a result of the reversal of the relative position of Dis-
trict 6 over the two time periods.
On a county basis, the relative per capital income situation
8 A good proportion of this decline can be attributed to the phenomenal
decline that took place in Duval County over the period (84 percent). This
decline is largely attributed to a reclassification of residence as a result
of county-wide annexation.







Table 7.-Personal income per capital, by planning districts and coun-
ties, in multi-county study areas, 1959 and 1970.


District/ County


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker

District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

District 6:
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia

Florida


Year
1959 1970
...... dollars ......
1,351 2,956
1,551 3,193
1,441 2,394
1,218 3,048
1,345 2,555
890 1,983
1,162 3,081
1,421 3,401
966 2,293
1,209 3,035
1,355 3,045
840 1,830


1,984
1,629
2,108
1,290
1,580
1,562
1,349
1,032

1,278
1,278
1,309
1,270
1,345
967


1,955
2,194
1,798
2,138
2,190
1,439
1,186
1,614

1,929


3,692
1,845
3,950
2,511
3,502
2,699
3,199
1,859

2,560
2,116
2,285
2,805
2,773
2,249


3,463
3,893
3,500
2,845
3,761
2,985
2,295
3,168

3,659


----- --


77.1
77.4
94.7
33.1
71.7
107.4
93.5
96.3


89.7


Source: [1]


Change in per capital
income
1959 1970
percent
118.8
105.9
66.1
150.2
90.0
122.8
165.1
139.3
137.4
151.0
124.7
117.9

86.1
13.3
87.4
99.3
121.6
72.8
137.1
80.1

100.3
65.6
74.6
120.9
106.2
132.6







for 1959 was one in which all of the counties in Districts 3 and 5
registered per capital incomes below the state's average. Six of
seven counties in District 4, and four of seven counties in District
6 exhibited this characteristic. The counties of Districts 3, 4, and
5 remained unchanged in their relative income position in 1970.
However, District 6 experienced a reversal of relative income
position, which was largely attributable to a net increase in the
number of counties falling below the state average income in
1970.
The most rapid rate of increase in per capital income occurred
in the counties of Districts 3 and 5 over the 1959-1970 period.
Specifically, Districts 3 and 5 experienced rates of change in per
capital income of 119 percent and 100 percent, respectively. In
comparison, the state experienced a rate of change of almost 90
percent. Districts 4 and 6 experienced rates of change below that
of the state (86 and 77 percent, respectively) over a comparable
period.
The differential rates of growth in per capital income among
the four planning districts are reflected in the net gain or loss
in district per capital income as a proportion of the state's per
capital income over the period. Specifically, the per capital income
of District 3 rose from 70 percent of the state's per capital in-
come in 1959 to 81 percent in 1970. District 5 also registered an
increase from 60 percent to almost 70 percent over the period.
In contrast, per capital income of District 4 experienced a decline
from almost 103 percent to 101 percent of the state's per capital
income over the period. Comparable figures for District 6 were
101 percent of the state's per capital income in 1959 and 95 per-
cent in 1970.

Family Income
As in the case of personal per capital income, family income
provides another measure of disparity in economic opportunity.
Furthermore, such a measure is improved when expressed in
terms of designated poverty income thresholds. Tables 8 and 9
present data on family and single individual income character-
istics for the region in terms of the Bureau of the Census "poverty

9 The author is aware of some of the shortcomings of Bureau of the Census
poverty income threshold concept. In spite of the various shortcomings
it does provide a rough "starting point" for measuring welfare. In 1969
the poverty income threshold ranged from $1,487 for a female unrelated
individual 65 years old and over living on a farm, to $6,116 for a nonfarm
family with a male head and with seven or more persons. The average
poverty income threshold for a nonfarm family of four headed by a male
was $3,745 [9].







income thresholds" for 1969.9 Districts 3, 4, and 5 possess by far
the largest concentration of families and single persons with in-
comes below the designated poverty income thresholds (Table
8). Each of these three districts had a considerably higher pro-
porton of families and single individuals below the poverty
threshold than the state as a whole. Specifically, all counties in
District 3, 4, and 5 have a larger proportion of families and
single persons with incomes below poverty levels than is the case
for the state as a whole. In contrast, almost one-half of the coun-
ties in District 6 show proportions of families and individuals
with below poverty income lower than the state level.
Table 9 provides additional insights into the income character-
istics of the area in terms of the urban-rural disparities. A con-
sistent pattern is observed among the four planning districts with
respect to the proportion of urban, rural nonfarm, and rural
farm residents in the classification "below-poverty-level." Specifi-
cally, the proportion of such persons classified as rural nonfarm
tend to be greater than that of the urban residents for all four
planning districts of the study area. However, the proportion of
below-poverty-level rural farm residents was consistently and
significantly lower than that of either urban or rural nonfarm
residents. This characteristic tends to substantiate further the
argument that developmental and low income problems of rural
America are more than a "farm related" problem defined in a
rather narrow perspective. The long term policy implication of
this observation for the state (as well as the nation) is that it is
unrealistic to expect programs and policies oriented toward com-
mercial agriculture to solve many of the rural development prob-
lems of the state. Special programs and policies are required to
cope with problem areas not covered by traditional agricultural
programs.

AREA HOUSING PROFILE
A first approximation of area housing problems can be obtained
by an examination of the 1970 data relating to occupied sub-
standard housing units for the counties in the four planning dis-
tricts covered in the study area.1" Table 10 gives this data by
county ranking and by ratio of poverty level families per sub-
standard housing unit. In 1970, the overall average for substan-
dard housing units was approximately 7 percent. With the

o1 Throughout the manuscript reference to data on housing units will be
with respect to occupied units. See page 2 of text and Glossary of Terms
for definition of substandard housing.







Table 8.-Families and persons with less than poverty income levels, by planning districts and counties, in multi-county study
area, 1969 '.


Families
Proportion
Proportion Mean Mean receiving Mean
District/County all family income public asst. family Number
Number families income deficit income size
percent ........ .dollars ........ percent number


Persons
Proportion Proportion Proportion
all receiving 65 years
persons soc. security & over
income
.. percent..


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
S Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker


3,660 15.3 1,982 1,507
691 20.4 2,028 1,541
1,240 19.7 1,999 1,614
364 25.9 2,255 1,165
202 21.8 1,939 1,300
584 31.6 2,014 1,720
180 23.8 1,763 1,632
1,078 33.2 1,881 1,672
1,125 27.9 1,889 1,576
825 24.0 1,892 1,571
300 22.3 1,830 1,322


1,136 13.9 1,766 1,799
18,548 14.1 1,879 1,782
263 22.7 2,141 1.,551
792 15.7 2,293 1,487
1,963 20.9 2,095 1,571
1,605 20.3 2,152 1,447
344 18.0 2,214 1,648


20.3 3.90 21,179
26.6 4.02 3,157
27.0 4.16 6,056
32.7 3.66 1,531
30.7 3.64 853
24.3 4.53 2,965
11.1 4.03 880
37.1 4.23 5,187
23.6 4.10 5,224
23.2 3.84 3,774
42.3 3.53 1,241


17.3 3.89 5,314
21.3 4.01 89,717
14.8 4.13 1,270
32.1 4.23 3,890
27.7 4.12 9,395
15.5 4.15 8,046
11.9 4.76 1,816


22.1
23.8
24.3
28.2
24.2
38.7
30.5
39.3
34.0
27.8
23.0


16.6
17.6
28.7
18.9
26.1
27.3
22.4


11.0 10.6
15.6 15.1
13.6 15.5
24.4 20.4
12.7 21.8
14.2 16.9
22.6 23.6
13.7 16.7
18.2 18.3
19.7 19.4
14.8 22.6


16.3 18.7
14.6 13.9
17.9 17.6
16.9 15.2
17.8 16.8
19.3 19.3
10.2 10.6








Table 8.-Families and persons with less than poverty income levels, by planning districts and counties, in multi-county study
area, 1969' .


District/County


District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

- District 6:
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia


FLORIDA


Families
Proportion
Proportion Mean Mean receiving
all family income public asst.
Number families income deficit income


1,137
1,023
742
3,552
987


4,789
1,518
3,410
9,869
1,157
2,591
6,463


19.1
20.6
22.5
19.7
25.9


8.2
15.3
17.5
11.2
16.2
11.8
13.8


1,968
1,890
1,927
2,138
1,987


1,854
2,110
2,069
2,038
2,042
2,034
1,904


1,141
1,293
1,529
1,399
1,367


1,621
1,298
1,292
1,558
1,149
1,605
1,283


229,241 12.7 1,922 1,494


8.6
18.8
26.0
16.7
20.4


13.2
19.4
10.3
17.8
12.4
17.8
13.3


Mean
family
size


3.25
3.42
3.94
3.93
3,80


3.77
3.69
3.71
3.96
3.51
4.09
3.37


Number



4,572
4,252
3,495
16,734
4,382


22,285
6,840
15,368
48,141
5,254
12,636
30,188


16.9 3.72 1,088,255


Persons
Proportion Proportion
all receiving
persons soc. security
income
.. .percent..


24.0
25.3
27.5
24.7
31.0


9.8
19.1
22.5
14.4
21.0
15.2
18.2

16.4


32.9
28.6
20.5
20.5
21.7


14.3
21.7
22.8
16.5
29.1
16.2
30.8


Proportion
65 years
& over


30.7
26.9
22.5
20.2
21.7


14.0
22.7
24.3
15.5
29.7
15.3
30.7


20.8 21.6


* In 1969, the poverty threshold ranged from $1,487 for a female unrelated individual 65 years old and over living on a farrr
$6,116 for a nonfarm family with a male head and with seven or more persons. The average poverty threshold income for a nonf
family of four headed by a male was $3,745.
b Mean income deficit in a measure of the mean (average) short fall from a minimum decent income (poverty threshold income).
Source: [1].


Sto
arm


percent .. ..... .dollars ........ percent number


__












Table 9.-Distribution of all persons and of persons below the poverty level, by planning districts and counties, in multi-
county study area, 1959.


Total Urban Rural nonfarm Rural farm
Below Below Below Below
Total poverty level' Total poverty level Total poverty level Total poverty level
District/County persons Number Percent persons Number Percent persons Number Percent persons Number Percent


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
I-" Hamilton
00 Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker


201,040 52,066 25.9 100,413 24,296 24.2 84.539 24,169 28.6 16,083 3,601 22.4
95,333 21,179 22.1 63,604 13,660 21.3 29,527 7,057 23.9 2,702 562 20.8
13,255 3,157 23.8 4,781 1,144 23.9 7,320 1,786 24.4 1,164 227 19.5
24,922 6,056 24.3 13.974 3,361 24.1 8,710 2,404 27.6 2,238 291 13.8
5,429 1,527 28.1 5.222 1,457 27.9 207 70 33.8
3,519 859 24.4 2,467 718 29.1 1,052 141 13.4
7,661 2,975 38.8 6,370 2,580 40.5 1,291 395 30.6
2,890 880 30.5 1,919 710 37.0 971 170 17.5
13,193 5,187 39.3 3.566 1,477 41.4 7,076 2,979 42.1 2,556 731 28.6
15,365 5,224 34.0 6,810 2,227 32.7 5,632 2,129 37.8 2,923 868 29.7
13,576 3,774 27.8 7,678 2,527 32.9 5,398 1,193 22.1 484 92 19.0
5,382 1,248 23.2 4,898 1,156 23.6 500 54 10.8


640,350 119,481 18.7 545,436 99,155 18.2 90,401 19,903 22.0 4.514
32,012 5,314 16.6 16,148 2,677 16.6 15,197 2,629 17.3 667
509,756 89,717 17.6 498.941 88,498 17.7 10,282 1,203 11.7 533
4,424 1,303 29.5 4,138 1,233 29.8 286
20.582 3.890 18.9 6,954 1,336 19.2 12,840 2,491 19.4 788
35,995 9,395 26.1 9,359 3,186 34.0 25,749 6,051 23.5 888
29,473 8,046 27.3 11,330 2,781 24.5 17,791 5,195 29.2 352
8,107 1,816 22,4 2,703 677 25.0 4,404 1,101 25.0 1,000


423 9.4
8 1.2
16 3.0
70 24.5
63 8.0
158 17.8
70 19.9
38 3.8















Table 9.-Distribution of all persons and of persons below the poverty level, by planning districts and counties, in multi-
county study area, 1959.
Total Urban Rural nonfarm Rural farm
Below Below Below Below
Total poverty level' Total poverty level Total poverty level Total poverty level
District/County persons Number Percent persons Number Percent persons Number Percent persons Number Percent

District 5: 130,506 33,594 25.7 31,441 6.890 21.9 93,338 25,700 27.5 5,727 1,004 17.5
Citrus 19,113 4,621 24.2 18,802 4,569 24.3 311 52 16.7
Hernando 16,806 4,252 25.3 4,014 850 21.2 12,237 3,266 26.6 555 147 26.5
Levy 42,685 3,600 28.4 11,455 3,402 29.7 1,230 198 16.1
Marion 67,749 16,734 24.7 27.427 6,040 22.0 37,691 10,252 27.2 2,631 442 16.8
o Sumter 14,153 4,387 31.0 13,153 4,222 32.1 1.000 165 16.5

District 6: 904,032 133,872 14.8 681,344 95,315 14.0 215,258 37,677 17.5 7.430 880 11.8
Brevard 227,393 22,285 9.8 195,099 19,201 9.8 32,021 3,074 9.6 278 10 3.6
Indian River 35,812 6,840 19.1 24,967 4.562 18.3 10,640 2,245 21.1 205 33 16.1
Lake 68,302 15,368 22.5 29,366 6,671 22.7 36,752 8,306 22.6 2,184 391 17.9
Orange 334,313 48,141 14.4 277,156 37,753 13.6 55,157 10,204 18.5 2.000 184 9.2
Osceola 25,019 5,254 21.0 11,885 2,304 19.4 12,515 2,841 22.7 619 109 17.6
Seminole 83,132 12,636 15.2 51,440 7,637 14.8 30,761 4,891 15.9 931 108 11.6
Volusia 165,863 30,188 18.2 116,398 21,749 18.7 48,052 8.361 17.4 1,418 78 5.5

Florida 6,641,915 1,088,644 16.4 5,347,392 813,148 15.2 1,222,356 262,809 21.5 72,166 13,187 18.3

In 1969, the poverty income threshold ranged from $1,487 for a female unrelated individual 65 years old and over living on a farm,
to $6,116 for a nonfarm family with a male head and with seven or more persons. The average poverty threshold income for a non-
farm family off our headed by a male was $3,745.

Source: [9, 14].







exception of Planning District 6 (6.3 percent) all of the remaining
three districts had significantly higher proportions of sub-
standard housing units than the state average. By far the great-
est concentration of substandard housing in the area was in
District 3, with an average of almost 18 percent of the units being
classified as substandard. Counties ranked 5, 6, 8, and 9 in the
state in terms of the number of substandard housing units were
in District 3. The remaining planning districts, in order of their
proportion of substandard housing units, were District 4 with
14 percent (and the number 2 ranked county in the state), and
District 5 with 11 percent.
The relationship of substandard housing to low income is borne
out by the exhibited positive correlation between poverty level
families and families occupying substandard housing units. This
relationship is expressed by the ratio of poverty level families
per substandard housing unit (Table 10). The ratios tend to be
numerically close to 1 (indicating an almost perfect correlation),
in counties of Districts 3, 4 and 5 in comparison with those of
District 6. This pattern is consistent with the trends exhibited
in Tables 8 and 9, where it was noted that, in 1969, Districts
3, 4, and 5 exhibited by far the largest concentration of families
and single persons with incomes below the designated poverty
threshold. It might also be recalled that these three districts
had considerably higher proportions of families and single in-
dividuals below the average state poverty income threshold. In
comparison, over one-half of the families and persons in District
6 had income above the state poverty threshold. Specifically, Table
10 shows that none of the 11 counties in District 3 had a ratio
above that of the state ratio (1.5:1). District 4 had one of seven
counties with ratios above that of the state. Two of five counties
in District 5 had ratios above that of the state, while District 6
had five of seven counties with ratios equal to or greater than
that of the state. Ratios tend to be numerically close to 1 in coun-
ties and districts with relatively high concentration of below-
poverty-level families."
A major consideration with respect to area housing character-
istics is the long term housing needs of residents in terms of both
housing quantity and quality. Within this frame of reference,
11 The higher the ratio the greater is the number of poverty-level families
not living in substandard housing. A ratio of 1 would indicate every
poverty level family was living in substandard housing. An interesting
corollary to the indicated positive correlation between poverty income
families and substandard housing is the relatively high ratios indicated
for poverty level families per subsidized housing units in low income areas.
The latter suggests inadequacy in public housing programs.







population and income variables assume a dynamic role. Earlier
it was suggested that population shifts directly affect the stock
of housing units as a result of the need of new residents for
shelter. On the other hand, income shifts tend to generate a de-
rived demand for housing units by increasing the demand for
improved housing quality (e.g., single housing units as against
multiple family occupancy of single units). Table 11 gives the
ranked projection increase in housing units for the area for 1970-
1985, as estimated by the Florida Division of Technical Assistance
[4]. Table 12 brings together housing and population projections
to 1985 for the same period in relation to the relative "rurality"
and per capital income changes of the four planning districts over
the 1960-1970 period. Several key questions are raised in light
of the data in Table 12. First, to what extent will the projected
housing increases to 1985 be likely to satisfy the potential de-
mand for housing at that time? This question assumes major
significance because of the dynamic inter-relationship of popu-
lation and income shifts with increased demand for housing. Spe-
cifically, the derived demand for additional and improved quality
housing stock as a result of income shifts requires a growth in
area housing stock in excess of population growth. Second, since
this report is primarily concerned with rural housing units, to
what extent will the projected increase in housing satisfy future
housing needs of rural residents?
Examination of the data lends itself to some interesting specu-
lation regarding the first question. For the area as a whole, the
projected changes in both population and occupied housing for
1970-1985 are identical at 55.5 percent. It is assumed that similar
rate of change to the area 1959-1970 per capital income change is
experienced over the 1970-1985 period. Under this assumption,
it is questionable whether the projected increase in area housing
units will be sufficient to meet the potential increase in demand
(quantity and quality) by 1985. This question is raised in light
of the earlier argument with respect to population, income, and
housing stock relationships. With respect to potential long-run
housing demand and supply disequilibrium at the district level,
there is reason to suspect that, with comparable 1959-1970 in-
come changes, Districts 3 and 5 will experience drastic housing
shortages in 1985.12 This underestimation of district housing
12 The rationale for projecting drastic housing shortage in these districts
and counties is based on several observations. First, historically, these
are areas where per capital income changes have been relatively large and
positive. Second, average family size tends to be relatively large, suggest-
ing the possibility of a need for single family housing units rather than
multiple family units (Table 8).







Table 10. Rankings with respect to proportion of occupied substantial housing, poverty level families, and ratio of poverty
level families per substandard housing unit, planning districts and counties in multi-county study area, 1970.


Substandard Housing


District/County



District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
t Dixie
M Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker


Units


Proportion all Rank in Poverty
units state level families


number percent number


8,886
3,146
604
991
404
216
472
158
1,036
976
580
303

18,495
536
12,206
229
738
3,383
1,072
331


17.7
10.1
14.8
12.9
23.6
18.8
20.0
16.5
25.9
20.1
13.7
18.4

13.7
5.7
7.5
15.3
12.2
29.4
10.7
14.8


Poverty level
families per
Proportion all substandard
families housing unit


number percent


10,249
3,660
691
1,240
364
202
584
180
1,073
1,125
825
300

24,651
1,136
18,548
263
792
1,963
1,605
344


24.2
15.3
20.4
19.7
25.9
21.8
31.6
23.8
33.2
27.9
24.0
22.3

17.9
13.9
14.1
22.7
15.7
20.9
20.3
18.0


ratio
1.1:1
1.2:1
1.1:1
1.2:1
0.9:1
0.9:1
1.2:1
1.1:1
1.0:1
1.1:1
1.4:1
1.0:1

1.3:1
2.1:1
1.5:1
1.1:1
1.1:1
0.6:1
1.5:1
1.0:1


Poverty level
families per
subsidized
housing unit


State ranking
by ratio of
poverty level
families per
subsidized
housing unit


ratio number
3.5:1 -
1.5:1 64
49.4:1 13
65.3:1 11
14.0:1 22
20.2:1 18
6.7:1 36
1
56.7:1 12
8.5:1 32
275.0:1 5
3.3:1 50

2.4:1 -
6.3:1 37
2.0:1 59
2.0:1 59
9.1:1 29
2.6:1 53
43.4:1 15
3.7:1 47








Table 10. Rankings with respect to proportion of occupied substantial housing, poverty level families, and ratio of poverty
level families per substandard housing unit, planning districts and counties in multi-county study area, 1970.


District/County



District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

District 6:
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceloa
Seminole
Volusia


Florida


Substandard Housing
Proportion all Rank in
Units units state


number percent number


4,811
312
443
753
2,584
719

19,843
3,755
596
1,878
5,935
518
1,693
5,463

156,625


11.3
4.2
7.2
18.0
11.5
15.5

6.3
5.4
4.8
7.6
5.4
5.6
6.5
8.7


Poverty level
families per
Poverty Proportion all substandard
level families families housing unit


number percent


7,441
1,137
1,023
742
3,552
987

29,797
4,789
1,518
3,410
9,869
1,157
2,591
6,463


21.6
19.1
20.6
22.5
19.7
25.9

13.4
8.2
15.3
17.5
11.2
16.2
11.8
13.8


- 229,241


ratio
1.5:1
3.6:1
2.3:1
1.0:1
1.4:1
1.4:1

1.5:1
1.3:1
2.5:1
1.8:1
1.7:1
2.2:1
1.5:1
1.2:1

1.5:1


State ranking
by ratio of
Poverty level poverty level
families per families per
subsidized subsidized
housing unit housing unit

ratio number
7.8:1 -
568.5:1 4
7.9:1 33
4.3:1 40
5.5:1 38
164.5:1 7

1.8:1 -
1.7:1 62
47.4:1 14
7.4:1 35
1.3:1 66
3.9:1 44
1.0:1 67
2.3:1 56


2.8:1


* No subsidized housing units
Source: [4].


~







Table 11. Rankings by projected increase of occupied housing units,
planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area,
1970 to 1985.


District/County


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker

District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

District 6:
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia


Florida


Expected increase, 1970 to 1985
Rank in state Change
number percent
37.5
20 63.9
52 33.1
17 70.8
39 46.4
38 48.3
56 27.5
67 15.2
64 17.5
55 29.8
57 25.4
50 34.2


61.0
98.0
44.2
68.0
61.2
36.6
52.9
66.0

67.9
82.1
87.4
55.7
56.4
57.8


74.9
42.4
55.8
33.2
118.1
104.6
130.6
39.6

54.2


Source: [4].







Table 12.-Rural population, personal income per capital changes, se-
lected years, and population and occupied housing projec-
tions, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study
area, 1970 to 1985.
Rural population Projected
Rural Proportion of Per capital Projected occupied
population population income population housing
District/ change change change change
County 1960-1970 1970 1959-1970' 1970-1985" 1970-1985'


.................... percent.


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker

District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

District 6:
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia


1.6 49.1
-12.6 31.2
28.0 66.9
4.1 43.8
22.3 100.0
23.8 100.0
1.1 100.0
0.1 100.0
-10.7 72.3
3.7 56.1
15.6 43.6
34.2 100.0

-28.2 14.7
32.1 52.2
-84.0 2.0
-2.5 100.0
37.9 66.3
27.4 74.3
20.1 59.8
38.7 70.4

35.8 76.0
107.1 100.0
63.8 76.1
23.1 100.0
18.0 59.6
25.0 100.0


-3
-1
2

6
1


Area
Florida
* Total population.
Source: [2, 4, 14].


0.1 24.8
:2.8 15.0
15.2 30.5
:9.8 56.6
-1.6 16.8
7.4 51.9
3.3 37.9
4.0 29.6

-1.8 27.5
2.4 19.5


111
10!
6
15(
9(
12;
16E
139
137
151
124
11;


3.8 40.0
5.9 62.1
6.1 22.4
).2 33.1
).0 25.9
2.8 29.5
5.1 2.7
).3 7.1
.4 12.0
.0 8.0
4.7 7.8
7.9 31.9


86.1
13.3
87.4
99.3
121.6
72.8
137.1
80.1

100.3
65.6
74.6
120.9
106.2
132.6

77.1
77.4
94.7
33.1
71.7
107.4
93.5
96.3

101.9
89.7


38.8
69.4
36.8
45.9
32.4
30.6
53.9
38.5

82.3
175.6
117.0
33.3
62.0
58.4


37.5
63.9
33.1
70.8
46.4
48.3
27.5
15.2
17.5
29.8
25.4
34.2

61.0
98.0
44.2
68.0
61.2
36.6
52.9
66.0

67.9
82.1
87.4
55.7
56.4
57.8


66.7 74.9
43.3 42.4
66.1 55.8
44.9 33.2
74.9 118.1
158.0 104.6
129.2 130.6
46.7 39.6

55.5 55.5
57.2 54.2







needs is likely to stem from underestimating and/or discounting
of the potential income effects on the increased demand for hous-
ing. Within District 3 the shortage is likely to be more aggravated
(in varying degrees) in Alachua, Madison, and Union counties,
largely because of the potential interaction effect of larger income
and population changes. For District 4 this is likely to be tbe
case for Duval, Putnam, and St. Johns counties. In District 5
this is likely to be the case for Citrus, Hernando, Marion, and
Sumter counties, while in District 6, the probability for this being
the case is likely to be higher for Indian River, Osceola, and
Volusia counties. Futhermore, a major component of the housing
shortages in areas experiencing rapid rates of change in income
is likely to be related to increased demand for single family
housing units.13
With respect to the second question, the potential long term
rural housing demand and supply disequilibrium or equilibrium
is even more interesting from the point of view of the major
focus of the study. While there is little doubt that rapid statewide
urbanization will continue through the 1980's, the probability ap-
pears great that rural housing shortages ( quantity and quality)
will be more aggravated in districts and counties with relatively
large rural populations and historically moderate to rapid rates
of growth in population and personal per capital incomes. Within
this frame of reference it appears likely that acute rural housing
shortages might exist in the mid 1980's in Bradford, Columbia,
Dixie, Gilchrist, Taylor, and Union counties of District 3 and
Nassau, Putnam, St. Johns, and Baker counties of District 4.
Shortages are likely to exist in virtually all counties of District
5 and in Osceola and Seminole counties of District 6. The fact
that certain other counties do not exhibit high population and
income propensities does not suggest that these counties are un-
likely to experience rural housing shortages in the decades ahead.
To the contrary, housing shortages are likely to be acute, since a
large proportion of existing housing are likely to fall in disrepair
under these conditions in any predominantly rural county where
income changes are minimal and population change low to
moderate.

13 It is worthwhile noting, however, that the source of area family and per
capital income might be quite different over the 1970-1985 period com-
pared to the 1959-1970 period. Table 8 shows that for 1969 a significant
(and comparatively high) proportion of family income of certain groups
of residents came from transfer payments (public assistance income).
If this trend continues into the mid 1980's, transfer payments might
indeed be a major component of residents' personal and family income.







Rural Housing Adequacy and the Quality of Life
A general overview of the housing characteristics of the study
area suggests some key problem areas with respect to current and
future housing needs of area residents. However, a more detailed
analysis of area housing is required if more meaningful assess-
ment of the relationship of rural housing to the "quality of life"
is to be made. In assessing housing quality it is necessary to
proceed beyond an examination of the nature of physical struc-
tures. The concept of "inadequate housing" measures the ability
of housing to meet a household's housing needs. Within this frame
of reference, analysis is made of five major components of rural
housing as indicators of "housing adequacy." These are (a) water
supply facilities, (b) toilet facilities, (c) bath facilities, (d) aver-
age number of rooms, and (e) plumbing facilities.


Water Supply Facilities
Tables 13 and 14 show the disposition of study area water sup-
ply facilities for owner-occupied and renter-occupied rural farm
and nonfarm units, as proportion of total owned rural units, for
the year 1970.14 Table 13 shows that, (a) of the owned rural units
having both hot and cold water, approximately 12 percent were
farm units, and 88 were nonfarm units; (b) of all owned rural
units having only cold water, 15 percent were farm units, while
85 percent were nonfarm units; and (c) of all owned units with-
out piped water, 18 percent were farm units, and 82 percent
nonfarm units. From the preceding figures it can be seen that
on an absolute basis the number of rural nonfarm units signifi-
cantly exceeds the number of farm units. This general character-
istic, in terms of relative numbers, indicates, among other things,
widespread instances of inadequate water facilities; as reflected
in the relatively large number of nonfarm households lacking
piped water or having no hot water facilities. The figures in
Table 13 highlight an aspect of the rural community that is gen-
erally overlooked. This aspect is that inadequate rural public
service facilities (in this case, water supply) is acute among the
nonfarm population. Thus, programs designed to furnish such
facilities to farm residents will fall far short of solving the prob-
lem for rural areas.
14 The numbers and percentages given for the different housing "facilities
indicators" for farm and nonfarm residents, in Tables 13, 14, 15, 16,
and 18 are expressed as proportions of the corresponding facilities for
total occupied rural units. Thus, rural farm and rural nonfarm com-
ponents should add to 100 percent.







Table 13 Owner-occupied rural housing units water supply facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970.


Owner-occupied rural units


Owner-occupied rural farm units a


Owner-occupied rural nonfarm units a


District/County


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
SHamilton
0o Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker


Hot and
cold


no. %
19,971 100.0
6,692 100.0
1,782 100.0
2,124 100.0
992 100.0
768 100.0
1,311 100.0
644 100.0
1,557 100.0
1,769 100.0
1,414 100.0
918 100.0
20,641 100.0
3,311 100.0
2.326 100.0
912 100.0
2,790 100.0
6,129 100.0
4,229 100.0
944 100.0


- WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES


Without
Cold only piped


no. %
2,321 100.0
711 100.0
170 100.0
196 100.0
140 100.0
105 100.0
254 100.0
75 100.0
283 100.0
182 100.0
125 100.0
80 100.0
1,523 100.0
158 100.0
109 100.0
51 100.0
191 100.0
671 100.0
292 100.0
51 100.0


no. %
1,178 100.0
378 100.0
93 100.0
161 100.0
37 100.0
19 100.0
82 100.0
19 100.0
186 100.0
117 100.0
53 100.0
33 100.0
590 100.0
78 100.0
24 100.0
4 100.0
98 100.0
209 100.0
92 100.0
85 100.0


Hot and o Without
cold Cold only piped


no. %
4,694 23.5
846 12.6
343 19.2
555 26.1
146 14.7
240 31.2
340 25.9
324 50.3
610 39.2
804 45.4
322 22.8
164 17.9
2,409 11.7
363 11.0
282 12.1
58 6.4
372 13.3
578 9.4
441 10.4
315 33.4


no. % no. %
503 21.7 286 24.3
82 11.5 70 18.5
24 14.1 -
67 34.2 61 37.9
7 5.0 -
45 42.9 5 26.3
55 21.5 28 34.2
13 17.3 -
86 30.4 62 33.2
91 50.0 27 23.1
26 20.8 28 52.8
7 8.7 5 15.1


143 9.4
27 17.1
19 17.4

11 5.8
54 8.0
23 7.9
9 17.6


75 12.7

4 16.7

17 17.4
28 13.4
8 8.7
18 21.2


Hot and
cold Cold only


no. %
15,277 76.5
5,846 87.4
1,439 80.8
1,569 73.9
846 85.3
528 68.8
971 74.1
320 49.7
947 60.8
965 54.5
1,092 77.2
754 82.1
18,232 88.3
2,948 89.0
2,044 87.9
854 93.6
2,418 86.7
5,551 90.6
3,788 89.6
629 66.6


no.
1,818
629
146
129
133
60
199
62
197
91
99
73
1,380
131
90
51
180
617
269
42


%
78.3
88.5
85.9
65.8
95.0
57.1
78.4
82.7
69.6
50.0
79.2
91.2
90.6
82.9
82.6
100.0
94.2
92.0
92.1
82.4


(Continued)


Without
piped


%
75.7
81.5
100.0
62.1
100.0
73.7
65.8
100.0
66.8
76.9
47.2
84.9
87.3
100.0
83.3
100.0
82.6
86.6
91.3
78.8







Table 13 Owner occupied rural housing units water supply facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970.


Owner-occupied rural units


Owner-occupied rural farm units a


Owner-occupied rural nonfarm units a


- --------- WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES ----

Hot and Without Hot and Without Hot and Without
cold Cold only piped cold Cold only piped cold Cold only piped

no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. %
25,364 1000 1,605 1000 738 1000 3.483 13.7 254 158 123 167 21.881 86 3 1,351 84 2 615 83
6,081 1000 167 100.0 58 1000 349 57 15 9.0 11 190 5,732 943 152 91.0 47 81(
3,604 100.0 197 100.0 83 1000 478 133 35 178 36 434 3,126 867 162 82.2 47 56(
2,633 100.0 314 100.0 132 1000 510 194 58 185 17 129 2,123 80 6 256 81 5 115 87
9,776 100.0 710 100 0 333 1000 1,791 183 132 186 54 16 2 7,985 81 7 578 81 4 279 83
3,270 1000 217 100,0 132 100.0 355 10.9 14 64 5 38 2,915 89 1 203 93 6 127 96


District 6: 57,473 100.0
c Brevard 7,693 100.0
Indian River 2,765 100.0
Lake 10,404 100.0
Orange 12,517 100.0
Osceola 3,262 100.0
Seminole 7,002 100.0
Volusia 13,830 100.0


1,659 100.0
44 100.0
99 100.0
419 100.0
381 100.0
86 100.0
320 100 0
310 100.0


335 100.0 4.515 7 9
- 221 2 8
21 100 0 102 3.7
107 100.0 771 7 4
16 100.0 1,475 11 8
20 100 0 281 8 6
101 100 0 754 10 8
70 100.0 911 6 6


188 11 3 42 125 52.958 92 1 1,471 88.7 293 87 5
7.472 97 1 44 100 0
5 5 1 2,663 963 94 950 21 100.0
38 9.0 5 47 9,633 926 381 91 0 102 95.3
64 168 10 625 11,042 882 317 83.2 6 37 5
-6 300 2,981 91.4 86 1000 14 700
55 172 15 14.8 6,248 89.2 265 828 86 85 2
26 84 6 86 12,919 934 284 91 6 64 91.4


Area 123,449 100.0 7,108 100.0 2,841 100.0 15,101 12.2 1,088 15.3 526 18 5 108.348 87 8 6,020 84 7 2,315 81.5

a Numbers and percentages of these residence categories are expressed as proportions of the three water facilities, i.e., "Hot and colo," "Cold
only," and "Without piped,"given for total occupied rural units.


Source: [14].


District/County


District 5.
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter







Table 14 Renter-occupied rural housing units water supply facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970.
Renter-occupied rural units Renter-occupied rural farm units a Renter-occupied rural nonfarm units a

---- ------ -WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES -- -- -----
Hot and Without Hot and Without Hot and Without
District/County cold Cold only piped cold Cold only piped cold Cold only piped

no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. %
District 3: 5,106 100.0 1,317 100.0 981 100.0 555 10.9 152 11.5 138 14.1 4,551 89.1 1,165 88.5 843 85.9
Alachua 1,722 100.0 299 100.0 271 100.0 73 4.2 4 1.3 27 10.0 1,649 95.b 295 98.7 244 90 0
Bradford 330 100.0 58 100.0 67 100.0 18 5.4 312 94.6 58 100.0 67 100.0
Columbia 548 100.0 73 100.0 75 100.0 108 19.7 24 32.9 17 22.7 440 80.3 49 67.1 58 77.3
Dixie 379 100.0 128 100.0 32 100.0 23 6.1 356 93.9 128 100.0 32 100.0
Gilchrist 186 100.0 63 100.0 5 100.0 28 15.0 5 7.9 158 85.0 58 92.1 5 100.0
S Hamilton 411 100.0 200 100.0 95 100.0 53 12.9 4 2.0 18 19.0 358 87.1 196 98.0 77 81.0
S Lafayette 143 100.0 52 100.0 22 100.0 16 11.2 127 88.8 52 100.0 22 100.0
Madison 328 100.0 218 100.0 253 100.0 65 19.8 65 29.8 47 18.6 263 80.2 153 70.2 206 81.4
Suwannee 422 100.0 128 100.0 55 100.0 94 22.3 39 30.5 13 23.6 328 77.7 89 69.5 42 76.4
Taylor 183 100.0 27 100.0 23 100.0 33 18.0 10 43.5 150 82.0 27 100.0 13 56.5
Union 454 100.0 71 100.0 83 100.0 44 9.7 11 15.5 6 7.2 410 90.3 60 84.5 77 92.8
District 4: 4,789 100.0 731 100.0 726 100.0 272 6.0 51 7.0 47 6.5 4,517 94.3 680 93.0 679 93.5
Clay 1,221 100.0 71 100.0 47 100.0 89 7.3 1,132 92.7 71 100.0 47 100.0
Duval 461 100.0 59 100.0 41 100.0 17 3.7 4 6.8 444 96.3 55 93.2 41 100.0
Flagler 372 100.0 78 100.0 71 100.0 16 4.3 10 12.8 356 95.7 68 87.2 71 100.0
Nassau 629 100.0 94 100.0 97 100.0 26 4.1 10 10.6 603 95.9 84 89.4 97 100.0
Putnam 1,046 100.0 238 100.0 204 100.0 52 5.0 21 8.8 29 14.2 994 95.0 217 91.2 175 85.8
St. Johns 854 100.0 168 100.0 164 100.0 49 5.7 6 3.6 5 3.1 805 94.3 162 96.4 159 97.0
Baker 206 100.0 23 100.0 102 100.0 23 11.2 13 12.8 183 88.8 23 100.0 89 87.2


(Continued)







Table 14 Renter-occupied rural housing units water supply facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970.
(Continued)


Renter-occupied rural units


Renter-occupied rural farm units a


Renter-occupied rural nonfarm units a


District/County


District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter
District 6.
co Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia


- ----------- WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES ----
Hot and Without Hot and Without Hot and Without
cold Cold only piped cold Cold only piped cold Cold only piped
no. % no. % no % no % no n % no. % no. % no. % no. %
5,273 1000 812 100.0 473 100.0 473 90 87 10.7 49 104 4,800 91.0 725 89.3 424 89.6
949 100 0 60 100.0 43 100.0 61 6.4 6 14.0 888 93.6 60 100.0 37 86.0
667 1000 128 100.0 19 100.0 48 7 2 8 6.2 10 52.6 619 92.8 120 93.8 9 47.4
759 100 0 264 100.0 73 100 0 75 9.9 45 17.0 9 12.3 684 90.1 219 83.0 64 87.7
2,124 100.0 241 100.0 223 100.0 275 13.0 34 14.1 15 6.7 1,849 87.0 207 85.9 208 93.3
774 100.0 119 100.0 115 100.0 14 1.8 9 7 8 760 98.2 119 100.0 106 92.2


14,412 100.0
2,581 100.0
561 100.0
2,295 100.0
3,753 100.0
928 100 0
1,645 100.0
2,649 100.0


1,494 100.0
18 100.0
151 100.0
321 100.0
527 100.0
18 100.0
194 100.0
266 100.0


524 100.0

50 100.0
151 100.0
54 100.0
13 100.0
177 100.0
79 100.0


106 7.1

14 9.3
34 10.6
46 8.7

7 3.6
5 1.9


13 2 5 13,609 94.4
2,536 98.3
- 550 98.0
- 2,157 94.0
10 18.5 3,385 90.2
923 99.5
3 1.7 1,511 91.8
2,547 96 2


1,388 92.9
18 100.0
137 90.7
287 89 4
481 91.3
18 100.0
187 96 4
260 98.1


511 97.5


100.0
100.0
81.5
100.0
98.3
100.0


Area 29,580 100.0 4,354 100.0 2,704 100.0 2,103 7.1 396 9 1 247 9.1 27,477 92.9 3,958 90.9 2,457 90.9


a Numbers and percentages of these residence categories are expressed as proportions of the three water facilities, i.e., "Hot and cold," "Cold
only," and "Without piped," given for total occupied rural units.

Source: [14].






In Planning District 3, 22 percent of all rural units having
only cold water facilities were farm units. The comparative
figures for Districts 4, 5, and 6, were 9 percent, 16 percent, and
11 percent, respectively. Thus, District 3 had a relatively larger
proportion of owned farm units lacking hot water facilities than
the other three districts for this category of facility. Twenty-four
percent of all owned units having no piped water were farm units
in District 3, compared with 13 percent, 17 percent, and 12 per-
cent, for Districts 4, 5, and 6, respectively. Thus, on the measure
of the existence of piped water facilities, District 3 farm units
appear to have a generally lower level of water facilities than the
other districts of the study area.
Since the total owned rural unit is the summation of farm and
nonfarm units, it follows that in districts where the proportion
of farm units having only cold water and/or having no piped
water is relatively high, that the proportion of nonfarm units in
these categories would be relatively low. Thus, District 3 shows
the smallest proportion of nonfarm units possessing only cold
water facilities or having no piped water of the four districts.
This characteristic notwithstanding, it is important to note that
a large proportion of all owned rural nonfarm and farm units
in the study area lack water supply facilities that the average
citizen might consider adequate.
Water supply facilities for rented housing units are given in
Table 14. For the area as a whole, the figure for rented farm
units as a proportion of all rented rural units in the category
"having hot and cold water" was less than for owned farm units
(Table 13). Specifically, 7 percent of all rural units in this cate-
gory were rented farm units (Table 14), compared with 12 per-
cent among owned farm units. Thus, on the basis of the presence
of both hot and cold water facilities, the proportions tend to
suggest that owned farm households were relatively "better off"
than rented households. This pattern is consistent through all
four of the planning districts included in the study area.
The picture is reversed, however, if we observe the relative
proportion of owned and rented farm units in the categories
"cold water only" facilities and "without piped water" facilities.
For these two categories the proportion of rented farm house-
holds was significantly lower than for owned farm households-
suggesting that on these two measures farm renters might be
better off.15 With regard to nonfarm rural housing, however, a
15 The converse would be true for comparisons between owners and renters
of nonfarm units, since we are dealing with percentages of farm and
nonfarm residents that adds up to 100 for the total rural population.







large proportion of both owners and renters lack hot and/or
piped water facilities. Thus, in spite of any indication as to the
relative disadvantaged status of owned farm or nonfarm house-
holds, versus rented farm or nonfarm households, or vice versa,
the numerical magnitude of the indicators of poor water facilities
among all categories dramatizes the existence of massive low
quality water facilities in rural areas.

Toilet Facilities
Table 15 shows the characteristic of toilet facilities for the
study area in terms of owned and rented farm and nonfarm units.
For owned rural units having flush toilet facilities, only 12 per-
cent were farm units. Among rented farm units rural units ac-
counted for 7 percent of units in the "flush toilet" category. Farm
units lacking flush toilet facilities accounted for 19 percent of all
owned rural units and 10 percent of all rented rural units in
the "without flush" category.
Nonfarm units accounted for 88 percent of all owned rural
housing units in the "flush toilet" category and 81 percent of all
owned units in the "without flush" toilet category. Residents of
rented nonfarm units, on the other hand, accounted for 93 per-
cent of all rented rural units in the "flush toilet" category. Non-
farm units accounted for almost 90 percent of all rented rural
units in the "without flush" toilet category.
In general, the numerically large proportion of owned and
rented nonfarm units lacking flush toilet facilities in the region
dramatizes another public facility problem facing rural residents
in the area. This particular problem is the inadequacy of sanitary
conveniences. Adequate sanitary conveniences are vital for good
health and economic well-being. The problem should not be
thought of as a rural farm problem, but more correctly as a gen-
eralized rural underdevelopment problem. A good proportion of
the problem relates to the relatively disadvantaged position of
the nonfarm population.

Bath and Room Facilities
Table 16 shows selected disposition of bath or shower facilities
of area rural housing units. Table 17 shows average room facili-
ties for area housing, in an attempt to identify "inhousing crowd-
ing" among rural residents. Table 16 shows that farm units ac-
counted for 17 percent of all owned rural units in the "without
bath or shower" category. The proportion of units in this cate-
gory of facility was zero for rented farm units. Nonfarm units









Table 15 Occupied rural housing units toilet facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970.


Occupied rural units

Owner-occupied Renter-occupied


Oistrict/County


Without
flush


Owner-occupied
- TOILET FACILITIES -
Flush Without
flush


Flush Without Flush
flush

no. % no. % no. %
21.280 1000 2.163 1000 5,799 1000
7.155 100 0 614 1000 1.880 1000
1,878 1000 167 1000 359 1000
2,232 100 0 249 100 0 587 100 0
1.065 100 0 104 100 0 474 100 0
814 1000 78 1000 206 1000
1,460 100 0 177 100 0 514 1000
696 1000 42 1000 191 1000
1,703 100 0 323 100 0 454 100 0
1,870 100 0 198 100 0 467 100 0
1,486 1000 106 100 0 199 100 0
921 1000 110 1000 468 1000
21,799 100 0 955 1000 5.180 1000
3,442 100 0 105 1000 1.274 1000
2.407 100 0 52 100 0 494 100 0
944 100 0 23 100 0 414 100 0
2.913 100 0 166 100 0 677 100 0
6.660 100 0 349 100 0 1.162 1000
4,466 100 147 100 0 955 100 0
967 1000 113 1000 204 1000


Renter-occupied


Flush Without
flush


Occupied rural nonfarm units a

Owner-occupied Renter-occupied


Flush Without
flush


Flush Without
flush


31 28 4



18 99


District 3
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
S Gilchrnst
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
District 4
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St Johns
Baker


(Continued)


Occupied rural farm units a


40 51 3
43 24 3


4 77











Table 15 Occupied rural housing units toilet facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970. (Continued)


Occupied rural units


Owner-occupied

Without
Flush flush


Renter-occupied

Without
Flush flush


Occupied rural farm units a

Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
S TOILET FACILITIES -
Without Without
Flush flush Flush flush


coupied rural nonfarm units a

Owner-occupied Renter-occupied

Without Without
Flush flush Flush flush


no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. %


26,445 1000 1,253 1000 5,845 100 0
6,225 100 0 80 1000 1,009 1000
3,729 1000 155 100.0 752 100 0
2,842 100 0 233 100 0 955 100 0
10,226 100.0 588 100.0 2,272 100 0
3,422 1000 197 100 0 857 100.0

58,674 100 0 762 1000 15,289 1000


863 100 0 4.634 7 9 107 14 0


538 92 71 10 4 22.807
61 60 6 140 5.862
56 75 10 227 3,216
103 10 8 26 18 4 2,304
304 13 4 20 6 6 8,372
14 1.6 9 6 0 3,053

875 5 7 36 4 2 54,040
45 1 7- 7,516
25 36 2,750
159 63 13 6 0 9,905
399 10 0 14 130 11,315
5 0 5 3,031
135 79 9 29 6,409
107 38 13,114


Area 128,198 1000 5,138 1000 32,113 1000 4,145 1000 15,744 123 962 187 2,313 72 422 102 112.454 877 4,176 813 29.800 928 3.723 898





a Number and percentages of these residence categories are expressed as proportions of the two toilet facilities, i.e., "Flush"and "Without flush,"
given for total occupied rural units.

Source: [14].


District/County


District 5
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

District 6.
, Brevard
Cn
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia


655 860 14,414
2,550
28 84 8 665
211 90 6 2,362
34 77 3 3.587
50 89 3 941
190 81 9 1,568
142 86 6 2,741









Table 16 Occupied rural housing units bath facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970.


District/County



District 3'
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
O Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St Johns
Baker


Occupied r
Owner-occupied

Without
Bath or bath or
shower shower


rural units Occupied rura
Renter-occupied Owner-occupied
----- BATH I


Without
Bath or bath or
shower shower


Without
Bath or bath or
shower shower


il farm units a


Occupied rural nonfarm units a


Renter-occupied Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
FACILITIES -- -- ---
Without Without Without
Bath or bath or Bath or bath or Bath or bath or
shower shower shower shower shower shower


no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % on. % no. % n.. % no. % no. % no. % no. %


21,083
7.076
1,856
2,229
1,077
798
1,411
689
1,687
1,853
1,487
920

21,681
3,409
2,408
933
2,919
6,593
4,447
972


10.9 234 13 4 16,144
40 31 6.8 6,203
5 1 1,503
19.6 36 30 2 1,627
5 2 924
16 5 543
124 18 77 1.052
8 4 358
19.0 93 260 1,039
24 1 40 26.0 993
16.6 10 29 4 1,139
11 3 6 4.9 763

5 6 81 76 19,167
7 0 3,024
42 2,111
4.8 6 6.1 875
46 5 35 2,536
50 45 13.8 5,977
58 5 22 3,992
7 8 20 15.8 652


(Continued)











Table 16 Occupied rural housing units bath facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970. (Continued)


Occupied rural farm units
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
- -- -- -- -
Without Wit
Bath or bath or Bath or bat
shower shower shower sho


hout
h or Batl
wer sho


Occupied rural units
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
BATH FACILITIES -
Without Without
h or bath or Bath or bath or
wer shower shower shower


Occupies rural nontarm units
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied

Without Without
Bath or bath or Bath or bath or
shower shower shower shower


no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. %


9 2 87 10 2 22,627
62 6 8 1 5,801
7 6 10 161 3,215
11 3 26 14 2 2,249
130 36 102 8,316
1 7 9 49 2,046

58 51 4.3 53,872
1 7 7,506
3 8 2,735
62 18 67 9,876
10 2 30 11 2 11.246
0 5 3,021
8 4 3 09 6,401
3 8 13,087


District/County


District 5
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

ec District 6
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia


26,258
6,158
3.723
2,785
10,182
3,410

58,515
7.727
2,837
10,667
12,785
3,302
7,184
14,013


1000 1,187 1000
100 0
1000 101 1000
100 0 270 1000
100 0 268 100 0
100 0 17 100 0
1000 323 100.0
100 0 208 100 0


98 10 6 871
45
5 10 4 25
23 88 154
10 87 394
6 91 5
37 15 7 141
17 9 1 107


14,140
2,554
636
2.319
3,470
937
1,546
2,678


Source: [14].


94 2 1.136 95 7
98 3 -
96 2 101 100 0
93 8 252 93 3
89 8 238 88 8
99 5 17 100 0
91 6 320 99 1
96 2 208 100 0


Area 127.527 1000 5,796 1000 31,463 1000 4,856 1000 15,727 123 979 169 2.293 7 3 453 93 111,810 877 4.517 83 1 29.170 927 4.403 907





a Numbers and percentages of these residence categories are expressed as proportions of the two bath facilities, i.e., "Bath or shower" and "With-
out bath or shower," given for total occupied rural units.









Table 17.-Average number
area. 1970.


of rooms in occupied rural housing units, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study


Occupied rural units Occupied rural farm units Occupied rural nonfarm units
................. Rooms per house .................
Owner- Renter- Owner- Renter- Owner- Renter-
District/County occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied


....................number ...................
4.6 5.5 5.3 5.0


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
o Hamilton
00 Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker


(Continued)









Table 17.-Average number of rooms in occupied rural housing units, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study
0*00, i O-i


District/County


aria, upi
Occupied


Owner-
occupied


District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
o Sumter


rural units Occupied rural farm units Occupied rural nonfarm units
. .......... Rooms per house ..................
Renter- Owner- Renter- Owner- Renter-
occupied occupied occupied occupied occupied
......... ..... .. num ber....................
4.3 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.2


District 6: 5.2 4.3 5.5
Brevard 5.5 4.3 5.1
Indian River 5.0 4.2 5.4
Lake 5.0 4.2 5.8
Orange 5.3 4.2 5.3
Osceloa 4.7 4.3 5.7
Seminole 5.7 4.6 5.5
Volusia 5.1 4.4 5.4


4.6 5.5 4.3
3.9 5.0 4.2
5.1 4.9 4.2
4.4 5.3 4.1
5.0 4.6 4.3
4.5 5.7 4.6
5.0 5.1 4.3


Area 5.1 4.4 5.b 4.U

* Weighted average.
Source: [14].








accounted for 83 percent of all owned rural units, and almost 91
percent of total rented rural units, in this facility category. A
large number of owned and rented nonfarm units lack bath or
shower facilities, suggesting some qualitative housing problems
also exist for a large number of farm households.
Another dimension of area housing adequacy is provided by
the average number of rooms by resident housing category (Table
17). Increasing attention is being devoted in housing studies to
room facilities. One current school of thought argues that:
long-range consequences of continuous assault on per-
sonal bubbles of space is likely to be disintegration of family
life, functional failure of social customs and rituals that
temper aggression, and behavorial sinks potentially more
lethal than a hydrogen bomb [11, p. 85].
Whether the long-run social consequences of space limitations
are likely to be as dramatic as suggested above is an open ques-
tion. It is becoming increasingly obvious, however, that inhouse
space limitations can have severe impact on the socio-psychologi-
cal and economic well-being of occupants [11]. The full and long
term impact of this variable will have to be ascertained by more
indepth research.
For the region as a whole, owned rural farm housing units
possessed, on the average, 5.5 rooms compared with somewhat
less than 5 rooms for occupants of rented farm units. A similar
pattern exists for owned and rented nonfarm units. However, on
the average, the occupants of owned nonfarm units possess some-
what less rooming space than their farm counterparts. Room fa-
cilities tended to be just about equal for the rural nonfarm renter
and the rural farm renter. In light of the high correlation of low
income with substandard housing and family size, it appears
likely that a significant proportion of the rural residents of the
study area are experiencing acute levels of inhouse congestion.
Such congestion levels would tend to affect negatively personal
well-being, as indicated by some recent research results [11].
In general, however, rural inhouse space limitations (over-
crowding), and its associated problems tend to be overlooked. In
many instances this can be largely attributed to the strong ten-
dency to overlook the not-so-obvious relationship between room
facilities, average family size, and housing quality. For example,
if the census definition of "overcrowded housing" (1.51 or more
persons per room) is applied to the data given in Table 17, it
might appear that inhouse space limitation is not a problem for
area rural residents. However, in reality, this is not likely to be







the case. The relatively high proportion of substandard and in-
adequate rural housing units in the area would suggest, among
other things, a shortage of "functional" inhouse space.16 Inhouse
space shortage would tend to be aggravated in the area by the
interaction effects of (a) the relatively large proportion of below
poverty income rural families and (b) the tendency of low in-
come rural families to have larger number of persons per house-
hold compared with urban families.

Plumbing Facilities
Table 18 shows selected characteristics of plumbing facilities
in the study area for rural households. For the category "lacking
one or more facility," owned farm units represented 17 percent
of all owned rural units. Rented farm units represented 9 percent
of all rented rural units falling into this category of plumbing
facility. Owned nonfarm housing units accounted for 83 percent
of all owned rural units falling into this plumbing category. On
the other hand, rented nonfarm units represented a proportional
share of 91 percent of all rented rural units lacking one or more
plumbing facility. The number of owned farm units lacking com-
plete plumbing facilities is large (almost 1,100). The numbers
were significantly higher for owned nonfarm units (almost
5,200). The figures were equally high for rented nonfarm units,
where almost 4,900 housing units lacked complete plumbing
facilities.
Some individual county and district variability is evident with
respect to the incidence of a lack of adequate plumbing facilities.
However, in general, the pattern is one in which there is evidence
of massive inadequacies in plumbing facilities among counties
and districts in the study area.

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Analysis of some of the major characteristics of rural housing
in the study area shows a high incidence of substandard and in-
adequate housing facilities for rural residents. The findings are
probably relevant for other predominantly rural areas of the state.
The study area is typically rural, with 21 of the 30 counties hav-
ing 50 percent or more of their population classified as rural
residents.
16 Functional inhouse space would include space that is directly and readily
available for meeting household needs of residents. In substandard and
inadequate housing a good proportion of existing inhouse space is un-
available for the use of residents.











Table 18 Occupied rural housing units plumbing facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970.


Occupied rural units
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied


All
plumbing
facilities
no %
19 721 100 0
6.621 100 0
1.776 1000
2.116 100 0
975 100 0
733 100 0
1,284 100.0
635 100 0
1,538 100 0
1.760 100 0
1,414 100 0
869 100 0


Lack one a
or more
facility
no. %
2.499 1000
724 100 0
189 100 0
264 100 0
109 100 0
108 100 0
241 100 0
58 100.0
351 100 0
219 1000
111 1000
125 100.0


All
plumbing
facilities
no. %
4.997
1,705 100 0
319 100 0
540 100 0
373 100.0
175 1000
390 100 0
143 1000
328 100 0
400 100 0
183 100.0
441 100 0


Lack one
or more
facility
no. %
1.830 100 0
477 100 0
108 100 0
119 1000
98 100 0
54 100.0
245 100 0
26 100 0
358 1000
171 100.0
34 100 0
140 1000


Occupied rural farm units b
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
PLUMBING FACILITIES -


All
plumbing
facilities
no. %
4,632 23 5
822 124
343 19 3
555 26 2
146 150
235 32 1
336 26 2
324 51 0
599 39 0
800 45.4
322 22 8
150 173


Lack one
or more
facility
no. %
588 23 5
139 19 2
14 74
85 32 2


All
plumbing
facilities
no %
541 10 8
73 43
18 56
100 18 5
23 62
28 16 0
53 13.6
16 11 2
65 19 8
88 22.0
33 180
44 10.0


Lack one
or more
facility
no. %
251 13 7
31 65


36 302



18 74


Occupies rural nonfarm units b
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
- - - - -


All
plumbing
facilities
no. 0
15,089 76 5
5799 87 6
1.433 80 7
1,561 73 8
829 85 0
498 67 9
948 73 8
311 49 0
939 61 0
960 54 6
1,092 77 2
719 82 7


Lack one
or more
facility
no %
1 911 76 5
585 80 8
175 926
179 67 8
109 100 0
63 58 3
177 73 4
52 89 7
229 65 2
53 699
83 74 8
106 84 8


81 7 1 18,140
2930
2,038
6 5.3 851
5 3.5 2,398
45 12 4 5,506
5 2 1 3,788
20 15 8 629


District/County


District 3
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrst
Hamilton
L Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union


Lack one
or more
facility
no. "
1.579 86 3
446 93 5
108 100 0
83 69 8
*1 100 0
54 100 0
227 92 6
26 1000
265 74 0
125 73 1
24 70 6
123 87 9


(Continued)


All
plumbing
facilities
no. %
4.456 89 2
1 632 95 7
301 94 4
440 81 5
350 93 8
147 84 0
337 86 4
127 88 8
263 80 2
312 78 0
150 82 0
397 90 0

4.475 94 4
1,127 92 7
439 96 3
350 95 6
595 95 8
982 95 0
805 94 3
177 91,7


District 4
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St Johns
Baker


20.539
3,293
2,320
909
2,770
6.084
4,224
939










Table 18 Occupied rural housing units plumbing facilities, planning districts and counties, in multi-county study area, 1970. (Continued)


Occupied rural units
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied


All
plumbing
facilities
no. %
25.172 100 0
6,049 100 0
3,585 100 0
2,593 100 0
9,703 100 0
3,242 100 0


57,300
7,693
2,765
10.352
12,479
3.247
6,985
13,779


Lack one a
or more
facility


All
plumbing
facilities


14,062
2,581
556
2,245
3,533
928
1,600
2,619


Lack one
or more
facility


Occupied rural farm units b
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
PLUMBING FACILITIES -
All Lack one All Lack one


plumbing
facilities
n10. %
457 13.7
349 58
473 13 2
506 195
774 18 3
355 11 0


or more
facility
no. %
254 16 3
18 11 3
41 22 4
53 170
132 19 3
10 46


plumbing
facilities
no. %
473 9 1
61 64
48 74
75 9.9
275 13 1
14 1 9


117 11 1 774
45
5 10 4 11
28 96 131
10 7 1 352
6 77 5
46 17 7 128
22 99 102


or more
facility
no. %
87 96
6 81
10 12 5
26 13 3
36 97
9 48


Occupies rural nonfarm units b
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied

All Lack one All Lack one
plumbing or more plumbing or more
facilities facility facilities facility
no. % no. % no. % no. %
21.715 863 1,302 837 4,733 909 821 904
5,700 94 2 141 88 7 888 93 6 68 91 9
3,112 86 8 142 77.6 601 92 6 70 875
2,087 80 5 259 83 0 684 90 1 170 86 7
7,929 81 7 551 807 1,821 869 335 903
2,887 89 0 209 95 4 739 98 1 178 95 2


57 39 52,785
7,472
2663
18 60 9,581
30 62 11,004
2,966
9 26 6,231
12.868


13.288
2,536
545
2,114
3,181
923
1,472
2,517


122.732 1000 6.253 1000 29,005 1000 5,349 100.0 15,003 122 1,082 173 2,053 71 476 89


107.729 878 5,171 827 26.952 929 4.873 911


a Essentially those facilities that are determined to be incomplete.

b Numbers and percentages of these residence categories are expressed as proportions of the two plumbing facilities, i.e., "All plumbing facilities"
and "Lack one or more facility," given for total occupied rural units.

Source: [14].


District 5.
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter

S District 6.
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Volusia


I






In 1970, the study area in general had a significantly higher
incidence of substandard housing than the state as a whole. Many
of the area's counties have experienced impressive rates of growth
in per capital and family income over the 1960-1970 period. How-
ever, it is obvious that, while income growth might be a necessary
condition for positive changes in housing quality, it is by no
means a sufficient condition. To begin with, many of the counties
started from a relatively low level of per capital and family income
in 1960. Obviously, a relatively large proportion of positive in-
come changes was absorbed by population growth, plus the need
to satisfy delayed consumption. The implication of this phenome-
non is that is was neither economically feasible nor possible for
area residents to undertake significant investment in housing
over the decade. This conclusion tends to be substantiated by the
observed high level of positive correlation between below-poverty
income families and occupants of substandard housing.
Further insights into the housing charactertics of area rural
residents were gained by an analysis of five indicators of housing
inadequacy. The concept of housing adequacy seeks to measure
the gap between current housing and specific household needs.
As such, it goes beyond assessment of the soundess of physical
structures. It seeks to include certain variables that would reflect
some measure of the "quality of life." The five indicators exam-
ined were: rural water supply facilities, toilet facilities, bath
facilities, average number of rooms, and plumbing facilities. For
each of the indicators examined, the available data indicate a sub-
stantial lack of adequate housing facilities for rural residents. The
gap between needed and available housing facilities appears to
be large for rural nonfarm residents, compared to farm residents,
suggesting that a relatively lower quality of life is the general
case rather than the exception for these residents. Despite evi-
dence of a somewhat high quality level for owners of rural farm
housing units, the information at hand suggests that a consider-
able number of owned farm units lack the essential housing
amenities associated with acceptable levels of living.
Existence of a relatively high incidence of substandard and
inadequate rural housing units in the study area raises certain
key questions that are likely to have major implications for both
short term and long term State housing policy and programs.
The first question has to do with the extent to which projected
housing needs of area residents are likely to be met by the inter-
play of normal market forces. The study suggests that, in the
absence of concerted public assistance, area residents are likely







to experience shortages in both the quantity and quality of rural
housing in the years ahead.
State projections of changes in the study area stock of housing
between 1970 and 1985 is in the order of 56 percent. This pro-
jected increase is likely to fall far short of meeting the housing
needs of area residents on the basis of certain shortcomings of
the projection. Area housing projections as prepared by State
housing agencies are primarily based on projected increases in
population up to 1985. The implicit assumption in such projections
is that population and housing stock changes must be roughly
equal to avoid disequilibrium in demand and supply of housing
stocks. A major shortcoming of such an assumption is that it
discounts the dynamic interaction effects of income shifts on the
demand for housing stock. A high proportion of the study area
counties experienced phenomenal rates of growth in per capital
income over the 1960-1970 period. Assuming that a similar rate
of growth is maintained over the 1970-1985 period, the net effect
is that the derived demand for housing, via income changes, could
generate a demand for housing stocks in excess of population
changes. Changes in income increase the demand for housing
indirectly through an increase in the demand for single unit
housing (as against multiple occupant housing units), as well as
through improved quality housing. Thus, to the extent that some
rural residents' demand for housing is likely to increase as a
result of shifts in the income elasticity of demand for housing,
state projected housing changes up to the year 1985 are likely to
be inadequate to meet changes in demand. Further research is
needed on this aspect of housing demand as a basis for effective
long term programming to meet the state housing needs in the
decades ahead.
The second question has to do with the extent to which low
income households with substandard and/or inadequate housing
are likely to improve their housing conditions. Again the observed
positive correlation of below-poverty level households with sub-
standard housing occupants offers some insights into this area.
The competition for personal or family income between con-
sumption and investment is acute at low levels of income. Tech-
nically speaking, at poverty income levels the marginal propen-
sity to consume is high (and thus propensity to invest is low).
At such low levels of income the bulk of incremental changes in
income is likely to go into delayed satisfaction of consumption
needs, rather than into long term capital investments, such as
housing [7]. The relatively large number of below-poverty-level
rural households in the study area suggests that concerted public






assistance housing programs might be an essential requirement for
improving the quality of rural housing in the decades ahead. The
study indicated some need for increased public assistance in meet-
ing housing needs. The ratio of poverty level families per sub-
sidized housing unit was high in areas with a high incidence of
poverty and low quality housing. It appears unrealistic from our
analysis to expect major investment in the quality of low income
housing via improvement in area economic activities. In addition
to rapidly rising housing costs (resulting from inflationary pres-
sures), the high consumption propensity of low income house-
holds precludes significant investment in housing. Some optimum
combination of public and private financing will be necessary to
bring about major improvements in low income rural housing
in the area.
It is not within the scope of this report to explore the socio-
economic characteristics of the housing industry in the state or
to suggest specific policies for meeting the housing needs of rural
residents. The question of viable policy alternatives demands a
more comprehensive analysis of the housing situation than the
one undertaken in this study. However, it is evident that special
attention will have to be given to the housing needs of rural
residents within a rapidly urbanizing state. Analysis will have
to be made of the extent to which the housing needs of rural
households can be met through the private residential construc-
tion segment of the state's housing industry. Assessment will also
have to be made as to the potential benefits and costs of utilizing
conventional construction (on site) methods versus non-conven-
tional methods, as well as through mobile home construction.
Concerted action will be required at the state and local levels
to foster and encourage the construction industry to be cognizant
of and responsive to the housing tastes and needs of area rural
residents.7 Rapid urbanization of the state has resulted in the
construction industry's broadening its production scope to include
housing types which tend to reflect the tastes of a more urban
population. As a result of such, there has been, as a proportion
of total yearly construction, a remarkable increase in the state
in apartment complexes of five units or more [6]. The reversal
of such a trend is extremely unlikely. What appears practical,
however, is concerted action on the part of federal, state, and
local governmental agencies to offer economic incentives to pri-
vate construction enterprises to invest in subsidized low cost

17 Revenue sharing programs will put a substantial share of the responsi-
bility on local agencies and communities.







housing that conforms to the needs and tastes of rural residents.
Additional support for this type of activity could come in the
form of selective channeling of resources into agencies interested
in and/or engaged in research and development of technically
sound as well as economically and socially desirable low cost
housing for area rural residents. An integral part of such policies
and programs would be the development and enforcement of
stricter housing codes and standards so as to avoid massive in-
flux of new substandard and inadequate housing facilities in
rural areas.










GLOSSARY OF TERMS


DETERIORATING HOUSING: Housing structures defined in the 1960 Census as
being in need of more repair than would be effected through
routine maintenance.
DILAPIDATED HOUSING: Housing structures defined in the 1960 Census as
being a danger to the health, safety, and well-being of occupants.
INADEQUATE HOUSING: A concept that is used to measure the ability of
housing to meet specific household needs of occupants. Intended to
measure the gap between existing housing facilities and some
minimum standard deemed as necessary to meet the household
needs.

MEAN INCOME DEFICIT: Measure the mean (average) short- fall from some
minimum decent income (poverty threshold income).
METROPOLITAN POPULATION: All residents living in Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's).
OVERCROWDED HOUSING: Used in the report as housing units with 1.51 or
more persons per room.
POVERTY INCOME THRESHOLD: In 1969 the poverty income threshold ranged
from $1,487 for a female unrelated individual 65 years old and over
living on a farm to $6,116 for a nonfarm family with a male head
and with seven or more persons. The average poverty income thres-
hold for a nonfarm family of four headed by a male was $3,745.

RURAL FARM POPULATION: All rural residents living on farms. A farm is
defined as a place of 10 or more acres from which sales of farm
products amounted to $50 or more in the preceding calendar year
or a place of less than 10 acres from which sales of farm products
amounted to $250 or more in the preceding year.

RURAL NONFARM POPULATION: All rural residents not living on farms.
Thus, the rural nonfarm population includes all persons in rural
territory who do not meet the definition for the rural farm popula-
tion. Persons living in group quarters on institutional or in sum-
mer camps or motels are included in this category.
RURAL POPULATION: All residents not living in areas classified as urban.
SOUND HOUSING: Housing presumably free of defects or having only defects
that can be corrected through routine maintenance.
STATE PLANNING DISTRICTS: Geographical clusters of multi-county areas
designated under the Florida State Comprehensive Planning Act
of 1972.
STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (SMSA's): Except in the
New England states, a county or group of contiguous counties
which contains at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or
"twin cities" with combined population of at least 50,000. Such
areas also include contiguous counties if according to certain cri-
teria, they are socially and economically integrated with the central
city.







SUBSTANDARD HOUSING: (a) Defined in 1960 Census as including, deteri-
orating and dilapidated dwellings lacking complete plumbing
facilities. (b) Defined in 1970 Census as dwellings lacking complete
plumbing facilities.
URBAN POPULATION: All residents of urbanized areas and in places of 2,500
inhabitants or more outside urbanized areas. It includes (a) places
of 2,500 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, villages, bor-
oughs (except Alaska), and towns (except in the New England
States, New York, and Wisconsin), but excluding those persons
living in the rural portions of extended cities; (b) unincorporated
places of 2,500 inhabitants or more; and (c) other territory, in-
corporated, or unincorporated, included in urbanized areas.







REFERENCES

[1]. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida.
Florida Statistical Abstract 1972. Gainesville: University of Florida
Press, June 1972.
[2]. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida.
Florida Statistical Abstract 1973. Gainesville: University of
Florida Press, August 1973.
[3]. Florida Division of State Planning. Recommendations for Regional
Planning District Boundaries in the State of Florida. Tallahassee:
December 1972 (Revised, January 19, 1973).
[4]. Florida Division of Technical Assistance, Department of Community
Affairs. Unpublished Material. Tallahassee: 1973.
[5]. Florida, Office of the Governor. The First Annual Report of State
Housing Goals: A Message from Reuben O'Donovan Askew, Gov-
ernor. Tallahassee: 1973.
[6]. Florida, Office of the Governor. The Governor's Task Force on Hous-
ing and Community Development, and the State of Florida De-
partment of Community Affairs. Housing in Florida. Vols. 1-5.
Tallahassee: 1973.
[7]. Friedman, Milton. A Theory of the Consumption Function. New York:
National Bureau of Economic Research, 1957.
[8]. Hansen, Niles M. Rural Poverty and the Urban Crisis: A Strategy
for Regional Development. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1970.
[9]. Keig, Norman. "The Pattern of Poverty in Florida," Business and
Economic Dimensions. Gainesville: Bureau of Economic and Busi-
ness Research, University of Florida, November-December 1973,
pp. 9-21.
[10] King, Boyd F. "A Decade of Progress in Southeastern Housing."
Monthly Review. Atlanta: Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Sep-
tember 1971, pp. 171-175.
[11] Nygren, Maie. "Rural Housing in the United States: Essential Steps
Required to Upgrade It." The Quality of Rural Living: Proceedings
of a Workshop. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 1971,
pp. 83-94.
[12]. Rural Housing Alliance and Housing Assistance Council Inc. Second
National Rural Housing Conference. Washington, D. C.: November
28-30, 1972.
[13]. U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population. Washington:
1960.
[14]. U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population. Washington:
1970. (Population Census Tapes, University of Florida Computer
Center).
[15]. U. S. Economic Research Service. Rural Development Chartbook.
Washington: February 1972.
[16]. U. S. National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. The People
Left Behind. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Sep-
tember 1967.
[17]. U. S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs.
Promises to Keep: Housing Needs and Federal Failure in Rural
America. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Revised
April 1972.

































RICG Ri

Serning Mnkhmd
1875 1975




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs