Contents:
Mixed Method Research Design
Based on literature review, anecdotal conversations, and preliminary consultation with subject matter experts, I designed my mixed-method research inquiry around the following baseline of assumptions and expectations:
There is a significant population of single-family homeowners in Bellingham who want to build an accessory dwelling unit on their property, but lack access to capital resources and/or technical knowledge to do their desired project.
The Bellingham housing market is starved for entry-level homeownership products that are priced to be affordable for the local labor economy.
Primary Research Questions
| How many housing units are needed to serve the unmet demand of middle-income populations in Bellingham? | Where are there unrealized opportunities for partnership and coordination between existing housing programs, non-profits, homeowners, and property developers? | What are short-term, middle-term, and long-term policy and zoning changes that local governments can make to support small-scale incremental development? |
With the above assumptions and research questions in mind, I designed a mixed method approach, modeled after methodology from the housing section of a Comprehensive Plan, as required under the Washington State Growth Management Act (Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, 2016). I also employed a multimodal research strategy that is often used in the study of housing affordability that I will refer to in this paper as the “conceptual model”. Ancell and Thompson offer a particularly straightforward example of the conceptual model strategy in their paper, “The Social Sustainability of Medium Density Housing: A Conceptual Model and Christchurch Case Study (Ancell & Thompson-Fawcett, 2008). This strategy starts with analysis of existing policy and data, or an in-depth literature review on a narrowly defined subject. The literature review/policy analysis is used to create a model against which existing conditions can be analyzed. I have also used the field study report of Taylor Webb, “Living in Pele’s Workshop: Using Community-informed Planning to Address Housing Needs in Puna, Hawai’i” as a template for designing much of my field study, as it employed a similar conceptual framework and used a similar application of mixed-methods research. Specifically, I used the questions from Webb’s community survey to build a version customized to the study area of Bellingham, Washington (Webb, 2014).
To form my own conceptual model for my case study of Bellingham, I used geographic information systems (GIS) to analyze existing demographic, land use, and property value data; and conducted a policy analysis of local, state and federal policies related to housing affordability relevant to the case study area. Once a baseline understanding of existing conditions was established, key informant interviews were conducted to identify practical mechanisms of change that will allow for desired outcomes. In this case, the desired outcome is a rapid production of high-quality housing and entry level home-ownership opportunities that are affordable to local middle-income populations.
Quantitative: Housing Needs Assessment
How many housing units are needed to serve the unmet demand of middle-income populations in Bellingham?
To conduct my data analysis and baseline evaluation, I used published GIS data from the City of Bellingham GIS data portal on housing inventory and unit typology, household demographics from the American Community Survey, and employment and wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most up-to-date reports by city staff on overall housing needs can be commonly accessed through City Council Meeting Agendas, and city staff have shared early drafts of current reports with me directly. The City of Bellingham has also published two ESRI storymaps, Bellingham Housing Statistics and The primary guiding methodology for data analysis is from HB 1220 – Planning Housing For All Tool (., 2023). Based on these reference points, I have conducted a data analysis that compares housing inventory to household income and occupational employment and wages.
Data Sources for Quantitative Housing Needs Assessment:
- COB GIS PORTAL
- Land Use & Tax Parcel Data
- Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Labor force & wage data
- Census, American Community Survey
- Census Quickfacts
- Household Income
- Zillow Analytics
- Home Values
- Rental Market
- Reports Published by COB Staff
- 20-year Housing Goals with HB 1220 Methodology
- Housing Inventory and Property Ownership
- 2022 Rental Market Study
- City Council Meeting Agenda Packets
- Housing Needs Assessment with new HAPT methodology
Quantitative: Online Survey
What kind of housing do you currently live in?
What kind of housing would you prefer to live in?
What kind of housing do you want to see developed in your neighborhood?
In the methodology employed by Webb in the study of Puna, Hawaii, an online community survey was conducted in tandem with stakeholder interviews (Webb, 2014). The survey results were analyzed in tandem with input from Webb’s stakeholder interviews to create a broader baseline of community input. The in-depth qualitative content of one-one interviews was supplemented with the broad quantitative results of the online survey. As the overall focus and subject of Webb’s research in Puna was closely aligned with my own research goals, I was able to adapt the survey questions from Webb’s research for use in my own study of Bellingham, Washington. To conduct the survey, I used the Qualtrics web-based service, and published the link over my own social media accounts, on the Bellingham sub-Reddit, emailed it to partner organizations and neighborhood associations, and on printed fliers posted in targeted neighborhood locations. The online survey in this field study is meant to supplement the stakeholder interviews that I conducted with homeowners, and to engage with renter populations whom the logistics of time and scope did not allow me to include in my stakeholder interviews.
The questions for this survey asked participants to identify the neighborhood of Bellingham or region of Whatcom County that they live in, baseline demographic questions around age, race, and income, and asked participants specific questions related to their housing experiences. Questions about participants current housing were divided between one set of questions for homeowners and one set of questions for renters, and then asked one set of questions about housing preferences and what kind of development participants want to see in their neighborhoods. Results of the survey can be broken down broadly between homeowners and renters, to provide insights on the different experiences between these two groups. As the purpose of this field study is to design entry-level homeownership opportunities, and everyone who is a potential first-time home buyer would by default currently be a renter, it seems critical to include renter populations in this study in a meaningful way.
Qualitative: Stakeholder Interviews
Where are there unrealized opportunities for partnership and coordination between existing housing programs, non-profits, homeowners, and property developers?
Crabrtree and Miller describe stakeholder interview participants as a practice of ethnography, where the researcher forms an ongoing relationship with informants over time and becomes an intermediary between objective and subjective forms of information. Stakeholder interviews are not intended to be representative of a population but are instead a selection of individuals who have expertise in the area being studied. This method is described as a particular tool for research in the field of public health, but it has also been used widely in the field of urban planning, especially in the context of housing affordability (Crabtree & Miller, 1999; Palmer, 2019; Villalobos, 2019). It is a common practice to combine informational interviews with other methods, such as quantitative data analysis and policy review, among others (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). Crabree & Miller describe interview participants as teachers, consultants, and collaborators rather than subjects of study.
Over February, March, and April of 2023, I conducted a series of formal interviews with key stakeholders relevant to affordable housing development in Bellingham. I identified four primary categories of interview participants and developed a tailored set of interview questions for each group. I also developed two documents: a draft of proposed policy revisions, based on recent recommendations from the Whatcom Business Advisory Council and Kulshan Community Land Trust, and an infographic brochure of my preliminary data analysis and project description. Recordings from stakeholder interviews were transcribed and analyzed for primary emerging themes. Input from interviews were used to inform the final report and policy recommendations.
Qualitative: Policy Review
What are short-term, middle-term, and long-term policy and zoning changes that local governments can make to support small-scale incremental development?
Guided by input from subject matter experts and stakeholder interviews, I conducted a review of local policies and affordable housing funding sources. This policy review looks at: existing programming for low-income housing, permit application processes, Bellingham Municipal Code, the Whatcom County Infrastructure Development Program for Workforce Housing and recently passed Washington State Middle Housing Legislation. In order to create a baseline for local recommended policy revisions to support affordable housing production, I combined two sets of policy recommendations published in 2022 by Kulshan Community Land Trust and the Business Advisory Council’s Working Group on Housing Affordability, operated by the Port of Bellingham, which operates under Whatcom County jurisdiction. In combining these policy recommendations I also incorporated best practices for racial equity in planning from the APA Planning For Racial Equity Guide (Planning for Equity Policy Guide, 2019)
