4.3 Article

Adequacy of food spending is related to housing expenditures among lower-income Canadian households

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages 1464-1473

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S136898000700081X

Keywords

food security; housing; expenditures; poverty; Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: A number of studies have pointed to the pressure that housing costs can exert on the resources available for food. The objectives of the present study were to characterise the relationship between the proportion of income absorbed by housing and the adequacy of household food expenditures across the Canadian population and within income quintiles; and to elucidate the impact of receipt of a housing subsidy on adequacy of food expenditures among low-income tenant households. Design: The 2001 Survey of Household Spending, conducted by Statistics Canada, was a national cross-sectional survey that collected detailed information on expenditures on goods and services. The adequacy of food spending was assessed in relation to the cost of a basic nutritious diet. Setting: Canada. Subjects: The person with primary responsibility for financial maintenance from 15 535 households from all provinces and territories. Results: As the proportion of income allocated to housing increased, food spending adequacy declined significantly among households in the three lowest income quintiles. After accounting for household income and composition, receipt of a housing subsidy was associated with an improvement in adequacy of food spending among low-income tenant households, but still mean food spending fell below the cost of a basic nutritious diet even among subsidised households. Conclusions: This study indicates that housing costs compromise the food access of some low-income households and speaks to the need to re-examine policies related to housing affordability and income adequacy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available