https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5903-290X
Figures
Abstract
Background
Access to safe and affordable housing is a human right; however, people with disabilities are more likely to live in inaccessible, insecure, unaffordable and poor-quality housing than people without disabilities. They often experience many forms of disability-related discrimination (ableism) in finding and maintaining adequate housing. The objective of our study was to synthesize the literature on housing ableism among people with disabilities seeking or maintaining independent housing.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review that involved searching six international databases that identified 10,082 studies, 52 of which met our inclusion criteria involving empirical research, without language or date restrictions, that had a sample focusing on people with disabilities, that had findings related to independent housing and ableism. We followed the best practices of scoping review methodology and applied an inductive data analysis approach.
Results
The studies included in the review involved 13 countries over a 47-year period. Our review identified the following findings: (1) ableism in finding and maintaining appropriate housing through renting and ownership (i.e., lack of suitable housing, barriers to accessing or viewing properties, affordability); (2) factors affecting housing ableism (i.e., lack of knowledge about the needs of people with disabilities, and intersectional factors (i.e., socio-economic status, type of disability, housing type, systemic and policy barriers); and (3) the impact of housing ableism (i.e., challenges with neighborhood environment).
Conclusions
Our findings highlight the extent to which people with disabilities encounter multiple forms of discrimination in trying to find suitable housing. Our review emphasizes the urgent need to reduce the ableism that people with disabilities by addressing structural barriers and prioritizing housing accessibility. Policy reforms, increased attention and investment towards accessible housing are needed for a more inclusive housing sector.
Citation: Lindsay S, Öncil G, Leo S (2026) Housing ableism in finding and maintaining housing among people with disabilities: A scoping review. PLoS One 21(6): e0351309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0351309
Editor: Dong Liu, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, CHINA
Received: October 15, 2025; Accepted: May 25, 2026; Published: June 10, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Lindsay et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the review paper and its supporting information files.
Funding: This work was funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (grant 425-2024-0269). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The global housing affordability crisis limits people’s ability to suitable housing due to high costs, housing shortages, and limited accessible options [1–3]. The United Nations Flagship Report on Disability and Sustainable Development Goals identifies housing for people with disabilities as a major challenge over the next decade [4]. People with disabilities represent approximately 16% of the global population and one of the world’s largest minoritized groups worldwide [5]. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [6] recognizes access to safe, secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing as a fundamental human right and a key social determinant of health. Despite this, people with disabilities often face limited housing options, and are more likely to rent and experience higher rates of homelessness [7–10]. Many live in unaffordable, insecure, or poor-quality housing, including units requiring major repairs, or overcrowded conditions and spend a greater proportion of their income on housing than people without disabilities [9,11–14].
Housing discrimination among people with disabilities
People with disabilities often experience stigma or discrimination when seeking or maintaining housing [15]. Disability-related discriminatory attitudes, behaviours and practices, collectively referred to as ableism, create barriers to equitable, high-quality housing [16]. Ableism includes actions or conditions that devalue and disadvantage people at individual, organizational and structural levels [17]. Housing ableism operates across these levels by limiting access to safe and affordable housing through structural, spatial, economic and attitudinal barriers [18,19]. Direct discrimination includes discriminatory comments or behaviours, whereas indirect discrimination includes withholding information, imposing unclear policies, or restricting access to resources [1,20]. Negative assumptions about disability can reinforce discrimination in the housing sector [21]. Housing providers, including landlords, realtors and builders, often lack knowledge about accessibility needs and may impose barriers during the housing search process [1,20,22]. For example, people with disabilities often encounter challenges when providers fail to share information, complicate appointments, deny modification requests, or create barriers in navigating rental processes [20,23]. Builders may also overlook universal design principles or resist incorporating accessibility features due to perceived costs or effort [1,22]. These practices contribute to a shortage of suitable housing and reinforce structural forces of ableism [10]. As a result, people with disabilities often experience unsafe or substandard living conditions, including risks related to neighbourhood safety, sanitation, and environmental hazards [18,24,25].
Knowledge gaps and significance
Housing systems face increasing pressure due to rising development costs, interest rates and a limited supply of accessible and affordable housing [10,26]. These pressures may intensify discrimination against people with disabilities [16]. Existing research primarily focuses on populations in institutional or supported living settings, such as individuals with severe mental health conditions, older adults, or those living in a group homes [10,27–34]. However, many people with disabilities prefer independent housing because it supports autonomy, self-determination and social inclusion [35]. Independent housing refers to limitations outside institutional settings, including private family homes. Access to adequate housing can improve physical and mental health, while inadequate housing can increase risk of injury, isolation and stress [2,36,37]. Poor housing conditions also limit access to services and reduce participation in education and employment [10,22,27,38,39]. Despite its importance, no reviews have synthesized evidence on housing ableism experienced by people with disabilities seeking or maintaining independent housing. This review addresses this gap by examining the extent, nature and impacts of housing ableism across diverse contexts.
Materials and methods
We conducted a scoping review to examine the international literature on housing ableism experienced by people with disabilities seeking or maintaining independent housing. We followed established scoping review guidelines [40–42] and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (see S2 Fig.) [43]. A scoping review is appropriate given the breadth, heterogeneity and interdisciplinary nature of the literature, allowing us to map key concepts, evidence sources and research gaps without restricting inclusion by design, location, or time period [40].
Our synthesis is conceptually informed by the social model of disability and a social ecological perspective, which together situate housing ableism as arising from interactions between structural, environmental, and individual factors [44,45]. The social model of disability conceptualizes disability as arising not from individual impairments, but from societal, structural and environmental barriers that restrict participation and inclusion [44]. In contrast, the socio-ecological model emphasizes that these barriers operate across multiple interacting levels, including individual, interpersonal, community and policy, influencing experiences and outcomes in complex and interconnected ways [45]. Consistent with scoping review methodology, we applied an inductive analytical approach rather than a predefined theoretical framework [40–42].
Search strategy and data sources
We developed the search strategy, in consultation with a research librarian and experts in disability, ableism and housing. The following databases were searched: Ovid Medline, Healthstar, Embase, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search involved the following key elements: Population referring to people with disabilities (based on the definition in the World Health Organization’s framework of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, “an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions” [46]); Concept referring to ableism (discrimination towards people with disabilities that occurs directly or indirectly at individual, organizational or structural levels, which can include attitudes, behaviours, policies, and practices (e.g., barriers to accessing housing, refusing to allow for home modifications [47])); Context independent housing including private residences or living with family outside of institutional settings) (see S1 Fig. for search strategy). We also reviewed the reference lists of all included articles to identify potential additional studies.
Article selection
The inclusion criteria involved the following: (1) focused on people with disabilities; (2) used empirical methods (either qualitative or quantitative) that reported at least one finding related to housing (i.e., independent housing or living with a family member) and ableism; and (3) peer-reviewed publication published up to May 2025 without language restrictions. One article in our review was translated into English using Google translate, which was verified for accuracy by a team member who is fluent in the language. Exclusion criteria involved: (1) non-peer reviewed and grey literature (books, book reviews, conferences, editorials, theses) because they are at risk of bias; and (2) studies focusing on nursing homes, residential care or group homes, because our focus is on independent housing [28,29,31–33].
The first author conducted the search and imported the articles into Covidence for screening and data extraction. After removing duplicates, two authors independently screened 10,082 titles and abstracts while applying the inclusion criteria, of which 9997 were deemed irrelevant. Next, two authors screened 85 full-text articles that met our inclusion applying the criteria independently to ensure consistency. After screening, 52 studies were identified as meeting all our criteria for the final review (see Fig 1 for search process and reasons for exclusion). When disagreements arose about whether articles met the inclusion criteria, the authors discussed them until reaching consensus.
Data extraction and synthesis
We used an inductive approach to data extraction and synthesis, consistent with scoping review methodology [40–42]. We developed and piloted our data extraction form to ensure consistency. Two researchers independently extracted data, and a third author verified accuracy. We discussed any discrepancies until consensus was reached. We applied an open coding approach [42] to identify patterns related to housing ableism (e.g., rates, types of ableism). We grouped findings into thematic categories and synthesized results across studies using descriptive summaries and qualitative content analysis. We also reported trends by participant characteristics, disability type, and housing context, where possible.
Results
Study characteristics
We identified 52 studies spanning 13 countries over a 47-year period (see Table 1). Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, particularly the United States, United Kingdom and Australia. Thirty-eight percent focused on specific types of disabilities, 42% included mixed disability types and the remainder did not specify disability type. Participant characteristics varied widely. Studies included adults [48–68], children [51,69–71], households [24,72–76] and service providers, although many did not report key demographics. Among studies reporting gender most included predominantly female samples [48,49,51,53,54,56,57,61,65,69,77,78], and none reported including non-binary participants.
The studies used diverse methodologies including secondary data analyses [18,24,53,55,57,74,76,79,80,83], surveys [50,51,58,59,61–63,65,67–69,73,75,89,91], qualitative interviews [48,49,56,60,62,64–67,69–71,77,81,85,90,91], matched paired-test [23,52], correspondence methodology [19,84,86,93–95], audits of housing advertisements [82], focus groups [59,61,71,78,89], mixed methods [72,88], visual qualitative methods [54], case study [92], and participatory action research [70].
Study populations included people with disabilities [18,48,49,51,53–57,59,61,62,64–66,69,71,78,81,85,90–92,96,97], households [48,72,73,75,76] and housing units [24,74], family members or caregivers [66,89], landlords and housing providers [19,23,50,52,58,59,63,77,86,87,93–95], housing and mortgage industry representatives [60,84,85,88] planners and developers [89], clinical and housing staff [62,70,78] and disability organizations [85]. Twenty-eight studies reported the type of housing among participants and included people living in rental apartments or houses [19,50–53,58,61,63,64,68,69,86,93–95], homeowners or those attempting to purchase a house [53,57,60,62,68,81], people living with family [61], students in student housing [71,78] people in various housing types [51,56,57,62,82,91] and people experiencing homelessness [54,70,90].
Seventeen studies applied theoretical or conceptual frameworks including: ontological security theory [49], accessibility in eco-communities [72], person-environment framework [83], social model of disability [55,66,74,75,85], social identity theory [63], bio-psychoecological model [67], theory of family housing adjustment [68], conceptualization of vulnerability [70], ecological systems theory [78], independent living paradigm [51], spatial assimilation model [24], discrimination model [24], and human rights-based model and citizenship theory [75].
Overview of findings
We organized our findings into three domains that reflect multi-processes consistent with socio-ecological theory: (1) ableism in finding and maintaining appropriate housing through renting and ownership; (2) factors affecting housing ableism; and (3) impacts of housing ableism (i.e., challenges with neighborhood environment) (see Table 2).
Ableism in finding and maintaining appropriate housing
Eighty-four percent of studies reported ableism in accessing or maintaining housing including limited availability of suitable housing [18,24,48,51,55,59,61,62,64–69,71,74,75,78,79,82,83,89–92], barriers to accessing or viewing properties [19,23,50,52,56,58,63,64,66,81,82,84,86,87,90,92–95], and affordability challenges [53,60,64–67,74,76,83,84,90].
Limited availability of suitable housing.
Across twenty-four studies people with various types of disabilities faced challenges in accessing appropriate housing across rental and ownership contexts. Shortages of accessible units, limited opportunities for home modifications, and poor housing conditions were common [18,24,55,61,62,66,74,75,91]. Many participants lived in inadequate housing, including overcrowded, aging or unsafe dwellings [59,62,69,79,89,91]. Participants also reported challenges related to housing design [64,66–68,82,83,92]. Many homes lacked essential accessibility features and older housing stock often could not accommodate modifications [48,51,61,62,64,65,69,71,78,89]. Additionally, inaccessible layouts, narrow entrances and lack of elevators limited independence and usability [61,64,69,92].
Barriers to accessing or viewing properties.
Nineteen studies identified barriers during the housing search process, including limited information, physical inaccessibility, and discriminatory practices [19,23,50,52,56,58,63,64,66,81,82,84,86,87,90,92–95]. Participants often lacked clear and accessible information about available housing [23,64,82,92]. Housing advertisements frequently omitted accessibility details, and communication barriers limited access for some groups [64,82]. Meanwhile, physical barriers also restricted access to housing and real estate services [23,66,81,92]. Inaccessible offices, websites, and viewing processes reduced participation, particularly for individuals with mobility impairments [23,66,81,92].
Discriminatory attitudes among housing providers were also common [19,23,50,52,56,58,63,81,84,86,87,93–95]. Landlords, real estate agents, and builders often treated applicants with disabilities unequally [19,23,50,52,56,58,63,81,84,86,87,93–95]. Correspondence studies showed higher rejection rates for applicants with disabilities, including those with visual, mental, and intellectual disabilities [19,23,56,57,62,63,84,86,88,92,93]. In some cases, landlords were less likely to respond, refused to rent, or imposed additional requirements [94].
Affordability.
Housing affordability remains a major barrier for people with disabilities. Fourteen studies reported high housing costs, limited income, and difficulties accessing financial supports among people with disabilities [53,57,60,61,64–67,74,76,83–85,90]. Eight studies reported that people with disabilities experienced a high cost burden and were more likely to miss rent or mortgage payments [53,57,60,64,66,67,74,76]. Lower income and reduced employment opportunities further constrained housing options [53,57,76,83]. Six studies also identified barriers to obtaining loans and financial assistance [60,61,65,83–85]. Mortgage approval varied by disability type, with lower approval rates for individuals with developmental or cognitive disabilities [84,85]. Limited access to housing assistance programs further exacerbated affordability challenges [83].
Factors affecting housing ableism
Thirty-six studies identified factors influencing housing ableism including limited provider knowledge [59,61,62,72,77,78,81,89,92], and intersectional influences such as socio-economic status [53,54,60,66,75,76,83], disability type [19,23,50,52,54,55,58,71,80,84,85,91,94], housing context [18,24,52,66,95], and systemic and policy barriers [54,56,67,70,72,77,88,89,92].
Limited knowledge of disability needs.
Nine studies showed that real estate agents, housing providers (e.g., landlords, builders, sales staff, housing service personnel) and clinicians lacked knowledge about accessibility requirements [59,61,62,72,77,78,81,89,92]. Builders, landlords, and service providers frequently misunderstood or overlooked the needs of people with disabilities [59,81]. This contributed to inadequate design, poor implementation of accessibility standards and negative or dismissive attitudes [61,77,89].
Intersectional factors affecting housing ableism.
Thirty studies reported findings on intersectional factors that affect housing ableism, including socio-economic status [53,54,60,66,75,76,83], type of disability [19,23,50,52,54,55,58,71,80,84,85,90,91,94,95], housing context [18,24,52,66,95], and systemic barriers [54,56,67,70,72,77,88,89,92]).
Seven studies showed that socio-economic status influenced housing access [53,54,60,66,75,76,83]. People with disabilities often had lower income, higher poverty rates and reduced access to housing assistance, increasing vulnerability to housing instability [54,60,66,76,83].
Fifteen studies reported that specific disability types were linked to unfair treatment in housing, particularly among renters [19,23,50,52,54,55,58,71,80,84,85,90,91,94,95]. People with visible disabilities [19,23,50,52,58,71,92,95], mental health conditions [52,58,80,85,91], or intellectual disabilities [55,80,84,85,94], or other less visible conditions [54,90] faced higher levels of discrimination.
Five studies reported how housing type influenced experiences of ableism [18,24,52,66,95]. Public housing often lacked accessible units, and private rentals were often inaccessible or unaffordable [24,66]. Some studies reported higher discrimination in private rental markets among real estate agents [52,95]. Meanwhile, nine studies reported how systemic and policy barrier further limited access [54,56,67,70,72,77,88,89,92]. For example, fragmented services, complex processes, and limited enforcement of accessibility policies created additional obstacles [56,72,89,92].
Impact of housing ableism: Challenges with neighborhood environment
Ten studies examined the potential impacts of housing ableism and highlighted challenges related to the neighborhood environment [24,49,59,61,62,64,66,69,73,74]. People with disabilities often lived in areas with limited access to services, poor infrastructure and safety concerns [24,66]. Some studies reported higher exposure to crime, environmental hazards and natural disasters, as well as long distances to essential services [49,54,59,61,64,66,74]. These conditions often reduced quality of life and limited participation in daily activities [24,49,66,74].
Discussion
Our review examined how people with disabilities experience housing ableism when seeking or maintaining independent housing. Addressing housing ableism is critical because housing is a basic human right and a key social determinant of health [6,10,57,98]. Previous reviews have focused primarily on institutional or supported housing settings [10,27–34], whereas this review provides a focused synthesis of independent housing contexts. This issue is especially relevant given ongoing housing supply and affordability crises across many countries [10].
Our interpretation of the findings is informed by the social model of disability and a socio-ecological perspective, which together emphasize that housing ableism arises from structural barriers and multi-level influences rather than individual impairments [44,45]. These models help to explain why barriers identified across studies, such as inaccessible housing, discriminatory practices and policies gaps, operate across interconnected systems, and reinforce inequities in access to independent housing.
We found that people with disabilities often lack suitable housing due to limited housing supply, poor housing conditions, and high costs. These conditions contribute to disproportionately high rates of homelessness and housing insecurity [99]. Limited accessible housing in both rental and ownership often forces people with disabilities to live in inadequate, or poorly located housing, frequently distant from essential services and public transit [100]. Inadequate housing conditions can increase risks of injury, social isolation, and unsafe living environments [10,22,27,38,39]. Inaccessible design, including limited space and missing accessibility features, further undermines safety and independence [101]. These conditions often reflect limited implementation of universal design and weak compliance with accessibility standards [101]. At the same time, structural economic factors, including lower wages and barriers to employment, further reduce the ability to secure appropriate housing [99,102,103].
Our review underscored that people with disabilities faced persistent barriers when accessing or viewing properties, including limited information, inaccessible environments and discriminatory practices. Housing listings and platforms often lack clear and standardized accessibility information, which complicates housing searches [82,92,104]. These findings highlight how housing systems often assume that independent living is designed primarily for people without disabilities. Discriminatory attitudes among landlords, property managers, and real estate agents further restricted access, particularly for individuals perceived as higher risk [52,85]. Limited knowledge of accessibility needs and perceived costs of accommodations often reinforced these attitudes [77,78].
Housing ableism varied across socio-economic status, disability type, housing context and policy environments. Lower income and reliance on social supports increased vulnerability and reliance on social supports increased vulnerability to housing instability [54,60]. People with visible disabilities, mental health conditions, or service animals often experienced discrimination early in the search and screening process, especially when requesting accessibility accommodations [23]. In contrast, people with invisible or less visible disabilities may initially avoid bias because their disability is not immediately apparent [105]. Housing context also influenced experiences. Rental housing and social housing often imposed barriers to modifications while private homeownership allowed greater flexibility but remained less accessible to many individuals [66]. Additionally, weak enforcement of accessibility policies further limited effective implementation, reducing policy impact [106]. When planners and builders overlook universal design, they often produce housing that restricts independence and reinforces exclusion [107].
Few studies within this review examined the direct impacts of housing ableism. However, some existing evidence indicates substantial consequences for neighborhood environments and quality of life [24,49,66,108]. Many people with disabilities lived in areas with limited services, poor infrastructure, and higher exposure to safety risks, including crime and environmental hazards [24,49,59,61,64]. These conditions arguably reduced opportunities for participation and social inclusion. Accessible and well-located housing can improve liveability by supporting social connection and independent participation in daily activities [108].
We also identified a gap in understanding the downstream consequences of housing ableism, including eviction. Although some studies suggest that people with disabilities experience increased financial stress and risk of housing instability [53], few studies explicitly examined eviction outcomes. Eviction can worsen health and wellbeing, increasing depression, anxiety and loss of access to services [109,110]. Additionally, policies such as nuisance ordinances may further disadvantage tenants with disabilities, forcing trade-offs between accessing care and maintaining housing stability [111]. These findings highlight that addressing housing ableism requires coordinated action across structural, policy, and environmental levels, consistent with the socio-ecological model, while reaffirming the social model of disability’s emphasis on removing systemic barriers to enable equitable access to independent housing.
Implications
Our findings identify several implications for housing policy and practice. First, governments should increase the supply of accessible and affordable housing. Housing systems must recognize that people with disabilities are disproportionately affected by housing shortages and affordability challenges [3]. Policymakers should address gaps that limit housing supply and support broader adoption of universal design in new construction [10,112,113]. Governments should also provide targeted funding to support accessible housing development and home modifications. Second, policymakers and service providers should address the high rates of homelessness among people with disabilities. Expanding long-term supports, including supportive housing, can help individuals who are unhoused or at risk [103]. Addressing fragmented services and barriers to accessing supports is essential to improve housing stability.
Third, housing stakeholders should strengthen education, training and collaboration. Many housing providers lack knowledge of accessibility requirements and the experiences of people with disabilities. Increasing awareness among builders, landlords, real estate agents and lenders can improve compliance with accessibility standards and reduce discriminatory practices [114,115]. Fourth, housing practitioners should support collaboration and co-design in housing development [116]. Involving people with disabilities in planning, design, and decision-making can improve housing outcomes [30]. Expanding access to information about housing options and financial resources can improve access [117]. Centralized databases of accessible housing and tools that identify accessible housing may help match individuals with suitable units [118]. Housing listings and platforms should clearly report accessibility features, and housing services should ensure accessible communication and processes. Finally, policymakers and housing practitioners should prioritize inclusive approaches that reflect the needs and perspectives of people with disabilities [30]. Engaging individuals with lived experience throughout housing design and policy development can improve equity and long-term outcomes [30].
Limitations, risk of bias and future directions
This review has several limitations. We did not register a review protocol, which may reduce transparency. Although we used a comprehensive search strategy, we may have missed some relevant studies, particularly from underrepresented regions such as Asia. We also excluded grey literature, so future studies should consider exploring policy and community level documents that capture housing-related ableism. Additionally, some researchers may view our inductive analytical approach as a limitation compared with a predefined deductive framework. Because our review covered many disability types, participant groups, methodologies, and housing contexts, countries, and decades, comparing findings was challenging and the results should be interpreted with caution. Given our review included diverse articles we could not always distinguish housing ableism from general housing barriers. Future studies should consider focusing on specific disability groups, particularly those with visible disabilities, who may face more distinct housing barriers. Our review covered many countries, each with different perceptions and treatments of people with disabilities, including supports, resources and policies, which can influence experiences of housing ableism.
Many studies in our review did not report on participants’ socio-demographic details, such as age, gender, race, type of disability, and type of housing, which limited our ability to understand how intersectional factors influence housing ableism. Future research should explore these factors in greater depth, especially since discrimination often intensifies for people with multiple minoritized identities [119]. Our review also highlighted a gap in understanding how housing ableism varies across age groups. More work is needed to the barriers and needs of youth, including supports for independent living. Additional research is needed to explore the different housing contexts, such as rentals, homeownership, homelessness, and how ableism manifests in each. Very few studies addressed rural housing and its impact on people with disabilities. We also found surprisingly little research on physical accessibility barriers when viewing or entering properties, an essential area for developing including housing solutions. Moreover, little is known about how discrimination affects the health and wellbeing of people with disabilities, highlighting an important area for future inquiry. Policymakers and researchers should prioritize strategies to mitigate housing ableism and develop standardized measures, capturing both direct and indirect forms of ableism at individual and structural levels to strengthen future evidence.
Conclusions
Our review synthesized the literature on disability-related discrimination (ableism) among people seeking or maintaining independent housing. Our findings identified three main categories. First, people with disabilities routinely encounter ableism when seeking or maintaining housing, including a lack of suitable options, barriers to accessing or viewing properties and affordability challenges. Second, several factors contribute to housing ableism, such as limited knowledge about disability and intersectional influences including socioeconomic status, disability type, housing type and systemic barriers. Third, housing ableism can negatively affect people’s lives, particularly through neighborhood-level challenges. These findings highlight the urgent need to address ableism across the housing sector. Future research should focus on developing solutions and interventions that reduce the multiple forms of housing ableism experienced by people with disabilities.
References
- 1.
Imrie R. Accessible housing: Quality, disability and design. Abingdon: Routledge. 2006.
- 2. Jonsson O, Frögren J, Haak M, Slaug B, Iwarsson S. Understanding the wicked problem of providing accessible housing for the ageing population in Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):1169. pmid:33525734
- 3. Burns SP, Mendonca R, Pickens ND, Smith RO. America’s housing affordability crisis: Perpetuating disparities among people with disability. Disabil Soc. 2021;36:10.1080/09687599.2021.1960276. pmid:35919542
- 4.
United Nations. Realizing the sustainable development goals by, for and with persons with disabilities, in United Nations flagship report on disability and development. New York: United Nations. 2018.
- 5.
World Health Organization. Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2022.
- 6.
United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in General Assembly. 2006. 106.
- 7.
Henry M. The 2020 annual homeless assessment report to congress. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2021.
- 8.
Joint news release – New data highlights troubling housing inequalities for people with disabilities. 2024.
- 9.
Canada S. Housing experiences in Canada: Persons with disabilities. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. 2023.
- 10. Lindsay S, Fuentes K, Ragunathan S, Li Y, Ross T. Accessible independent housing for people with disabilities: A scoping review of promising practices, policies and interventions. PLoS One. 2024;19(1):e0291228. pmid:38271462
- 11. Aitken Z, Baker E, Badland H, Mason K, Bentley R, Beer A, et al. Precariously placed: Housing affordability, quality and satisfaction of Australians with disabilities. Disability & Society. 2018;34(1):121–42.
- 12. Baker E, Bentley R, Lester L, Beer A. Housing affordability and residential mobility as drivers of locational inequality. Applied Geography. 2016;72:65–75.
- 13. Kavanagh AM, Krnjacki L, Aitken Z, LaMontagne AD, Beer A, Baker E, et al. Intersections between disability, type of impairment, gender and socio-economic disadvantage in a nationally representative sample of 33,101 working-aged Australians. Disabil Health J. 2015;8(2):191–9. pmid:25278487
- 14.
Plouin M, et al. A crisis on the horizon: ensuring affordable, accessible housing for people with disabilities. Geneva: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2021.
- 15. Mackie PK. Housing pathways of disabled young people: Evidence for policy and practice. Housing Studies. 2012;27(6):805–21.
- 16. Lindsay S, Ragunathan S, Fuentes K, Li Y. Barriers and facilitators to obtaining accessible housing among children, youth and young adults with disabilities and their families: A scoping review. Disabil Rehabil. 2024;46(15):3266–85. pmid:37584404
- 17. Harder J, Keller V, Chopik W. Demographic, experiential, and temporal variation in ableism. Journal of Social Issues. 2019;75(3):683–706.
- 18. Grotti R, Russell H, Maître B, Gritti D. The experience of housing discrimination and housing deprivation across social groups in Ireland. Soc Indic Res. 2024;175(1):195–215.
- 19. Fumarco L. Disability discrimination in the italian rental housing market: A field experiment with blind tenants. Land Economics. 2017;93(4):567–84.
- 20. Anderson I, Theakstone D-D, Lawrence J. Inclusive social lettings practice: Opportunities to enhance independent living for disabled people. SI. 2020;8(3):54–65.
- 21.
United Nations. Disability-inclusive communications guidelines. 2022.
- 22. Tucker R, Kelly D, Johnson L, de Jong U, Watchorn V. Housing at the fulcrum: A systems approach to uncovering built environment obstacles to city scale accessibility and inclusion. J Hous and the Built Environ. 2021;37(3):1179–97.
- 23. Aranda C. Targeting disability discrimination: findings and reflections from the national study on housing discrimination against people who are deaf and people who are deaf and people who use wheelchairs. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. 2015;17(3):103–21.
- 24. Friedman S, Hamer-Small K, Choudary W. Disability status, housing tenure, and residential attainment in metropolitan America. Social Sciences. 2018;7(9):144.
- 25. Ntarladima A-M, Hochstenbach C, Giezen M, Gent W. Housing tenure, urban development and environmental inequality. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2025;:1–25.
- 26. Goodwin I, Davis E, Winkler D, Douglas J, Wellecke C, D’Cruz K, et al. Making homes more accessible for people with mobility impairment: A lived experience perspective. Aust J Social Issues. 2022;57(4):956–69.
- 27. Cho HY, MacLachlan M, Clarke M, Mannan H. Accessible home environments for people with functional limitations: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(8):826. pmid:27548194
- 28. Casson J, Hamdani Y, Dobranowski K, Lake J, McMorris C, Gonzales A, et al. Housing design and modifications for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and complex behavioral needs: Scoping review. Policy Practice Intel Disabi. 2021;18(3):217–28.
- 29. Keenan C, Miller S, Hanratty J, Pigott T, Hamilton J, Coughlan C, et al. Accommodation-based interventions for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness. Campbell Syst Rev. 2021;17(2):e1165. pmid:37131929
- 30. Lakhani A, Zeeman H, Wright CJ, Watling DP, Smith D, Islam R. Stakeholder priorities for inclusive accessible housing: A systematic review and multicriteria decision analysis. Multi Criteria Decision Anal. 2019;27(1–2):5–19.
- 31. Mansell J, Beadle-Brown J. Dispersed or clustered housing for adults with intellectual disability: A systematic review. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2009;34(4):313–23. pmid:19860598
- 32. Peng Y, Hahn RA, Finnie RKC, Cobb J, Williams SP, Fielding JE, et al. Permanent supportive housing with housing first to reduce homelessness and promote health among homeless populations with disability: A community guide systematic review. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2020;26(5):404–11. pmid:32732712
- 33. Richter D, Hoffmann H. Independent housing and support for people with severe mental illness: Systematic review. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2017;136(3):269–79. pmid:28620944
- 34. Wright CJ, Colley J, Kendall E. Exploring the efficacy of housing alternatives for adults with an acquired brain or spinal injury: A systematic review. Brain Impairment. 2019;21(2):125–53.
- 35. Kuboshima Y, McIntosh J. Housing design that improves the independence and safety for older adults using a walker. Appl Ergon. 2021;97:103539. pmid:34375878
- 36. Li A, Baker E, Bentley R. Housing and mental health inequalities during COVID-19: The role of income and housing support measures. Housing Studies. 2024;40(6):1379–400.
- 37. Roberts M, Bhat A, Fenelon A. The long-term effects of housing insecurity in young adulthood on subsequent material hardship, physiological and mental health. Social Science and Medicine. 2025;367:117761.
- 38. Close J, Ellis M, Hooper R, Glucksman E, Jackson S, Swift C. Prevention of falls in the elderly trial (PROFET): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353(9147):93–7. pmid:10023893
- 39. Semeah LM, Ahrentzen S, Jia H, Cowper Ripley DC, Levy CE, Mann WC. The home improvements and structural alterations benefits program: Veterans with disabilities and home accessibility. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2017;28(1):43–51.
- 40. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. pmid:33038124
- 41. Khalil H, Peters MD, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Alexander L, McInerney P, et al. Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:156–60. pmid:33122034
- 42. Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):520–32. pmid:36081365
- 43. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
- 44.
Shakespeare T. The social model of disability. Davis L. Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge. 2014.
- 45.
Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. Vasta R. Six theories of child development: revised formulations and current issues. London: Kingsley. 1992. 187–249.
- 46.
World Health Organization. International classification and functioning. 2007.
- 47. Tadimalla SY, Figard R, Song Y. WIP: Moving from Accessibility to Anti-Ableism through the Explication of Disability in the AI Ecosystem. 024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2024. 1–5.
- 48. Aplin T, de Jonge D, Gustafsson L. Understanding home modifications impact on clients and their family’s experience of home: A qualitative study. Aust Occup Ther J. 2015;62(2):123–31. pmid:25352476
- 49. Aplin T, Canagasuriam S, Petersen M, Gustafsson L. The experience of home for social housing tenants with a disability: Security and connection but limited control. Housing and Society. 2019;47(1):63–79.
- 50. Challe L, et al. Disability and discrimination in access to housing: A multi-criteria test on the visual impaired. Revue d’économique politique. 2023;133(2):1–30.
- 51. Dunn PA. The impact of the housing environment upon the ability of disabled people to live independently. Disability, Handicap & Society. 1990;5(1):37–52.
- 52. Flage A, Le Gallo J. Discrimination against people with mental, physical or visual disabilities in the French rental housing market: field experiment. Housing Studies. 2023;40(1):116–38.
- 53. Friedman C. Housing insecurity of medicaid beneficiaries with cognitive disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disabil Health J. 2023;16(1):101375. pmid:36156273
- 54. Garratt E, Flaherty J. ‘There’s nothing I can do to stop it’: Homelessness among autistic people in a British city. Disability & Society. 2021;38(9):1558–84.
- 55. Heyman M, Li F, Swinford L, Mitra M. Housing circumstances of disabled parents within the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;152:107089.
- 56. Honey A, Nugent A, Hancock N, Scanlan J. “It’s hard work, believe me!”: Active efforts to optimise housing by people who live with mental illness and access housing assistance. Aust J Social Issues. 2017;52(4):347–66.
- 57. Kavanagh AM, Aitken Z, Baker E, LaMontagne AD, Milner A, Bentley R. Housing tenure and affordability and mental health following disability acquisition in adulthood. Soc Sci Med. 2016;151:225–32. pmid:26820573
- 58. May DC, Dobush KE, Endres EK, Getto DA, Paterson SK, Zipkin DS, et al. Housing discrimination: Apartment rentals to people who are blind or mentally retarded. sgrjarc. 1992;23(2):26–8.
- 59. Mukoche WCW, Kisilu K, Catherine S. Challenges facing persons with physical and visual disabilities in accessing housing needs; A case study of bungoma municipality. NURTURE. 2014;8(1):1–7.
- 60. Nelson A, Berry M, Dalton T. Disability and mortgage default: An Australian study. Disability & Society. 2013;28(4):471–85.
- 61. Nocon A, Pleace N. ‘Until disabled people get consulted …’: The role of occupational therapy in meeting housing needs. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1997;60(3):115–22.
- 62. Nocon A, Pleace N. The housing needs of disabled people. Health Soc Care Community. 1998;6(5):361–9. pmid:11560607
- 63. Nutsugbodo RY, Anaafo D, Ankamah S, Bannor RK. Discrimination in the rental housing market in the Sunyani Municipality, Ghana. Urban, Planning and Transport Research. 2022;10(1):159–80.
- 64. Quilgars D, et al. I wouldn’t change my flat for anything. is there scope for more people with learning disables to rent their own homes? British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2024;52:362–70.
- 65. Sapey B. Disabling Homes: A study of the housing needs of disabled people in Cornwall. Disability & Society. 1995;10(1):71–86.
- 66. Saugeres L. (Un)accommodating disabilities: housing, marginalization and dependency in Australia. J Hous and the Built Environ. 2010;26(1):1–15.
- 67. Semeah LM, Ahrentzen S, Cowper-Ripley DC, Santos-Roman LM, Beamish JO, Farley K. Rental housing needs and barriers from the perspective of veterans with disabilities. Housing Policy Debate. 2019;29(4):542–58.
- 68. Semeah LM, Beamish JO, Schember TO, Cook LH. The rental housing needs and experiences of veterans with disabilities. Administration & Society. 2016;51(2):299–324.
- 69. Korpela RA. A regional survey of the housing circumstances of families with children experiencing intellectual and motor disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 1992;14(4):176–82. pmid:1472697
- 70. Fudge Schormans A, Baker Collins S, Allan H, Allen DO, Gray N. Homeless youth with intellectual disabilities: Precarious lives and health inequalities. Brit J Learn Disabil. 2024;52(3):477–88.
- 71. Soorenian A. Housing and transport: access issues for disabled international students in British universities. Disability & Society. 2013;28(8):1118–31.
- 72. Bhakta A, Pickerill J. Making space for disability in eco‐homes and eco‐communities. Geographical Journal. 2015;182(4):406–17.
- 73. Chakraborty J, Collins TW, Grineski SE. Disability and subsidized housing residency: The adverse impacts of Winter Storm Uri in metropolitan Texas. Disabil Health J. 2023;16(2):101403. pmid:36473824
- 74. Meschede T, Trivedi K, Caldwell J. Severe housing and neighborhood inequities of households with disabled members and households in need of long-term services and supports. Housing and Society. 2022;50(2):228–51.
- 75. Omona J, Eide A, Nulu N. A rural-urban comparison of living conditions in households with and without disabilities in Uganda. SAJSWSD. 2023.
- 76. White BJ, Peaslee J, LaQuatra J. Comparing housing affordability and quality among disability households: The United States and its regions. J Fam Econ Iss. 1994;15(4):367–80.
- 77. Thurman W, Heitkemper E, Hutson T, Preston A, Hecht J. “The System Tends to Scoop You Up and Spit You Out and They’re Done With You”: The Intersection of Intellectual/Developmental Disability and Homelessness From the Perspectives of Service Providers. Qual Health Res. 2023;33(11):1017–29. pmid:37550990
- 78. Vaccaro A, Kimball E. Navigating disability in campus housing: An ecological analysis of student affairs work. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. 2018;56(2):168–80.
- 79. Anderson RK, Pasciuti DS, Sellers CM. Livability vs. Affordability; Disability and Housing in the United States. Social Sciences. 2024;13(6):291.
- 80. Beer A, Daniel L, Baker E, Lester L. The shifting risk of homelessness among persons with a disability: Insights from a national policy intervention. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):6512. pmid:32906776
- 81. Burns N. Negotiating difference: disabled people’s experiences of housebuilders. Housing Studies. 2004;19(5):765–80.
- 82. Callaway L, Tregloan K, Moore L, Bould E. Audit of advertised housing and support vacancies for people with disabilities in Australia. Aust J Social Issues. 2020;56(1):94–113.
- 83. Dawkins C, Miller M. The Characteristics and Unmet Housing Program Needs of Disabled HUD-Assisted Households. Housing Policy Debate. 2017;27(4):499–518.
- 84. Hagner D, Klein J. Home ownership for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2005;15(4):194–200.
- 85. Hemingway L. Taking a risk? The mortgage industry and perceptions of disabled people. Disability & Society. 2010;25(1):75–87.
- 86. Heylen K, Van den Broeck K. Discrimination and selection in the Belgian private rental market. Housing Studies. 2015;31(2):223–36.
- 87. Plata M. Housing discrimination toward one parent families with a handicapped son. Except Child. 1979;46(2):132–3. pmid:159825
- 88. Slavici M. Mind the housing inclusion gap: The voice of people with disabilities in German housing politics. European Policy Analysis. 2023;9(3):271–89.
- 89. Staples J, Essex S. Design, disability and the planning challenge: The reality of living with severely disabled children. Planning Practice & Research. 2016;31(3):327–46.
- 90. Stone B, Cameron A, Dowling S. The autistic experience of homelessness: Implications from a narrative enquiry. Autism. 2023;27(2):489–99. pmid:35757980
- 91. Taylor SM, Elliott S, Kearns R. The housing experience of chronically mentally disabled clients in hamilton, Ontario. Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes. 1989;33(2):146–55.
- 92. Thomas P. The experience of disabled people as customers in the owner occupation market. Housing Studies. 2004;19(5):781–94.
- 93. Tomlin B. Examining differential treatment of single mothers and people with disabilities in the apartment rental market. Economics Letters. 2017;161:34–7.
- 94. Trippi J, Michael R, Colao A, Alvarez A. Housing discrimination toward mentally retarded persons. Except Child. 1978;44(6):430–3. pmid:631165
- 95. Verhaeghe P-P, Van der Bracht K, Van de Putte B. Discrimination of tenants with a visual impairment on the housing market: Empirical evidence from correspondence tests. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(2):234–8. pmid:26684733
- 96. Jane ME, Philip GW. What do homeowners with disabilities tell us about being homeowners? A qualitative report. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2000;15(2–3):121–9.
- 97. Feinstein CS, Levine RM, Lemanowicz JA, Sedlak WC, Klein J, Hagner D. Homeownership initiatives and outcomes for people with disabilities. Community Development. 2006;37(3):46–52.
- 98. Bentley R, Baker E, Mason K, Subramanian SV, Kavanagh AM. Association between housing affordability and mental health: A longitudinal analysis of a nationally representative household survey in Australia. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(7):753–60. pmid:21821543
- 99. O’Donovan M-A, Whittle EL. Housing, homelessness and disability: The commodification of a core human right and breach of this right for people with disability. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2024;8(1):141–50.
- 100. Beer A, Baker E, Lester L, Daniel L. The relative risk of homelessness among persons with a disability: new methods and policy insights. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(22):4304. pmid:31698675
- 101. Valderrama-Ulloa C, Ferrada X, Herrera F. Breaking down barriers: Findings from a literature review on housing for people with disabilities in Latin America. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(6):4972. pmid:36981880
- 102. Brown M, McCann E. Homelessness and people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of the international research evidence. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2021;34(2):390–401. pmid:32959955
- 103. Durbin A, Isaacs B, Mauer-Vakil D, Connelly J, Steer L, Roy S, et al. Intellectual disability and homelessness: A synthesis of the literature and discussion of how supportive housing can support wellness for people with intellectual disability. Curr Dev Disord Rep. 2018;5(3):125–31.
- 104. Ameri M, Rogers SE, Schur L, Kruse D. No Room at the Inn? Disability Access in the New Sharing Economy. AMD. 2020;6(2):176–205.
- 105.
Scott JA, Herold K. Almost passing. International Perspectives on Teaching with Disability: Overcoming Obstacles and Enriching Lives. 2018.
- 106. Yuzwa KE, Bacchus-Misir F, Galeazzi-Stirling S, Cohen E, Athanasopoulos P, Hitzig SL, et al. Social and attitudinal barriers to the provision of accessible housing in Canada: A qualitative study. Disabil Health J. 2026;19(1):101966. pmid:40987713
- 107. Wiesel I, Power ER. Primed for harm: Inaccessible housing as a vulnerabilising assemblage. Geoforum. 2023;145:103826.
- 108. Grabowska I, Antczak R, Zwierzchowski J, Panek T. Individual quality of life and the environment - towards a concept of livable areas for persons with disabilities in Poland. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):740. pmid:33863294
- 109. Acharya B, Bhatta D, Dhakal C. The risk of eviction and the mental health outcomes among the US adults. Prev Med Rep. 2022;29:101981. pmid:36161138
- 110. Lindsay S, Phonepraseuth J, Leo S, Abdeahad N. The impact of ableism on the health and well-being of children and youth with disabilities: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2026;48(8):2265–87. pmid:41157898
- 111. Jarwala A, Singh S. When disability is a “nuisance”: How chronic nuisance ordinances push residents with disabilities out of their homes. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 2019;54:875–915.
- 112. Imrie R. Housing quality and the provision of accessible homes. Housing Studies. 2003;18(3):387–408.
- 113. Chan E, Lee G. Universal design for people with disabilities: A study of access provisions in public housing estates. Property Management. 2009;27:138–46.
- 114. Lindsay S, Edwards A. A systematic review of disability awareness interventions for children and youth. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(8):623–46. pmid:22831703
- 115. Lindsay S, Cancelliere S. A model for developing disability confidence. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(18):2122–30. pmid:28503957
- 116. Vaughan K, Terashima M, Clark K, Deturbide K. Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives on the UK’s Regulatory Tools for Accessible Housing: Lessons for Canada. Journal of Aging and Environment. 2021;36(1):90–111.
- 117. Bishop M, Dennis KL, Bishop LA, Sheppard-Jones K, Bishop F, Frain M. The prevalence and nature of modified housing and assistive devices use among Americans with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 2015;42(2):153–65.
- 118. Heller C, Ekstam L, Haak M, Schmidt SM, Slaug B. Exploring housing policies in five Swedish municipalities: Alternatives and priorities. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):260. pmid:35135523
- 119. Lindsay S, Cao P. Navigating the impact of discrimination: Exploring the experiences of sex/gender minoritised youth with disabilities. Child Care Health Dev. 2025;51(2):e70067. pmid:40090761