This study is aimed to provide an organized view of the causes and outcomes of low-income housing stigma (LIHS) and to analyze them by considering the housing type, target group, spatial scale, and methodology. This study has reviewed the background with the content analysis method; 7 databases were searched to identify the literature on the stigma of different types of low-income housing. The causes of LIHS were extracted in three dimensions (physical, socio-economic, and structural) and its outcomes in four dimensions (health and well-being, perceptual, socio-economic, and physical). The results showed that the socio-economic dimension had the greatest effect on the production of LIHS (52.2%), and also stigma had the greatest effect on this dimension (57.6%). However, considering the importance of visual perception on external evaluations, it is necessary to consider the physical dimension. On the other hand, the focus of research has been mostly on the neighborhood scale (62.9%) and the type of social housing (19.4%). 47% of the researchers also selected the residents as the target group while it is also important to evaluate outsiders. The use of qualitative methods is also observed in 71% of studies. There are gaps in these studies that need to be addressed: attention to the architecture scale, use of mixed research methods, considering evaluation and attitudes of the external group.

本研究旨在提供对低收入住房污名 (LIHS) 的原因和结果的有组织的看法，并通过考虑住房类型、目标群体、空间规模和方法来分析它们。本研究采用内容分析法回顾了研究背景；检索了 7 个数据库，以确定有关不同类型低收入住房的污名的文献。LIHS 的原因从三个维度（物理、社会经济和结构）提取，其结果从四个维度（健康和福祉、知觉、社会经济和物理）提取。结果表明，社会经济维度对 LIHS 产生的影响最大（52.2%），污名对这一维度的影响最大（57.6%）。然而，考虑到视觉感知对外部评价的重要性，有必要考虑物理维度。另一方面，研究的重点主要集中在社区规模（62.9%）和社会住房类型（19.4%）上。47%的研究人员还选择了居民作为目标群体，同时评估外人也很重要。在 71% 的研究中也观察到了定性方法的使用。这些研究中存在需要解决的差距：关注架构规模、使用混合研究方法、考虑外部群体的评估和态度。在 71% 的研究中也观察到了定性方法的使用。这些研究中存在需要解决的差距：关注架构规模、使用混合研究方法、考虑外部群体的评估和态度。在 71% 的研究中也观察到了定性方法的使用。这些研究中存在需要解决的差距：关注架构规模、使用混合研究方法、考虑外部群体的评估和态度。