design strategy that is intended to discourage loitering, camping, and sleeping in public. While this policy does not explicitly target homeless people, it restricts the ways in which people can use public spaces, which affects the homeless population. This strategy can take many forms, including: Reducing the number of sitting areas in public spaces. Installing bolts and spikes in flat surfaces in order to make sleeping on them uncomfortable. Installing dividers on metal benches to prevent sleeping. Metal teeth and bars on ledges to prevent sitting. Boulders placed in parks to prevent homeless encampments. These forms of architecture are also referred to as hostile architecture. They can make life for the unhoused persons more difficult as they modify public spaces that would otherwise be accessible. Arguments are put forward that the resources spent on the upkeep and design of hostile architecture should instead spent on addressing the root causes of homelessness. The Oregon Department of Transportation placed large boulders in several locations to discourage illegal camping near freeways. Anti-homeless spikes were installed in London, England, and New York City in order to make homeless activity more difficult. Anti-homeless architecture is a common tactic in major cities. Local governments often employ anti-homeless architecture practices following complaints from local business owners as the presence of homeless individuals lowers property prices and discourages business traffic. Critics of anti-homeless architecture claim that it targets an already vulnerable population, and that it hides the effects of homelessness, rather than meaningfully addressing it. Perception of homelessness and policy implications United States The authors of a 2017 study on homelessness stated that homeless people have a higher incidence of sickness, with their most common health problem being skin problems. Homeless people also have a lack of access to sanitation, leading to poor hygiene. These characteristics are noticeable and may trigger reactions of disgust from onlookers who are inclined, at an evolutionary level, to be pathogen-averse. This leads the general public to keep their physical distance from homeless people, and promotes exclusionary policies. As an example, these authors state that while the majority of the general public support subsidized housing for homeless individuals, they do not want that housing in their own neighborhood. But the public also maintains concern for homeless people, supporting increases in federal spending on homelessness programs. In fact, when surveyed, the public supports spending on homelessness over other social problems by consistently putting homeless