1 / 53

Housing Mix and Social Mix: Does it Matter?

Housing Mix and Social Mix: Does it Matter?. Sako Musterd Urban Geography Universiteit van Amsterdam. The Issue. Housing Mix Social Mix. The Issue. Housing Mix Social Mix Integration Social Interaction Social Opportunity. The Issue. Assumptions regarding:

zenia
Download Presentation

Housing Mix and Social Mix: Does it Matter?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Housing Mix and Social Mix: Does it Matter? Sako Musterd Urban Geography Universiteit van Amsterdam

  2. The Issue Housing Mix Social Mix

  3. The Issue Housing Mix Social Mix Integration Social Interaction Social Opportunity

  4. The Issue Assumptions regarding: • Impacts of Segregation and Concentration • A specific role for Housing Housing Mix Social Mix Integration Social Interaction Social Opportunity

  5. Central questions • What are the levels of residential segregation and concentration in European cities and what role does housing play? • Is there a relationship between housing mix and social mix? • Is there a relation between these mixes and social outcome?

  6. Question 1What are the levels of residential segregation and concentration in European cities and what role does housing play? Is there an urgent reason for mix?

  7. What kind of segregation and concentration? • Ethnic (concentration area, ethnic neighbourhood, ghettos, levels of mix) • Socio-economic (income mixed areas, gold coasts, poverty ghettos) • Demographic (lifestyle areas, lifestyle mixed areas) Here focus on ethnic and social

  8. Index of SegregationEthnic Minorities 8 EU countries 20 citiesindex (0-100 = low-high segregation)

  9. An example: ethnic concentrations in Amsterdam and the Amsterdam metropolitan region

  10. Amsterdam Surinamese 2004 > 2sd above the mean > 19.8% In concentrations: 33% Of all Surinamese: 38% Concentration These figures were the same in 1994!

  11. Amsterdam Surinamese 2004 > 4sd above the mean > 27.8% In concentrations: 38% Of all Surinamese: 31% Strong concentration These figures were the same in 1994!

  12. Amsterdam Surinamese 2004 > 50% In concentrations: 57% Of all Surinamese: 2.9% Ethnic neighbourhood

  13. 2004 > 60% In concentrations: 65% Of all Surinamese: 0.6% ‘Ghetto’?

  14. Amsterdam region, ‘non-western’, 2000 > 4sd above the mean > 48% In concentrations: 63% Of all non-western: 50%

  15. Amsterdam region, ‘non-western’, 2004 > 4sd above the mean > 51.5% In concentrations: 66% Of all non-western: 49%

  16. Ethnic concentrations are unstable1994-2004 change relative to 1994; Turkish concentrations in Amsterdam

  17. Moroccans 2004 1973

  18. Associations between housing and ethnic concentrations

  19. ‘non-western’ and social housing in Amsterdam, 2004 > 4sd above the mean > 51.5% non-western (blue) > 90.0% soc-housing (yellow)

  20. LA Blacks, all in private housing

  21. South Mediterranean in Brussels, most inprivate residual housing

  22. In short: • Ethnic segregation levels in EU cities vary substantially • Ethnic concentrations are unstable • Ethnic concentrations are not tenure unique • Most ethnic minorities do not live in ethnic concentrations • Ethnic concentrations require explanations at State, City, and Group level

  23. LevelsIndex of SegregationSocio-Economic Categories

  24. Social Mix is CommonIncome distribution of the richest (zuid, left) and poorest (westerpark, right) urban districts of Amsterdam, quintiles, 1996 richest poorest

  25. In short: • Socio-spatial segregation is higher for higher social classes than for lower classes • Many ‘lower social class’ neighbourhoods are very mixed already • Social segregation requires explanations at State, City, and Group level

  26. Theories of segregation and concentration • Globalisation • Economic restructuring • Cultural(language, religion, discrimination, identity, level of acceptance of inequality, tolerance towards difference, eagerness to ‘enforce’ integration) • Welfare regime - Benefit systems for unemployed, elderly and disabled - Education - Access to housing - Labour market access - Housing benefits - Health care systems - Income redistribution • Historic social, economic and cultural urban paths • Political attitudes towards diversity(ideas regarding assimilation; multiculturalism and mix)

  27. Relevant scales for understanding segregation • Global: globalisation and economic restructuring • State: welfare regimes; policies towards segregation and ‘models’ of integration • City: urban histories; path dependency • Group: attitudes and identities; inter-generational differences

  28. Question 2Is there a relationship between housing mix and social mix?

  29. Sweden (with Andersson) • Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities (Urban Affairs Review 2005)

  30. Data available • Swedish longitudinal data 1991-1995-1999 • > 5.5 million cases • Focus on 16-65 year old • Neighbourhood characteristics for 9,200 SAMS areas (housing mix, social mix, ethnic mix) • Social opportunities: measured through change from unemployment to employment

  31. Key-variables • Housing mix: from absolutely homogeneous to highly heterogeneous (mixed) (9 types, entropy measures) • Social mix: clusters on the basis of scores in three classes of income deciles (low, mixed-low, mixed, mixed-high, high) • Ethnic mix (based on nationalities and share of refugees) • Socio-ethnic clusters (all combined) • Social mobility: change in employment position

  32. Some findings on housing mix and social mix/ethnic mix • General: housing mix and social mix association is not very strong • Same holds for housing mix and ethnic mix (see next figure) • ~25% of homogeneous housing areas are relatively homogeneous low income areas • ~20% of the most heterogeneous housing areas are homogeneous low income areas

  33. Soc.economic and ethnic clusters; DNA per housing mix type

  34. Additional findings on housing mix and social mix • Homogeneous and heterogeneous areas in terms of housing mix type are different in terms of social and ethnic compositions, but the difference is not clear cut; in both types a large share of low-income households and non-Swedes can be found • Many heterogeneous housing areas have a homogeneous social profile • There is no clear relation between housing mix and social mix

  35. Question 3Is there a relation between housing mix, social mix and social outcome?

  36. Expected effects of Mix Positive • Perhaps helpful interaction between different groups and stronger social networks • Positive socialisation • Less stereotyping Negative • More difficult interaction and conflict • House value reduction

  37. Sweden(Musterd & Andersson - Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities Urban Affairs Review 2005 )

  38. Some findings regarding impact of mix on social opportunity • In highly socially mixed areas the lowest share of people that stays employed is found in both physically homogeneous and heterogeneous areas • For homogeneous low income areas a similar conclusion can be drawn • There are clear effects of education and of being a non-Swedish

  39. Perc. individual staying employed in 91,95,99 in various social and housing environments per educational attainment level 91-95 social Highly mixed Mixed low Mixed high Homogeneous low Homogeneous high physical education

  40. Perc. individuals staying employed in 91,95,99 living in a poor refugee area per country of origin, per educational attainment level 91-95

  41. The Netherlands(Musterd & Ostendorf in Housing Studies, 2001, 2003)

  42. Some findings • There are weak effects of social compositions on social mobility for people without a job • There are fairly strong effects for people with a stronger position

  43. Households that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter

  44. Households that in 1989 had at least one paid job and in 1994 lived on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter

  45. Neighbourhood effects on ‘socially weaker’ and ‘socially stronger’ individuals in The Netherlands; percentages relative to households not belonging to pensioners.

  46. Various households

  47. Households in the three big cities that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter

  48. Single person households that, in 1989 and in 1994 live on a benefit in relation to the characteristics of their environment in 1989, radius 250 meter

  49. Other evidence(Andersson, Musterd, Galster & Kauppinen) • Employment, social mobility and neighbourhood effects (International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2006) • Are ethnic clusters good or bad? (under review) • What mix matters? (under review)

  50. Percentage of unemployed in 1991 staying unemployed in 1995 and 1999, per environment type 1991, per educational attainment category 1991-1995 and both years (1991, 1995) living in one of the three big cities in Sweden

More Related