Advertisement

Why do residents want to leave deprived neighbourhoods? The importance of residents’ subjective evaluations of their neighbourhood and its reputation

  • Hans Skifter Andersen
Article

Abstract

Many area-based initiatives in deprived urban neighbourhoods seek to reduce the number of residents who move away from the area. One common objective is to keep those with jobs or middle incomes in order to avoid further concentration of poor people and social problems. This paper is based on a study of how residents in 12 deprived urban areas in Denmark evaluate their neighbourhood and how this is connected to their wish to move or stay. The purpose is to expose the importance of residents’ subjective evaluations of the neighbourhood and its reputation for their inclination to stay or move away. Some conclusions are drawn for area-based initiatives that could reduce mobility. The study shows a strong connection between residents’ perception of the reputation of their neighbourhood and their plans to move, but it also shows that other factors have great importance too. Dissatisfaction due to social problems and crime are the main reasons for moving away from deprived neighbourhoods, especially among residents in employment. Strong social relations within the neighbourhood prove to significantly reduce the intention to move.

Keywords

Deprived neighbourhoods Neighbourhood dissatisfaction Plans to move away 

References

  1. Atkinson, R., & Kintrea, K. (1998) Reconnecting excluded communities: The neighbourhood impacts of owner occupation. Research Report 61. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes.Google Scholar
  2. Basolo, V., & Strong, D. (2002) Understanding the neighbourhood: From residents’ perception and needs to action. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1), 83–105.Google Scholar
  3. Beekman, T., Lyons, F., & Scott, J. (2001). Improving the understanding of the influence of owner-occupiers in mixed tenure neighbourhoods. Report 89. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, L. A., & Moore, E. G. (1970). The intra-urban migration process: a perspective. Geografiska Annaler Series B, 52(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burrows, R., & Rhodes, D. (1998) Unpopular places? Area disadvantage and the geography of misery in England. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carp, F., Zawadski, R., & Shokron, H. (1976) Dimensions of urban environmental quality. Environment and Behaviour, 8, 239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, W. A. V., & Ledwith. V. (2005). Mobility, housing stress and neighborhood contexts: Evidence from Los Angeles. California Center for Population Research. On-line Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, I., & Shayer, S. (1998). Tenure mix as social fix? community diversity and social networks on mixed housing estates. Paper to ENHR conference, Cardiff 7–11. September 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Costa Pinho, T. (2000). Residential contexts of social exclusion: Images and identities. Paper for ENHR Conference, Gävle 2000.Google Scholar
  10. De Groot, C., Manting, D., & Mulder, C. H. (2007). Intentions to move and actual moving behaviour in the Netherlands. Paper for ENHR Conference Rotterdam 2007.Google Scholar
  11. Dekker, K., Musterd, S., & Van Kempen, R. (2007). Explaining differentials in housing and neighbourhood satisfaction in post-WWII large housing estates in European cities. Paper for ENHR Conference, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Feijten, P., & Van Ham, M. (2007). Neighbourhood change … reason to leave? Paper for ENHR Conference Rotterdam 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Franscescato, G., Wiedemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. (1987). Residential Satisfaction. In W. van Vliet, et al. (Eds.), Housing and neighbourhoods. Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 43–58). New York/London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  14. Friedrichs, J., & Blasius, J. (2006). Attitudes of owners and renters in a deprived neighbourhood. Paper to ENHR Conference in Ljubljana 2006.Google Scholar
  15. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Galster, G., Hayes, C., & Johnston, J. (2002). Identifying robust, parsimonious indicators of neighbourhood quality of life. Wayne State University.Google Scholar
  17. Johnston, R. J. (1973). Spatial patterns in suburban evaluations. Environment and Planning A, 5, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kearns, A., & Parkes, A. (2003). Living in and leaving poor neighbourhood conditions in England. Housing Studies, 18(6), 827–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knox, P. (1995). Urban social geography. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Koopman, M. J. (2007). Looking from the inside out or from the outside in: Differences and associations between neighbourhood push and pull. Paper for ENHR Conference Rotterdam 200.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, B. A., Oreposa, R. S., & Kanan, J. W. (1994). Neighbourhood context and residential mobility. Demography, 31(2), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lu, M. (1998) Analyzing migration decision making: relationship between residential satisfaction, mobility intentions and moving behaviour. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1473–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction. Growth and Change, 30, 264–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Massey, D. (1995). The conceptualisation of space. In D. Massey & P. Jess (Eds.), A place in the world. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  26. McHugh, K., Gober, P., & Reid, N. (1990). Determinants of short- and long-term mobility expectations for home owners and renters. Demography, 27, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parkes, A., Kearns, A., & Atkinson, R. (2002) What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods? Urban Studies, 39(13), 2413–2438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Permentier, M., Van Ham, M., & Bolt, G. (2007). Behavioural responses to neighbourhood reputations. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22(2), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rijpers, B., & Smeets, J. (1998). Housing challenge: Managing neighbourhoods image. Paper to ENHR conference, Cardiff 7–11. September 1998.Google Scholar
  30. Rossi, P. H. (1955) Why families move. Illinois. The Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Speare, A. J., Goldstein, S., & Frey, W. H. (1974). Residential mobility, migration and metropolitan change. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  32. Skifter Andersen, H. (1999). Virkningerne af Byudvalgets indsats i almene boligafdelinger 1994–97 (Effects of area-based initiatives on social housing estates in Denmark). SBI-report 321, Horsholm: Danish Building and Urban Research.Google Scholar
  33. Skifter Andersen, H (2002a). Excluded places. On the interaction between segregation, urban decay and deprived neighbourhoods. Housing, Theory and Society, 19, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skifter Andersen, H. (2002b). Can Deprived Housing Areas be revitalised? Efforts against segregation and neighbourhood decay in Denmark and Europe. Urban Studies, 39(4).Google Scholar
  35. Skifter Andersen, H. (2003). Urban Sores. On the interaction between segregation, urban decay and deprived neighbourhoods. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  36. Skifter Andersen, H. (2004). Residents’ understanding of deprived urban neighbourhoods and its significance for plans to move. Paper to ENHR Conference Cambridge 2004.Google Scholar
  37. Skifter Andersen, H. (2006a). Moving to and from enclaves. Housing choices of ethnic minorities in Denmark. Paper to Workshop on Minority Ethnic Groups and Housing: Perceptions and Perspectives, ENHR Conference in Ljubliana, 2–5 July 2006.Google Scholar
  38. Skifter Andersen, H. (2006b). Undersøgelse af til- og fraflytningen fra 3 multietniske boligområder (Study of moves to and from three multietniske boligområder housing areas). Horsholm: Danish Building Research Institute.Google Scholar
  39. Skifter Andersen, H., & Kielgast, L. (2003). De syv første kvarterløft. Sammenfattende evaluering af udviklingen 1997–2002. Horsholm: Danish Building and Urban Research.Google Scholar
  40. Wolpert, J. (1965). Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 15, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ærø, T. (2001). Boligpræferencer, boligvalg og livsstil (Housing preferences, choice of dwelling and lifestyle). PhD. Thesis. Horsholm: Danish Building and Urban Research.Google Scholar
  42. Ærø, T. (2004). Forebyggelse af normbrud og konflikter i boligområder (Prevention of violation of norms and conflicts in housing areas). In H. Skifter Andersen & H. T. Andersen (Eds.), Den mangfoldige by. Horsholm: Danish Building Research Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish Urban and Building ResearchHorsholmDenmark
  2. 2.Centre for Housing and Welfare University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations