civic design
DESCRIPTION
Paper for presentation at the 47 th European Regional Science Science Congress Cergy-Pontoise, Paris 29 August – 2 September 2007. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Urban deprivation, migration and the impact of regeneration
policy: a geodemographic perspective
Peter Batey, Peter Brown and Simon PembertonDepartment of Civic Design
University of Liverpool
civic design
1909
2009
Celebrating 100 years of planning education and research
Paper for presentation at the 47th European Regional Science Science CongressCergy-Pontoise, Paris 29 August – 2 September 2007
![Page 2: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The ‘moving escalator’ problem(Cole et al, 2007)
• Regenerating a neighbourhood should make the area more attractive to existing residents. Fewer residents will want to leave the area and those who do will be replaced more rapidly. Community stability and cohesion will improve.
But …
• Improving life chances, through education, health promotion, training, job mentoring, etc may help job prospects and material circumstances of local residents. More may want, and be able, to leave the area. Out-movers may be replaced by more disadvantaged households. The neighbourhood will become more deprived ...
What evidence is there for this ‘moving escalator’ problem?
![Page 3: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Structure of the presentation
1. Introduction: purpose of the research2. Urban deprivation, migration and
regeneration policy3. The research method4. Application: Merseyside Objective 1
Pathways Areas5. Conclusions
![Page 4: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Research aim
• To develop and apply a method for assessing the degree to which regeneration activity has affected the level and characteristics of migration to, and from, deprived urban neighbourhoods.
![Page 5: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Research objectives1. To examine available evidence about the relationship
between urban deprivation, migration and regeneration policy.
2. To explore the potential for combining geodemographics with small area census migration data as a novel approach to evaluating the impact of urban policy.
3. To demonstrate the utility of this approach in analysing how Objective 1 funding has affected the level and patterns of migration to and from particular targeted neighbourhoods, Pathways Areas on Merseyside.
4. To assess whether this case study evidence supports the notion of a ‘moving escalator’ in neighbourhood renewal, involving the ‘export’ of affluence and the ‘import’ of poverty.
![Page 6: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Part of a sequence of 3 papers
‘The spatial targeting of urban policy initiatives: a geodemographic assessment tool’.
‘Methods for the spatial targeting of urban policy: a comparative analysis’.
‘Urban deprivation, migration and the impact of regeneration policy: a geodemographic perspective’.
![Page 7: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Urban deprivation• Neighbourhood is the key spatial scale
for current regeneration policy in the UK.• This is because of the persistence and
worsening of geographical concentrations of poverty and disadvantage.
• Successive governments have re-affirmed the importance of area-based policies and programmes.
![Page 8: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Spatial targeting of regeneration policy
• In the UK context, spatial targeting goes back to the late 1960s.
• Different urban policy initiatives give varying emphasis to ‘people’ and ‘place’.
• The current 39 New Deal for Communities (NDC) programmes and the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal in England focus on addressing area characteristics / individual need.
![Page 9: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Migration• There has been a limited research focus to date
on the relationship between urban deprivation, migration and the impact of regeneration policy.
• But the relationship between regeneration policy and ‘population churn’ is crucial to migration patterns and the relative impact of interventions.
• Diverse and complex motivations lie behind decisions to move into, within or out of an area (Beatty et al, 2005).
• Personal and economic ‘triggers’, especially for ‘frequent movers’ (Richardson and Corbishley, 1999) are framed within a neighbourhood-level and wider context for change.
![Page 10: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Characteristics of movers in deprived areas: NDC evaluation 2002-04
• Out-movers are more likely to be white, young, employed with reasonable income, educated, owner-occupiers and in good health.
• In-movers are more likely to be younger still, belong to a (Black and Minority Ethnic) BME group, and live in private rented accommodation.
• Stayers are more likely to be white, older, in poor health and have fewer qualifications.
• This has implications for the nature and effectiveness of area-based regeneration policies and the degree to which they ‘export affluence’ and ‘import poverty’.
![Page 11: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Bailey and Livingston Study (2007)
A comprehensive study, focusing on Stability, Connection and Area Change, concluded that:
• Deprived areas do not have a general problem of instability; turnover levels are only slightly above average.
• Deprived areas are not generally disconnected from the wider housing system; an average of around 50% migrants move to/from non-deprived areas each year.
• Deprived areas do not generally see significant net out-migration of less deprived individuals; there are flows in both directions and these are nearly in balance.
![Page 12: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Research method
• A matched comparison method in which geodemographics is used to derive a set of neighbourhoods similar to the ones being assessed but without the specified policy intervention.
• Using this method it should be possible to isolate the impact of a particular regeneration initiative on both the level and characteristics of migration to an area.
• A four-way comparison: targeted areas; clones of these areas that have not been targeted; less affluent areas; more affluent areas.
![Page 13: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Geodemographic classification systems
• In geodemographic systems, neighbourhoods throughout the country are classified according to demographic, social and economic characteristics as measured by the census.
• Geodemographic systems are created using cluster analysis.
• The resulting clusters, or neighbourhood types can be ranked according to affluence.
• Generally based on Output Areas, the finest level of census geography.
• Such systems are widely used in the public and private sectors for spatial targeting.
![Page 14: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Analysing migration data• 2001 Census provides small area (Output Area)
migration data capturing changes of address in the period 2000-01.
• Inter-OA flows enable the identification of the area type at both origin and destination.
• Headline analysis of migration between these four types of area: are residents in targeted areas more or less likely to move than their counterparts elsewhere?
• Detailed analysis of migration between geodemographic area types: what evidence is there that targeted areas export population to more affluent areas and import population from less affluent areas?
![Page 15: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Application: EU Merseyside Objective 1 Pathways Areas
• Pathways Areas are deprived neighbourhoods were set up for community-based economic development purposes at the start of the first Objective 1 programme (1994-99).
• In Merseyside, 38 Pathways Areas were identified, accounting for 35% of the population.
• Strong emphasis on improving the social and economic position of individuals and the areas in which they live.
![Page 16: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Merseyside EU Objective 1Pathways Areas
![Page 17: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
EU Objective 1 Pathways Areas: progress• A recent report (Attwood, 2006) has tried to gauge the
‘success’ of Pathways Areas as a regeneration policy aimed at tackling deprived urban neighbourhoods.
• It found that the gap between Pathways Areas and non-Pathways Areas has widened on a number of indicators.
• Critical factors identified as hampering progress include:(i) the out-migration of Pathways Areas residents to “better areas” whose circumstances had improved as a result of Pathways Areas funding; and(ii) a lack of “replacement” leading to population decline and a persistent mis-targeting of those remaining (i.e. many beneficiaries were already employed)
• The approach developed here, linking geodemographics with migration analysis, should throw more light on these issues, given the lack of detail on the impact of migration
![Page 18: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Analytical method1. Within Merseyside, identify the Output Areas that
together make up Pathways Areas.2. Examine these Output Areas as a notional cluster
in n-dimensional space and locate a cluster centroid. Progressively eliminate outlying Output Areas to develop a tighter cluster, at each stage re-computing the cluster centroid.
3. Once a ‘final’ definition of the cluster has been obtained, establish distance from the centroid of the nth percentile Output Area. This distance will serve as the selection criterion when it comes to defining ‘clones’ of the Pathways Areas (referred to as Pathways-like Areas)
![Page 19: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Analytical method4. Extract a sample of Output Areas that satisfy the selection
criterion but are not designated as Pathways Areas (Pathways-like Areas). This sample is to be drawn from the group of local authorities that together contribute m% of the migration to and from Merseyside.
5. Extract a second sample of Output Areas (from the same set of local authorities) that fail to satisfy the selection criterion (other areas – distinguishing between less and more affluent areas).
6. Analyse the migration flows within and between these four types of areas: Pathways Areas; Pathways-like Areas; less affluent areas; and more affluent areas.
7. Undertake headline and detailed analyses, the latter examining migration between broad geodemographic area types.
![Page 20: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
P2 People and Places geodemographic typology
• Typology is based on cluster analysis applied to 84 variables from 2001 Census.
• Available at three levels of detail: 156 Leaves, 40 Branches and 13 Trees.
• Area types are presented in an affluence ranked sequence, e.g. Branches 1-40 [most to least]
• Typology built at Output Area level.• Developed jointly by University of Liverpool and
Beacon-Dodsworth.
![Page 21: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Migration flows in the study area: working age population
ToFrom
Less affluent areas
Pathways areas
Pathways-like areas
More affluent areas
Total
Less affluent areas
7074 810 3483 1485 12852
Pathways areas 648 15927 3240 8937 28752
Pathways-like areas 3618 2352 24294 13473 43737
More affluent areas
1620 8505 11043 37935 59103
Total 12960 27594 42060 61830 144444
![Page 22: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Types of residential move To From
Less affluent areas
Pathways areas
Pathways-like areas
More affluent areas
Less affluent areas
HorizontalUpward
1Upward
1 Upward
Pathways areas
Downward
4Horizontal
5Horizontal
5Upward
2Pathways-like areas
Downward
4Horizontal
5Horizontal
5Upward
2More
affluent areas
DownwardDownward
3Downward
3 Horizontal
![Page 23: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Defining migration rates1. Upwardly-mobile in-migration rate: 1/x2. Upwardly-mobile out-migration rate: 2/x3. Downwardly-mobile in-migration rate: 3/x4. Downwardly-mobile out-migration rate: 4/x5. Horizontally-mobile migration rate: 5/x6. Gross turnover rate: (1+2+3+4+5)/x
where x is the population in 2001
all rates are expressed as per 10,000 population
![Page 24: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Migration ratesper 10,000 population
Pathways areas
Pathways-like areas
Upwardly-mobile in-migration rate(1)
36 145
Upwardly-mobile out-migration rate(2)
394 560
Upwardly-mobile net-migration rate(1 - 2)
-358 -415
Downwardly-mobile in-migration rate (3)
375 459
Downwardly-mobile out-migration rate (4)
28 150
Downwardly-mobile net-migration rate (3 – 4)
347 309
Horizontally-mobileturnover rate (5)
1548 2117
Net-migration rate (1 - 2) + (3 - 4)
-9 -106
Gross turnover rate (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)
2381 3431
![Page 25: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Less Affluent Neighbourhoods
Pathways Areas
More Affluent Neighbourhoods
2
1
3
4
![Page 26: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Less Affluent Neighbourhoods
Pathways Areas
More Affluent Neighbourhoods
394 375
2836
![Page 27: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Migration rates: commentary 1
For Pathways Areas• Overall, out-migration is almost exactly the
same as in-migration.• Those moving out are much more likely to
move to more affluent neighbourhoods than less affluent ones.
• Those moving into Pathways Areas are more likely to come from more affluent neighbourhoods than less affluent ones.
![Page 28: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Less Affluent Neighbourhoods
Pathways-like Areas
More Affluent Neighbourhoods
145
560 459
150
![Page 29: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Migration rates: commentary 2
For Pathways-like Areas• There is a greater propensity to move out
than in.• Those moving in are much more likely to
be from more affluent neighbourhoods than less affluent ones.
![Page 30: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Migration rates: commentary 3Comparing Pathways & Pathways-like Areas• Population turnover is much lower in Pathways Areas,
suggesting that targeted Objective 1 resources are creating greater community stability and cohesion.
• Lower turnover is largely a function of less movement between Pathways Areas and more affluent Neighbourhoods.
• Gross turnover in the study area as a whole is 4039/10000• This is substantially more than for Pathways Areas (2381)
and Pathways-like Areas (3431).
![Page 31: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
ToFrom
Affluence1
[Br 1-20]
Level2
[Br 21-30]
Pathways Areas
Pathways-like
Areas
Affluence3
[Br 31-36]
Level4
[Br 37-40]
Total
1High
3240(12%)
5535(13%)
2Medium
5265(19%)
5508(13%)
Pathways Areas
4482(16%)
4455(15%)
15927(55/58%)
3240(11/8%)
648(2%)
0(0%)
28752(100%)
Pathways-like Areas
6669(15%)
6804(16%)
2352(5/9%)
24294(55/58%)
3537(8%)
81(0%)
43737(100%)
3Low
405(2%)
3078(7%)
4Very Low
405(2%)
405(1%)
Total 27594(100%)
42060(100%)
Pathways migration: highlighting the role of other neighbourhood types
![Page 32: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Pathways migration: highlighting the role of other neighbourhood types
Commentary on table• The table shows migration flows to and from Pathways and
Pathways-like Areas using four neighbourhood types differentiated according to affluence level. These four types are based on aggregated blocks of affluence-ranked People and Places Branches (1-20, 21-30, 31-36, 37-40).
• Two thirds of migration takes place within Pathways Areas and Pathways-like Areas.
• The profile of neighbourhoods contributing migrants to Pathways and Pathways-like Areas is very similar.
• People migrating from Pathways Areas are more likely to move to neighbourhoods that are slightly more affluent than Pathways Areas. Those migrating from Pathways-like Areas move to a more diverse range of Neighbourhoods.
![Page 33: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
ToFrom
Affluence Level 1 2 3 4 [Br 1-20] [Br 21-30] [Br 31-36] [Br 37-40]
Total
1High
24 12 37 18 91
2Medium
144 969 499 1159 2771
3Low
99 545 1215(8%)
1528(10%)
3387
4Very Low
234 1307 1771(11%)
6366(40%)
9678
Total 501 2833 3522 9071 15927(100%)
Gross migration within Pathways Areas
![Page 34: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Migration within Pathways Areas: Commentary
• In Pathways Areas, the majority of migration (69%) occurs within and between the two least affluent groupings of neighbourhood types.
• Almost half of migrants (48%) in Pathways Areas remain within the same neighbourhood affluence category when they move.
• For those who do shift affluence category, there is a clear pattern of upward movement, from the less affluent Pathways neighbourhoods to Pathways Areas that are more affluent.
• A much less pronounced pattern is found in Pathways-like Areas.
![Page 35: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
ToFrom
Affluence Level 1 2 3 4 [Br 1-20] [Br 21-30] [Br 31-36] [Br 37-40]
1High
2Medium
+132
3Low
+62 +46
4Very Low
+216 +148 +2434
Overall Net
+410 +62 +135 -607
Net migration within Pathways Areas
![Page 36: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
ToFrom
Affluence Level 1 2 3 4 [Br 1-20] [Br 21-30] [Br 31-36] [Br 37-40]
1High
2Medium
3Low
-18
4Very Low
-108 +660
Overall Net
-126 +678 -552
Net migration within Pathways-like Areas
![Page 37: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Conclusions 1
• The analysis of migration patterns is a crucial step in evaluating the effectiveness of any area-based regeneration policy.
• A geodemographic perspective helps to elucidate the ‘moving escalator’ problem.
• Evidence from the Pathways Areas study suggests that those moving out have ‘traded up’ and those moving in tend to be ‘trading down’.
• Population turnover is lower in Pathways Areas than in Pathways-like Areas suggesting that Objective 1 funding is contributing to greater community stability.
![Page 38: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Conclusions 2• This implies that future targeting of
regeneration policy should emphasize both:(i) internal strategies focused on physical improvements to encourage individuals to stay in the area (for example, diversifying housing and employment opportunities); and(ii) internal strategies that are ‘people-based’, given the propensity for individuals to remain in situ, leading to lower levels of ‘drop out’ (from activities focused on up-skilling and improving employability)
![Page 39: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Conclusions 3
• This is in line with the Regeneris (2003) mid-term evaluation of the Pathways programme which suggested that more emphasis needs to be placed on new ideas for physical improvements in Pathways Areas, along with a greater focus on improving entrepreneurship rates of local Pathways residents.
![Page 40: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Conclusions 4Findings compared with those of Bailey and Livingston: B&L Study: Deprived areas do not have a general problem of instability;
turnover levels are only slightly above average. This study: Based on working age population, turnover rates appear to
be considerably lower in deprived areas, notably in Objective 1 Pathways areas.
B&L Study: Deprived areas are not generally disconnected from the wider housing system; an average of around 50% migrants move to/from non-deprived areas each year.
This study: In Pathways Areas and Pathways-like Areas migration is more self-contained than in the B&L Study (c. 66% compared with 50%).
B&L Study: Deprived areas do not generally see significant net out-migration of less deprived individuals; there are flows in both directions and these are nearly in balance.
This study: The evidence here confirms this finding for Pathways Areas and, to a lesser extent, for Pathways-like Areas.
![Page 41: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
ReferencesAttwood, R. (2006) Analysis of Change Over Time in Merseyside's Pathways
Areas, Powerpoint Presentation to EU Merseyside Objective 1 Strategy and Performance Sub-Committee, 13 September 2006.
Bailey, N. and Livingston, M. (2007) Population Turnover and Area Deprivation. Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Bristol: Policy Press.
Batey, P.W.J., Brown, P.J.B. and Pemberton, S. (in press) ‘The spatial targeting of urban policy initiatives: a geodemographic assessment tool’, Environment and Planning A, 38,
Batey, P.W.J., Brown, P.J.B. and Pemberton, S. (submitted) ‘Methods for the spatial targeting of urban policy: a comparative analysis’, Urban Geography,
Beatty, C., Cole, I., Grimsley, M., Hickman, P. and Wilson, I. (2005) New Deal for Communities (NDC) National Evaluation: Housing and the Physical Environment: Will residents stay and reap the benefits? Sheffield Hallam University: Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research.
Cole, I., Lawless, P., Manning, J. and Wilson, I. (2007) The Moving Escalator? Patterns of Residential Mobility in New Deal for Communities areas: Research Report 32. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Regeneris (2003) Mid Term Evaluation of the Objective 1 Programme for Merseyside 2000-2006. Altrincham: Regeneris Consulting Ltd.
Richardson, K. and Corbishley, P. (1999) The characteristics of frequent movers, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) Findings, No. 439, April 1999. York: JRF.
![Page 42: civic design](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56815e3f550346895dccadad/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Department of Civic DesignUniversity of Liverpool
civic design
1909
2009
Celebrating 100 years of planning education and research