Socio-economic segregation in European cities. A comparative study of Brussels, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo and Stockholm

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare socioeconomic segregation patterns and levels in Brussels, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo, and Stockholm with uniform measurements. Socioeconomic segregation is a persistent reality in European cities that may have negative effects on social cohesion and individual outcomes. Previous research has been hampered by conceptual and methodological shortcomings, preventing comparable studies of segregation. We use harmonized datasets from 2011 containing geocoded indicators based on a nearest-neighbors approach, allowing for comparable measures of socio-economic segregation at multiple scales. Our analyses offer an unprecedented comparison of patterns and levels of socio-spatial inequalities in European capitals. Using maps, segregation indices and percentile plots, we find that for all cities, the level of segregation by affluence is much larger than that of poverty. Macro-scale poverty segregation is most prominent in Stockholm and Brussels, and quite low in Amsterdam. At microscales, Brussels and Stockholm stand out with very high concentrations of poverty at the local level. In such poor neighborhoods, there are hardly any non-poor, indicating high levels of polarization. Macro-scale segregation by affluence is most pronounced in Oslo. Differences in levels and patterns are interpreted in the light of their particular welfare regimes, housing systems, area-based policies and migration dynamics.

Towards a new paradigm for segregation measurement in an age of big data

“…They claim that racial discrimination has resulted in a high concentration of ethnic and racial minority groups in neighbourhoods with high crime levels, social disorder, unemployment rates, poor public health and services, and high environmental injustice (Wilson, 2012). With the global city thesis of social polarisation, socioeconomic segregation, which means the residential sorting of socioeconomic groups by income (Haandrikman et al, 2021), working status (Ng et al, 2021), and occupation (Smith et al, 2020) have become a significant dimension of residential segregation (Reardon et al, 2018;Van Ham et al, 2021). Disadvantaged minorities face unequal access to valued resources (e.g., education and job markets) critical to their life chances and social mobility.…”

Making Norway’s housing more affordable and sustainable

“…The Productivity Commission noted an increase over recent decades in the time taken to process applications. Legislated 12-week deadlines for processing building and zoning applications are not long by international standards (Gyourko and Molloy, 2014 [61]). Municipalities tend, on average, to stick to these deadlines, too (Figure 18).…”

Vertical segregation in the apartment blocks of Athens and Budapest: A comparative study

“…Recent studies on socio-economic segregation in European capital cities (Tammaru et al, 2015) revealed that even though the levels of segregation in Europe are still relatively low compared with other parts of the world, ‘the spatial gap between poor and rich is widening’ (Marcińczak et al, 2015b: 358). The rapidly growing body of literature on social polarisation and increasing residential segregation (Friesenecker and Kazepov, 2021; Haandrikman et al, 2021; Hamnett, 2021; Hedberg and Tammaru, 2013; Maloutas, 2012; Maloutas and Botton, 2021a; Ouředníček et al, 2015; Tammaru et al, 2015, 2021; Van Ham et al, 2020, 2021) indicates the assumed social impacts of segregation.…”