spatial justice and the irish crisis: poverty - des mccafferty and eileen humphreys

Child Poverty, Urban

Regeneration and

Environmental Justice

Des McCafferty Mary Immaculate College, Limerick

Eileen Humphreys University of Limerick

Outline of presentation

• Child poverty in Ireland

• Children in disadvantaged areas: child

outcomes in Limerick’s regeneration

estates

• Children and environmental justice

• Reflections on the regeneration

programme

National social target for poverty

reduction (2012)

• To reduce consistent poverty to 4 per cent

by 2016, and to 2 per cent or less by 2020,

from a baseline rate of 6.2 per cent in

2010

• Two sub-targets:

– To reduce the differential in the consistent

poverty rates for children and adults

– To reduce the concentration of the

consistently poor in jobless households

Poverty indicators 2006-2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f P

op

ula

tio

n

At risk of poverty rate

Deprivation rate

Consistent poverty rate

Child poverty indicators

Consistent poverty by household

composition

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 adult aged65+

1 adult aged<65

2 adults, atleast 1 aged

65+

2 adults bothaged <65

3 or moreadults

1 adult withchildren aged

<18

2 adults with 1-3 childrenaged <18

Otherhouseholdswith children

Rate

(%

)

2009

2010

2011

Research Objective: To explore the needs and experiences of children and families in Limerick City, with a particular emphasis on communities targeted for assistance under the Limerick regeneration initiative Research Team: IKOS Research and Consultancy (Eileen Humphreys) and Mary Immaculate College (Des McCafferty and Ann Higgins) Commissioned By: Limerick City Children’s Services Committee

Regeneration areas

Disadvantaged control

Average control

The regeneration estates

Moyross

O’Malley Park, Southill Ballinacurra Weston

St. Mary’s Park

Survey of parents / carers and

children

Area Sample of Parents

/ Carers (N)

Child Sample

(N)

Northside Regeneration 119 42

Southside Regeneration 90 23

Disadvantaged Control 104 39

Average control 105 24

Total 418 128

Note: The survey of parents / carers enquired in all cases about a ‘reference’ child in the family. This child may not have been the same as the child interviewed in the child survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

N'sideRegen

S'side Regen Disadv. Area AverageArea

All Areas

%

r

e

s

p

o

n

d

e

n

t

s

Single / never married

Married / Cohabiting

Divorced / separated /widowed

Marital status of parent / carer

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

N'side Regen S'side Regen Disadv Area Average Area All Areas

% p

are

nts

/ c

are

rs

Lower Sec

Up Sec / Vocational

Graduate

Parent / carer: highest level of

educational qualification

Main source of household income

23.3

16.9

51

87.5

45.4

76.7

83.1

46.9

12.5

54.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

N'sideRegen

S'sideRegen

Disadv Area AverageArea

All Areas

% p

are

nts

/ c

are

rs

Wages or salaries from work

Social Welfare Payments

Other

Community social capital: Knowing

and trusting most people

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

N'sideRegen

S'Regen Disadv Area AverageArea

All Areas

%

p

a

r

e

n

t

s

/

c

a

r

e

r

s

Know most

Trust most

Rating of the neighbourhood as a

place to bring up a family

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

N'sideRegen

S'sideRegen

DisadvArea

AverageArea

All Areas

%

p

a

r

e

n

t

s

/

c

a

r

e

r

s

Excellent

Good

Average

Poor

Very poor

Child perceptions of

neighbourhood safety

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

N'sideRegen

S'sideRegen

DisadvArea

AverageArea

All Areas

%

c

h

i

l

d

r

e

s

p

o

n

d

e

n

t

s

I feel safe when I go outside

I'm afraid to go out

There are lots of mean kidsliving here

Children’s wishes to stay or

move

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

N'sideRegen

S'sideRegen

Disadv Area AverageArea

All Areas

%

c

h

i

l

d

r

e

s

p

o

n

d

e

n

t

s

I like where I'm living

I want to move

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

N'sideRegen

S'SideRegen

DisadvArea

AverageArea

All Areas

%

r

e

s

p

o

n

d

e

n

t

s

Excellent

Good - healthy a fewminor problems

Fair - sometimes quiteill

Poor - almost always ill

Parent / carer’s assessment of

sample child’s health

Total difficulties scale (SDQ):

Normality ranges and comparison

29.1

33.3

14.8

7

21.1

8 7

5.8

14.1

9.1

7

8.7

5 8

65 52 76.1 86 70 87 85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

N'sideRegen

S'sideRegen

DisadvArea

AverageArea

All Areas US IRL

%

s

a

m

p

l

e

c

h

i

l

d

r

e

n

Normal 0-13

Borderline 14-16

Abnormal 17-40

Environmental Justice

• Initial focus on inequalities in the exposure of individuals and communities to environmental risks and hazards, and, consequently environmental health

• More recently broadened to include differences in the availability of, and access to, environmental resources

• In the context of child poverty specifically, Hornberg and Pauli (2007) argue for a more holistic interpretation, to include dimensions such: – The absence or degradation of green spaces and

parks

– Inequalities arising from aspects of the socio-economic environment e.g., differences in levels of social capital and social networks

An issue of environmental justice?

• Children in the regeneration areas experience an environment which is deficient in many respects, including: – The lack of safe play areas

– [Perceived] inability to go out in safety

– Exposure to bullying and other negative peer pressures

• This environment is created by wider socio-spatial processes – Polarisation of the labour market

– Segregation in the housing market

– Spatial concentration of social problems

An issue of environmental justice?

• Children are the least independently

mobile section of the population and

therefore the most affected by the quality

of the neighbourhood environment

• They are also relatively voiceless and

powerless

• The environment in the regeneration

estates may well be hazardous to their

health and development (the SDQ scale)

Summary

• Problems created

by wider social

processes

• Inability to influence

or to move away

• Adverse and long-

term effects on

well-being

√

√

√

Regeneration to date:

New housing in Moyross

Regeneration to date:

Demolition and clearance in Southill

February, 2010 April, 2013

Population change 2006-2011

selected Electoral Districts ED /

Regeneration

Area

2006 2011 % Change

Ballynanty ED* /

Moyross

1,211 863 -28.8

John’s A / St.

Mary’s Park

3,468 2,918 -15.9

Galvone B /

Southill

1,558 878 -43.6

Prospect B* /

Ballinacurra

Weston

1,031 751 -27.2

* Not all of the ED lies within the regeneration boundaries

Conclusions

• The regeneration programme has been a victim of the crisis: roughly €120m spent compared to €3.1b planned

• No certainty that the planned building programme would have succeeded – e.g., would social mix have been achieved? – nevertheless...

• Families now living in estates with high levels of vacant / demolished buildings

• New issues of threats to community services (e.g. crèches) due to declining numbers

• Importance - as a matter of environmental justice - of retaining supports for these communities