Residential mobility and migration of the separated

Peteke Feijten and Maarten van Ham

University of St Andrews

Background

• Housing careers are strongly determined by household careers, as each new household situation requires and adjustment of housing and/or location (Rossi, 1955).

• In the 1950s and 1960s, life courses were fairly standard, and the housing career usually showed an upward trend.

• From the 1970s onwards, household careers and housing careers became more complex.

• One of the reasons was the increase in divorce rates.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

20031993198319731963

Div

orc

es

pe

r 1,0

00

pe

rso

ns

Sweden

Germany

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Italy

Poland

Crude divorce rates in Europe, 1993-2003

Source: Eurostat, 2006

Divorce and the housing career

• We already know a lot about the effect of divorce on housing careers:– Separated people often move (temporarily) into shared housing

or with friends or relatives (McCarthy & Simpson, 1991);– There is an increased risk of falling out of homeownership,

especially for women (Feijten, 2005);– After separation, moves to smaller, multi-family, rented dwellings

prevail (Van Noortwijk et al., 1992).– Leaving the marital home after a divorce can cause severe grief

(Anthony, 1997)

• Little is known about how divorce affects people’s spatial careers.

Why separation may affect spatial careers

1. Separation makes moving urgent;

2. Moves after separation are subject to financial restrictions (especially for women);

3. Moves after separation are subject to spatial restrictions when strong social ties in the old place of residence remain (especially for non-custodial parents).

RESEARCH QUESTION: How does separation affect the spatial aspects of housing careers?

Hypotheses

• Frequency: separated people move considerably more often than singles and people in intact couples;

• Distance: separated people are less likely to move over long distances than singles and people in intact couples;

• Direction: separated people are expected to move more often to/stay in cities than people in intact couples.

Data and methods

• Longitudinal dataset from 3 retrospective surveys:– SSCW survey (1993)– Netherlands Family Surveys 1993 and 2000

• Data on 4,102 full life courses• Study population: the Dutch population, having left the

parental home and not living in an institution.• Data transformed into a person-year file.• Hazard analysis on discrete time data.• Separate models for frequency, distance and direction of

moves after separation.• Per aspect first a bivariate (or trivariate) analysis and

then a multivariate analysis.

Analysis part one:

Frequency of moving

Moving frequency

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

single in f irstrelationship

first yearseparated

secondyear

separated

third to f if thyear

separated

more than 5years

separated

in higherorder

relationship

w idow ed

All moves

Moves leading totliving arrangementexcluded

Relative risks of moving(from multivariate model)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Duration of living arrangement in years

Rel

ativ

e ri

sk steady single

in first relationship

separated single

new relationship

Analysis part two:

Distance of moving

Distance moved

25.2 25.3

18.4

22.1

6.87.5

8.4 8.4

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

steady single in first relationship separated single new relationship

Mean

Median

Proportion moves over long distance, by gender and child

status24.3

18.8

17.4

25.9

16.3

18.5

18.2

21.0

14.0

5.3

13.0

17.2

9.9

20.5

17.2

19.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

no children

child(ren)

no children

child(ren)

no children

child(ren)

no children

child(ren)

no children

child(ren)

no children

child(ren)

no children

child(ren)

no children

child(ren)

Men

Wom

enM

enW

omen

Men

Wom

enM

enW

omen

stea

dy s

ingl

ein

firs

t rel

atio

nshi

pse

para

ted

sing

lene

w r

elat

ions

hip

Relative risks of moving over long distance (>40 km)

(from multivariate model)

No children Child(ren) Male Female Male Female

Steady single 0.51 0.47 1.12 1.41 In first relationship 1.12 1.18 1.00 1.01 Separated single 1.66 1.38 0.65 1.82 New relationship 1.28 2.99 2.32 1.75

Analysis part three:

Direction of moving

76.767.8

86.2

67.9

9.7

16.5

8.3

17.9

13.5 15.75.5

14.3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

steady single in f irst relationship separated single new relationship

from city to rural area

from city to suburb

from city to city

Direction of moves – from city

29.5

13.820.0

10.5

48.5

65.3

69.2

59.6

22.0 20.810.8

29.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

steady single in f irst relationship separated single new relationship

from suburb to rural area

from suburb to suburb

from suburb to city

Direction of moves – from suburb

18.5

6.214.8

8.1

10.7

7.3

7.0

8.1

70.8

86.578.2

83.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

steady single in f irst relationship separated single new relationship

from rural area to rural area

from rural area to suburb

from rural area to city

Direction of moves – from rural area

Probability of moving within the city or out of the city (from multivariate model)

Moving within the city Moving out of the city

  Coef. S.e.   Exp(B) Coef. S.e.   Exp(B)

Relationship situation (ref = first relationship)

steady single -0.443 0.072 *** 0.642 -0.528 0.170 *** 0.590

separated single 0.528 0.109 *** 1.696 0.434 0.281   1.543

new relationship 0.569 0.165 *** 1.767 1.355 0.346 *** 3.879

Probability of moving within the suburb/rural area or to the city (from

multivariate model)

Moving within suburban/rural area Moving to city

  Coef. S.e.   Exp(B) Coef. S.e.   Exp(B)

Relationship situation (ref = in first relationship)

steady single -0.532 .070 *** 0.587 -0.247 0.209   0.781

separated single 0.615 0.094 *** 1.849 0.908 0.327 *** 2.480

new relationship 0.575 0.115 *** 1.778 0.529 0.465   1.697

Summary

• Separation leads to distinctive spatial behaviour. • Separated people…

– move much more often than people in other living arrangements; this effect lasts to up to five years after the separation.

– move over slightly shorter distances compared to singles and people in a first relationship; this is largely attributable to separated men with children

– tend to stay in the residential environment where they lived before separation. If they change residential environment, moves to the city prevail.

Conclusions

• Results show that past experience shapes future behaviour.

• Living arrangement in combination with relationship history is a robust determinant of spatial behaviour.

• As more people experience a separation, spatial careers will become increasingly disordered and discontinued.

• This increasing complexity and differentiation has to be taken into account when attempting to understand the functioning of housing markets.