kinzua dam: a study in the congressional disruption, relocation ...
On Priority and Progress: Forced Residential Relocation and Housing Chances in Haaglanden, the...
Transcript of On Priority and Progress: Forced Residential Relocation and Housing Chances in Haaglanden, the...
This is the author's Post-print version (final draft post-refereeing as accepted for publication by the journal). The definitive, peer-reviewed and edited version of this article is published as: Kleinhans, R. & W. van der Laan Bouma-Doff (2008). On priority and progress: forced residential relocation and housing chances in Haaglanden, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, vol. 23(4), pp. 565-587. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030802101641
On Priority and Progress. Forced Residential Relocation and Housing Chances in Haaglanden, the Netherlands. Reinout Kleinhans and Wenda van der Laan Bouma-Doff Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies. Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT There is a wide interest in the effects of forced relocation in the context of urban restructuring. This interest is also inspired by debates on gentrification and displacement. The prevailing idea is that especially the lowest income groups suffer from displacement in terms of their housing quality and increased rents. In addition, growing shares of forced movers are assumed to harm the housing opportunities of other house seekers, while competing within the social rented sector. Although several studies deal with the consequences of forced relocation, a broader perspective on housing chances is currently lacking. Moreover, most studies are qualitative, whereas a larger-scale quantitative analysis is needed to test assumptions mentioned above. This paper addresses these matters by analysing housing allocation data of the Haaglanden in the Netherlands and two cross-sectional surveys among forced movers in the region’s central city: The Hague. Findings indicate that housing chances for both forced and regular house seekers have not declined substantially since 2000. Moreover, most forced movers experienced dwelling progress, partly thanks to the design of the housing allocation model. However, low-educated, as well as and middle- and higher income households less often report dwelling progress. Explanations for these findings are provided. KEY WORDS: displacement, forced relocation, social housing, dwelling progress, urban restructuring, The Netherlands
1. Introduction
In many Dutch cities, early post-war neighbourhoods, in which low-cost social
rented apartments often dominate the housing stock, are subject to considerable
interventions. Middle-class and higher-income households lack attractive housing
career opportunities and often leave, whereas low-income house seekers are highly
dependent on these neighbourhoods. This results in selective out- and in-migration
of different income groups (MVROM, 1997, 2000; Van Kempen & Priemus, 2002).
In 1997, the Dutch government launched a highly ambitious restructuring program
to tackle the problems of early post-war neighbourhoods. Demolition, sale or
upgrading of social rented housing and new construction of more expensive owner-
occupied dwellings create more variety in the housing stock. Until 2010, almost
60,000 social rented houses in prioritised areas will be demolished and replaced with
new constructed houses, mostly owner-occupied (Dekker, 2006). Just as many
households are directly affected: either they are forced to move out of the area due to
demolition of their own house, or they succeed in moving to other social housing in
the neighbourhood, whether or not upgraded or newly constructed.
Because of the significant impact of forced relocation on the life of many
residents, it is a recurring theme in the urban renewal and gentrification literature
(e.g. Allen, 2000; Atkinson, 2004; Buron et al., 2002; Fried, 1967; Gans, 1991; Goetz,
2002; Rubenstein, 1988). In the gentrification literature, displacement appears as a
synonym of forced relocation, which generally occurs when any household is forced
to move from its residence by conditions affecting the dwelling or its immediate
surroundings, such as demolition, ownership conversion of rental units and rent
increases (Grier & Grier, 1978; LeGates & Hartman, 1981). Most studies on
gentrification identify displacement as a significant problem (see Atkinson, 2004 for
an overview), although Freeman and Braconi (2004) recently provided contrasting
evidence that low-income residents in New York were less likely to become displaced
from gentrified areas than expected.
Still, the common premise is that low-income groups suffer most from
displacement, in terms of the quality of their dwelling, increased rents and fewer
housing opportunities in general. Exactly those issues are important in Dutch policy
debate. Until recently, the knowledge of the effects of forced relocation was quite
limited. Several evaluation studies have yielded more insights (City of The Hague,
2001; Kleinhans, 2003; Leveling & Vos, 2004; Steunpunt Wonen, 2003; Wolf &
2
Vriens, 2006). A common finding is the importance of the residents’ pre-relocation
opinion of the forced move. For example, already existing moving plans seem
positively related to resident attitudes after forced relocation. Moreover, forced
movers with specific characteristics appear to have more options than others, as a
result of specific aspects of the Dutch choice-based letting system for social housing
allocation. The same institutional context that triggers forced relocation can strongly
moderate its negative effects. In this paper, we will show that not all forced movers
perceive forced relocation as a purely negative event. Many benefit from several
compensation mechanisms in the relocation process. This is at odds with the
mainstream literature on displacement, adding an important precondition of
residents’ options within the context of the housing market. Therefore, this issue is
relevant for any situation in which a choice-based letting system for social rented
housing faces the challenge of forced relocation due to regeneration schemes, for
example in major Dutch and British cities. Simultaneously, local policymakers are
worried that the compensation mechanisms for forced movers and their growing
shares among house seekers increase the high pressure on urban housing markets
(VROM-Raad, 2002, p. 69; 2006, p. 86). Increased competition between forced
movers and regular, non-urgent house seekers may harm the housing opportunities
of especially the latter group (cf. Kullberg, 2002, p. 559-560; Van Kempen &
Priemus, 2002, p. 247).
However, a few studies actually looked into the longer-term effects on
housing chances. Moreover, most studies that examine the risks of forced relocation
are explorative of nature, whereas more quantitative studies are needed to test the
prevailing assumptions. This paper aims to partly fill these gaps with quantitative
analyses of housing allocation data and two identical cross-sectional surveys among
two ‘cohorts’ of forced relocation movers (2001 and 2004). Our research question is
twofold. First, does the supposedly growing share of forced movers go together with
decreasing housing chances of various house seekers in the social rented sector,
especially regular non-urgent house seekers? Second, what are the experiences of
forced movers? And in particular: to what extent are perceptions of dwelling
progress connected with respondents’ pre-relocation attitudes and their individual
characteristics? Our study area is a major urban area in the Netherlands: the
Haaglanden. Here, one of the biggest urban restructuring programmes in the
Netherlands is currently in progress. Moreover, crucial data from different sources
3
are available here. Not only can we analyse regional allocation data, but also the City
of The Hague has conducted identical surveys among relocated residents in different
years. With these data, we analyse residents’ perceptions of dwelling progress.
This paper is structured as follows. After the introduction, we briefly describe
the literature on forced relocation and displacement. The third section explains
housing allocation and relocation policies in the context of the Dutch urban
restructuring programme. Section four analyses the long-term housing chances of
different categories of movers in the Haaglanden region. Here, the central concept is
the probability of success, i.e. the chance that a household acquired a vacant social
rented house in a certain year. The fifth section switches to the resident survey and
describes the data, measures and results. Finally, conclusions and recommendations
for relocation policy are presented in section six.
2. Forced Relocation and Displacement in the Literature
As already mentioned, forced relocation and displacement appear highly
synonymous to each other. Displacement generally occurs where “any household is
forced to move from its residence by conditions which affect the dwelling or its
immediate surroundings, and which: 1. are beyond the household’s reasonable ability
to control or prevent; 2. occur despite the household’s having met all previously
imposed conditions of occupancy; 3. make continued occupancy by that household
impossible, hazardous, or unaffordable” (Grier & Grier, 1978, p. 8; cf. LeGates &
Hartman, 1981, p. 214). As this definition does not include any reference to housing
policy or market forces, it is equally applicable to both gentrification and urban
renewal. In some countries the question now emerges whether gentrification is
becoming a deliberate strategy in urban regeneration policies (see e.g. Atkinson, 2004,
p. 107; Hackworth & Smith, 2001; Uitermark et al., 2007). Residential displacement
is one of the primary dangers mentioned by those concerned about exclusionary
effects of market- as well state-driven gentrification (Newman & Wyly, 2006, p. 27).
The common premise is that low-income groups suffer most from displacement, in
terms of the quality of their dwelling, increased rents and fewer housing
opportunities in general. However, the tendency to frame forced relocation issues in
a gentrification discourse tends to ignore fundamental differences between these
4
phenomena, especially the institutional context. Whereas gentrification may displace
residents from private rented houses, urban renewal efforts predominantly target
social rented housing let by registered social landlords or housing associations.
Moreover, social landlords are legally bound to specific compensation regulations
(see section 2). In other words, the institutional context that triggers displacement
through gentrification, or forced relocation through urban renewal, strongly
influences the balance between positive and negative effects of forced residential
moves. The urban renewal literature also points at individual factors that determine
whether forced relocation yields positive or negative results. First, earlier research has
shown that forced relocation due to urban renewal presents significant risks for
residential satisfaction of households and their social ties in the neighbourhood (e.g.
Fried, 1967; Gans, 1991; Goetz, 2002; Kleit & Manzo, 2006). Apart from its physical
amenities, the home is an important foundation for security and trust. Home
represents a continuity in life, a controlled territory (Ekström, 1994) and it helps
shaping the identity of its residents. Forced relocation is basically a violation of these
features. Hence, people may suffer from affliction, i.e. feelings of a painful loss,
homesickness and inclination to idealise the former situation (Ekström, 1994; Fried,
1967).
However, relocation is also an opportunity to improve the quality of the
dwelling in which disadvantaged residents live (Baker & Arthurson, 2006; Buron et
al., 2002; Rubenstein, 1988). Earlier research shows that households who were
already considering or planning a move, perceive forced relocation quite differently
from households who prefer to stay put (Kleinhans, 2003; Kleit & Manzo, 2006;
Leveling & Vos, 2004). Likewise, Goetz (2002) found that involuntary relocated
families reported fewer benefits from their moves, compared to voluntarily mobile
families. This pattern emerged for employment, income, poverty, social interaction of
children, and several items regarding neighbourhood satisfaction. If residents can
agree with forced relocation, they are more prepared for substantial changes in their
housing situation, which makes adaptation easier (e.g. Allen, 2000; Van Kempen &
Priemus, 2002) and lowers unwillingness and protest.
This indicates that residents’ attitudes are important, besides moving plans or
actual dwelling improvement afterwards. According to Fried (1967), ‘pre-relocation
evidences of preparedness for change are the most important factors determining
post-relocation adjustment-adaptation and tend to dwarf the importance of post-
5
relocation situations and experiences’ (ibid., p. 100). However, he hurried to state
that ‘objective improvement in the post-relocation situation does serve to counteract
[…] tendency towards low levels of adjustment-adaptation (ibid., p.99). Furthermore,
he adds that objective improvements are more frequently associated with satisfaction
for those who were ready to use the relocation as an opportunity for an increased
range of choices. In sum, there may be a connection between pre-relocation
agreement and perception of the dwelling situation afterwards.
In the next section, we will explain how forced relocation is connected to the
choice-based letting (CBL) for housing allocation. At first sight, this connection
appears as a contradictio in terminis, so the choice aspect of CBL deserves some
elaboration. Choice is a central issue in both the Dutch and English housing policies
(e.g. DETR, 2000; MVROM, 2000). In both countries, the development of choice-
based letting mechanisms is seen as closely associated with the rise of ‘new public
management’ and customer choice more broadly in public services (Brown & King,
2005, p. 63). In her work on housing choice, Mulder (1996) described four choice
approaches. These assume that people consider moving only after a certain trigger
has set off an intention to move, such as job changes or changes in the household
composition. Limited periods of housing choice are assumed, in which an intricate
interplay between preferences, resources, constraints and opportunities ‘model’
choice. In short, choice is only necessary in reaction to trigger events and choice
usually pertains a limited number of options. This gains more clarity if we look at the
principles of CBL. In their evaluation of the CBL pilot programme, Marsh and
colleagues (2004) describe how some interviewed housing officers felt that word
‘choice’ itself was misleading. Applicants may choose and bid for a property, but they
can not necessarily have it. Bidding for a property initially only means to be
considered for a property (cf. Brown & King, 2005, p. 64). An apparently broad
range of options within CBL schemes is limited by eligibility regulations (Kullberg,
2002; Pawson et al., 2006), by the nature of the local housing market and levels of
supply. Moreover, the ability to exercise choice is highly contingent on house seekers’
levels of understanding of the process and the availability of high-quality advice and
support services available (Brown & King, 2005, p. 65; Kleinhans, 2003; Kullberg,
2002; Marsh et al., 2004, p. 71). Several of these findings are also applicable to forced
relocation in the context of choice-based letting in Haaglanden.
6
3. Restructuring, Housing Allocation and Relocation Policy
The Dutch restructuring policy primarily targets post-war urban neighbourhoods but
also pre-war areas with relatively high shares of social rented housing. These
neighbourhoods are located in many Dutch cites, but considerably more in the four
major cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam (both 52%), The Hague (35%) and Utrecht
(38%) (MVROM, 2006). Two white papers of the government (MVROM, 1997,
2000) and the Urban Renewal Act (Staatsblad, 2000) have firmly established the
urban restructuring policy. The local authorities, housing associations and private
property developers jointly prepare and carry out the physical measures, which
should simultaneously improve the neighbourhood layout and infrastructure, services
and public space.
Understanding the process of forced relocation requires knowledge of the
Dutch housing market and especially the social housing allocation system. In this
section we will describe the Dutch institutional context, focussing on five important
elements: (1) tenant protection in the Civil Code, (2) the allocation mechanism, (3)
the detachment of income and rents in the social rented sector, (4) the certificate of
urgency and (5) housing allowances.
The Dutch Civil Code provides rent protection for tenants. The landlord,
often a housing association, can only give notice in strictly defined situations, such as
demolition or upgrading. Although housing associations are thus legally allowed to
relocate their tenants if this necessary for urban restructuring, those tenants are
entitled to three kinds of compensation. First and most important, they are entitled
to relocation in a dwelling comparable in size, type and tenure. Second, they must
receive a reasonable allowance for their relocation expenses. Since 1 July 2005, this
allowance has been legally established at € 5,000 per household at the least. Third,
tenants are eligible for extra assistance of the housing association, such as counselling
in the search for a suitable house. Local arrangements are allowed if they comply
with the basic principles prescribed in the Civil Code.
The most common allocation mechanism in the Netherlands is the ‘advert
model’ or the ‘Delft model’ (Kullberg, 1997, 2002). Vacant dwellings are advertised
in a weekly newspaper and on the Internet. Advertisements detail the characteristics
of the vacant dwellings. In addition, the qualifying conditions (suitability criteria) for
future tenants are mentioned, such as dwelling size in relation to household
7
composition and income level in relation to rent level. House seekers interested in a
certain dwelling must send in a reply coupon to the housing association or react
through the Internet. Subsequently, the characteristics of the applicants are compared
with the suitability criteria of the advertised dwelling. Then, for all eligible applicants,
sequence criteria determine who is first in line. The dwelling is usually allocated to
the applicant with the longest length of residence or waiting period (see Kullberg,
1997, 2002). Thus, the advert model demands active responses of house seekers to
advertisements and meeting the eligibility criteria of social rented housing. While the
advert model is subject to increasing criticism, it is by far the most common housing
allocation system in the Netherlands. Moreover, it has inspired many British social
landlords to introduce a comparable approach for letting vacant properties, known as
choice-based letting (Brown & Yates, 2005; Marsh et al., 2004; Pawson et al., 2006).
We will use this term in the rest of this article.
Low-cost social rented housing is obviously intended for households with
low incomes. However, once a tenancy agreement is fixed, an increase of the
household’s income has no consequences for the rent level, in contrast to, for
instance, public housing in the United States. Due to this detachment of income and
rents, many households with above-average incomes remain living in social rented
housing, resulting in a large share of ‘askew residents’ (scheefwoners). This is especially
the case in large cities, where owner-occupied dwellings are relatively scarce and
affordable alternatives are thus lacking (Van Kempen & Priemus, 2002, p. 241).
Although this mismatch on the housing market is diminishing, there are still may
people living in the social rented that have outgrown the so-called target group of
social housing (cf. Van Kempen & Priemus, 2002, p. 243-244). Only if these
households apply for another social rented house, which is the case during the
relocation process, their current income is checked again. Then, substantial income
growth may either direct these households to the more expensive parts of the social
housing stock, or exclude them completely from the social rented sector.
The Dutch choice-based letting regulations generally apply also to residents
who are forced to move because of urban restructuring. Initially, they must seek a
suitable alternative for themselves. However, they get a certificate of urgency that
gives them priority over regular house seekers in the social rented sector. This speeds
up the relocation process. When a mover with a certificate of urgency sends in a
reply coupon for an advertisement, the vacant house is usually allocated to him, not
8
to a regular house seeker. A certificate of urgency is generally valid for one year,
although under special circumstances the validity is extended for some time. If
several house seekers with a certificate of urgency apply for the same house, it is
allocated to the household whose certificate was previously extended or has the
nearest expiration date (Stadsgewest Haaglanden 2004, p. 15). We emphasise that a
certificate of urgency does not mean unlimited freedom, although it puts certificate
holders in front of the ‘queue’ for social rented housing. Forced relocation movers
must comply with the same suitability criteria as regular house seekers, such as
income levels, age and household size. Their current situation on these criteria
applies. Moreover, the certificate of urgency is often only valid for houses that are
comparable to their current dwelling type. This restriction is established in the so-
called options profile. The housing association demarcates the available relocation
options in the options profile. Thus, the priority advantage of an urgency status is
limited to comparable social rented houses anywhere in the housing market area.
There are local exceptions from this general rule, to increase relocation options for
families with two or more children or elderly people. This is also the case in our
study area (Stadsgewest Haaglanden 2004, p. 15). Here, we want to underline that
applying for other, less comparable dwelling types is both allowed and possible.
Then, not the certificate of urgency is the main eligibility criterion, because it is not
valid. In those cases, movers with a certificate compete with regular house seekers.
The decisive criterion is the length of residence in the current dwelling or (since 1
January 2005) the waiting period. Currently, the competition between forced movers
and regular house seekers is an important issue. There are growing concerns about
the increasing magnitude of the urban restructuring efforts in Dutch cities. The
pressure on local urban housing markets is already high. The premise is that the
compensation mechanisms for forced movers and their growing share among active
house seekers further increase the pressure (VROM-Raad, 2002, p. 69; 2006, p. 86).
Growing numbers of movers with certificates of urgency will simultaneously
compete for relocation options in the social rented sector. Moreover, the same urban
restructuring policy which makes forced relocation necessary, also reduces the stock
of affordable social housing (Van Kempen & Priemus, 2002, p. 247). The net result
may be a decrease of available options in the social rented sector.
Finally, an important aspect of Dutch social housing are housing allowances,
which are intended for making rental housing of a certain quality affordable to low-
9
income tenants. The allowance varies with rent level, household income, and
household size. Housing associations and local authorities administer the allowances.
However, the tax authorities execute the actual program administration and
payments since 1 January 2006. Recipients who move, can claim the housing
allowance for their new dwelling up to a certain maximum rent (Priemus et al., 2005).
Within this limit, forced relocation movers also maintain these rights, even if the rent
of the relocation dwelling is higher than previously. The increase of the allowance
largely compensates for the rent increase itself. A precondition is that their income at
the moment of relocation has not risen to a level that exceeds eligibility criteria for
housing allowances. To a certain extent, forced movers can thus relocate to more
expensive housing without paying a substantially higher bill every month. Contrary,
forced movers who are not eligible for housing allowances, must pay the net increase
of their monthly rent after relocation.
We assume that the discussed characteristics of the Dutch housing market
and allocation system have a strong impact on the housing choices and opportunities
of forced movers. In the next two sections, we will study this in more detail.
4. Probabilities of success
As mentioned in the introduction, the Haaglanden region is a major urban area in the
southwestern part of the Netherlands (see figure 1), inhabited by almost one million
people. Apart from the city of The Hague, it consists of the municipalities of Delft,
Leidschendam-Voorburg, Midden-Delfland, Pijnacker-Nootdorp, Rijswijk,
Wassenaar, Westland and Zoetermeer. The region has a regional authority that is
responsible for spatial planning, environment, transport, employment, economic
development and housing. The Haaglanden region clearly functions as one housing
market. Like in many other parts of the Netherlands, the choice-based letting system
is regionally organised. This does justice to the fact that residential mobility exceeds
the administrative boundaries of cities and municipalities.
Our first analysis concerns regional housing allocation data of Haaglanden
covering the years 2000 till 2006. The Association of Social Landlords Haaglanden
(Vereniging Sociale Verhuurders Haaglanden) provided data on households seeking social
rented housing. Using thechoice-based letting model requires registration.
10
Subsequently, house seekers can send in reply coupons to the responsible housing
association, or react though the Internet. Only if they do so at least once a year, they
are recognised as active house seekers. Furthermore, we listed data on actual numbers
of households who signed a new tenancy agreement. Three categories are
distinguished:
1. Forced relocation movers with a certificate of urgency on grounds of urban
restructuring, i.e. demolition or major upgrading of their dwelling.
2. Households with a certificate of urgency for medical reasons (e.g. disability)
or social reasons, such as domestic violence or a burnt-down house. This
category also includes other, less common forms of urgency.
3. Regular, non-urgent house seekers, from both inside and outside the region.
Figure 1 The Haaglanden region.
11
Table 1 in Appendix A shows that the total numbers of active house seekers in the
Haaglanden region have fluctuated in our study period. Between 1999 and 2001,
numbers rose from almost 60,600 to approximately 71,000. In the three consecutive
years, the number stabilised at 71,500, followed by a decrease to almost 66,000 in
2005. This is almost entirely determined by changes in the number of regular house
seekers. Their decrease in 2005 is largely due to an administrative correction of the
Woonnet Haaglanden, the organisation running the regional choice-based letting
system. In 2005, all house seekers that had reacted only once in the previous year (or
longer), were informed that they must reconfirm their registration as a house seeker.
Woonnet Haaglanden aimed at disposing their files of ‘deadwood’ registrations of
households who are not seeking at all (cf. Pawson et al., 2006, p. 8-9). Less than one
hundred households actually reconfirmed their registration.
Despite substantial restructuring efforts since 1999, a majority of 95 per cent
are regular house seekers. Just two per cent of all house seekers have a certificate of
urgency due to restructuring. The most likely explanation for the strong increase of
regular house seekers in 2001, compared to 2000, is the introduction of the Internet
site in that year. From 2001 on, dwellings were not only advertised in a weekly
newspaper, but also on a special Internet site. Probably, more people than usual
registered as a house seeker and also tried their luck in that year. The total number of
reactions increased with 29 per cent, from 920,805 in 2000 to 1,186,540 in 2001. In
that year, already 43 per cent of all reactions was submitted through the Internet
(Sociale Verhuurders Haaglanden, 2006).
The numbers of restructuring urgency movers show a quite different pattern.
From 1,134 house seekers in 2000, the figure dropped in the next two years. From
2002 onwards, the numbers increased substantially, peaking in 2005 with 1,549
restructuring urgency movers. This pattern reflects the growing share of social rented
housing designated for demolition in the Haaglanden region. Contrary, the house
seekers with a medical or social urgency status show a downward trend from 2001
onwards, especially marked between 2003 and 2004.
The total number of actual moves in the region initially fluctuated around
11,500 between 2000 and 2002. Since 2003, it has increased to almost 13,500 in 2005.
The main reason is a substantial programme of new housing construction in
Haaglanden. While pressure on the regional housing market is high, it is not as
blocked up as in other major Dutch urban areas, because of the substantial levels of
12
completed new housing (see Table 2 in Appendix A). Apart from owner-occupied
housing, substantial and attractive social housing is also completed, but mostly on the
edge of or outside the city of The Hague. This is part of an anti-segregation policy to
lower the share of social rented housing in The Hague, but enlarging it in the
remainder of the Haaglanden (Begemann et al., 2005). The result is a net decrease of
social housing in The Hague, whereas the total social rented stock in Haaglanden has
slowly increased until 2005.
The numbers of relocated restructuring urgency movers initially decreased,
but after a low point in 2002, they have more than doubled again. The growing share
of house seekers in this category has clearly been accompanied with more actual
moves. Nevertheless, during all years, at least 80 per cent of all vacant social rented
housing has been allocated to regular house seekers. The data enable the calculation
of the probability of success of securing a house. For the purposes of this paper, we
define it as the chance that a household acquired a vacant social rented house in a
certain year, following the rules of the Dutch choice-based letting model.
Summarised in a formula:
Probability of success =
N moves of category i in the social rented sector in year y
N house seekers in category i in the social rented sector in year y
The probability of success is strongly determined by the demand for, and the supply
of social rented housing in a housing market area. Higher numbers of active house
seekers extend the length of the queue for dwellings, given a certain supply. Within
this queue, sequence criteria, such as length of residence or registration date,
determines the probability of success (Kullberg, 2002). When demand strongly
exceeds supply, this may negatively influence the average probabilities of success.
This type of information is very helpful when monitoring demand and
allocation among different groups of house seekers. It paints a general picture of the
statistical probabilities of getting a social rented dwelling, while constantly keeping an
eye on the success rates of non-urgent house seekers. As mentioned earlier, not the
housing chances and needs of urgent households, but those of regular house seekers
are a concern among policymakers (cf. Marsh et al., 2004, p. 12). While monitoring
probabilities of success is useful, it is just a starting point. The data do not fully
explain variations in probabilities, numbers of house seekers and allocations.
13
One might expect that the probability of success is 100 per cent for all house
seekers with a certificate of urgency, because they could, theoretically, never fail to
acquire a house. Yet it is not (Table 3). There are several explanations. First, not all
movers can use their certificate of urgency in the same calendar year in which it is
granted. Second, not all movers move within the social rented sector, but acquire a
private rented or owner occupied dwelling, or move to a nursing home. This also
applies to households who left the Haaglanden region and movers who move in with
their partner or other family, not using their certificate of urgency.
Table 3. Probability of success in the Haaglanden region, per cent
Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Restructuring urgency movers 72.2 74.8 57.2 70.3 68.7 68.4
Medical/social urgency status 53.2 59.5 59.7 61.7 65.7 61.7
Regular house seekers 16.3 13.4 14.5 15.3 15.3 18.2
The probability of success for regular house seekers has been relatively stable on
about 15 per cent, except for a dip in 2001 and a peak in 2005. In 2001, there were
substantially more regular house seekers than before, while the number of newly
established tenancy agreements for this group reached a low point of 9,037. In 2005,
it was the other way round: the lowest number of regular house seekers since 2000
combined with the highest number of newly established tenancy agreements for this
category. Again, the substantial programme of new housing construction is the main
cause, followed by the administrative correction in the number of regular house
seekers in 2005.
As intended by the relocation policy, the probability of success for house
seekers with certificates of urgency is much higher than the chances of regular house
seekers. For movers with a medical or social urgency status, the probability of
success has increased steadily to 66 per cent in 2004, then slightly dropping in 2005.
For the restructuring urgency movers, a different pattern emerges. Their probability
of success initially peaked at 75 per cent in 2001, with a sharp decrease in 2002 (57
per cent). Subsequently, the probability of success fluctuated around 70 per cent.
Data from the biannual Monitor Relocation The Hague (Monitor Herhuisvesting
Den Haag), which started in 2004, suggest that it generally takes nine to eleven
months for residents to find a new dwelling in the social rented sector. Elderly
14
people and households with more than five persons need on average some more
time to relocate, up to thirteen months. This implies that the validity of the certificate
of urgency is quite frequently extended after one year, i.e. the general period of
validity (City of The Hague, 2005b, 2006). These data provide important
management indicators for housing associations. First, they clearly indicate whether
relocation efforts on city and regional level are in line with relocation and
restructuring timetables. Second, they highlight those households and groups that
need on average more time to relocate and, hence, may need additional attention or
even support. Third, these data enable agreements between housing associations with
regard to feasible numbers of relocation per year.
In sum, the long-term relocation perspectives of restructuring urgency
movers have generally declined just slightly since 2000, despite rising numbers of
households in need of relocation. The general picture is a continuing ability of local
authorities and housing associations to relocate residents from restructuring sites.
The high numbers of completed new housing have certainly helped in this respect
(see table 2). While we cannot prove it with the available data, the resulting moving
chains appear to have maintained availability of vacant social rented dwellings. We
also conclude that, irrespective of fluctuations in numbers of house seekers and
available dwellings, the growth in the numbers of forced relocation movers appears
not to be associated with the housing chances of regular, non-urgent house seekers in
the social rented sector. Regular house seekers have much smaller probabilities of
success than forced movers, but their chances have increased slightly since 2001.
5. From administrative data to residents’ perceptions
Data collection
This section focuses on the second research question: which factors explain dwelling
progress? In 2001 and 2004, the City of The Hague conducted a survey among
residents who had to deal with forced relocation due to restructuring. The survey
targeted four restructuring areas in 2001, of which three were studied again in 2004
(see figure 2 and table 4). The research areas represent different neighbourhood types
in The Hague that are subject to urban restructuring: Transvaal and Spoorwijk are
dense, inner-city neighbourhoods constructed before the Second World War.
15
However, Morgenstond and Vrederust are spacious, semi-peripheral neighbourhoods
built shortly after the Second World War. As the focus is on respondents who
moved from dwellings slated for demolition, both the blocks and the respondents in
2004 are different from those in 2001. Vrederust is only included in 2001, as there
was no substantial relocation programme going on in 2004.
Figure 2 The research neighbourhoods in The Hague
The research design for both years is identical. The starting point was a
database of movers of whom both the previous and current addresses were available.
Because of problems with finding and linking old and new addresses, the research
populations are smaller than the actual numbers of relocated movers. The main
problem lies in the administration of movers. The housing associations retained the
former addresses of forced movers for a limited period of time. Consequently, many
movers who relocated two years or more before the research, could not be retraced.
Moreover, information was lost by inaccuracies in the practice of administration and
replacement of forced movers by temporary renters (not included in our research
population), which erased address records of the movers of interest. It appears that
these problems were random in nature, but we cannot establish this for sure.
16
From the research populations, random samples of movers were drawn. The
City of The Hague sent these movers a research announcement letter. Subsequently,
interviewers approached potential respondents and conducted face-to-face
interviews, based on a written questionnaire. If necessary, the interviewers finalised
questionnaires through a follow-up with the respondent by telephone. Several
interviewers were non-native Dutch and fluent in Turkish or Arabic, to overcome
potential language problems with respondents from ethnic backgrounds. Note that
respondents were only questioned some time after relocation. The questionnaire
included questions on the previous and current dwelling, housing and
neighbourhood satisfaction, moving intentions, the search process, opinions of the
available options and respondent’ socioeconomic characteristics.
Table 4. Response levels for each area of origin, 2001 and 2004
Restructured Area 2001 2004
Sample Response (n) Response % Sample Response (n) Response %
Spoorwijk 149 34 22.8 200 66 33.0
Transvaal 213 46 21.6 283 87 30.7
Morgenstond 130 32 24.6 200 72 36.0
Vrederust 514 131 25.5 - - -
Total 1,006 243 24.2 683 225 32.9
Source: City of The Hague (2001, 2005a).
From table 4, it appears that response levels are not very high, but were generally
higher in 2004 than in 2001. There are two reasons for this. First, the research
population was substantially bigger in 2001, compared to 2004. Second, in 2001 the
interviewers had to cover movers from four origin areas instead of three, which
enabled less concentrated efforts per origin area. Third, the available resources
allowed more approaches of potential respondents in 2004 than in 2001. Each
address could be approached several times if the potential respondent was not at
home, whereas only one approach was possible in 2001. These limitations require
some modesty with regard to scope and representativeness of the data. As we lack
accurate data on the characteristics of all relocated movers, we cannot compare the
response with the total population. Therefore, the results are illustrative for the
experiences and opinions of forced relocation movers, but not necessarily
representative.
17
Measurement and methods
In our analysis, residents’ perception of dwelling progress is the dependent variable.
We measured it with the following question: “If you compare your current house
with your previous one, did you benefit from the relocation or not? Respondents
could respond with ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘no opinion’; the first coded 1 and the last two 0,
resulting in a binary variable and the need for a logistic regression model. This
question was framed in a block of questions that exclusively concerned the current
dwelling and comparison with the previous one. All neighbourhood-related questions
were posed in a different part of the survey. In this way, we tried to focus
respondents’ attention, enabling them to provide a clear distinction between dwelling
and neighbourhood outcomes due to relocation.
We include several explanatory variables. First, individual characteristics, such
as age, household income and household composition are likely predictors of the
relocation success. These factors affect ‘normal’ moving behaviour, but are also
proxies for households’ resources and restrictions, and the opportunities and
constraints they face (Mulder & Hooimeijer, 1999). Moreover, household
composition and income are standard qualifying conditions for social rented
dwellings, not only for regular house seekers, but also for relocation movers with a
certificate or urgency. Second, length of residence is expected to increase residents’
opportunities on the housing market and dwelling progress, as it is a sequence
criterion (cf. Kullberg, 2002, p. 555, 570-572; see section 3). Here, length of
residence in the previous dwelling is a dummy, distinguishing between residents that
lived less or more than five years in the previous dwelling. Third, we want to know
whether level of education makes a difference for the relocation result. Previous
research emphasised the importance of education and specific skills in relation to
successful search efforts in choice-based letting systems (e.g. Kullberg, 2002;
Kullberg & Sjoer, 2001). Pawson and colleagues (2006) acknowledge that the
required active participation may damage the prospects of disadvantaged applicants
with language deficiencies, learning difficulties or lack of literacy. Additionally, BME
applicants with little command of the language may have problems with effectively
using choice-based letting systems (Kullberg, 2002, p. 566, Pawson et al., 2006). This
may not only be related to misunderstanding, but also to problematic communication
with housing officers (Brokken et al., 2001; Van Kempen & Idamir, 2003). Thus,
ethnic background is included. In Dutch statistics, a person belongs to an ethnic
18
minority if at least one of his parents is born abroad, regardless of his own country of
birth.
In section 3, we described how housing allowances may improve residents’
opportunities in finding a new and better dwelling. Unfortunately, we could not
include data on housing allowances in the analysis, as these data are only available for
2004 and not for 2001. The same applies to satisfaction with the previous house.
In addition to socioeconomic characteristics, pre-location attitudes are
included. Earlier research has shown a relation between levels of understanding and
approval before the relocation and dwelling progress afterwards (Allen, 2000; Fried,
1967; Kleinhans, 2003; Goetz, 2002, p. 121-122). We addressed this issue with a
question that probed whether respondents reported a certain level of approval and
understanding, regarding their forced move (0 = No / no opinion; 1 = Yes).. As
mentioned on section two, pre-relocation intentions may also matter. A useful proxy
for measuring relocation willingness to move is whether residents had pre-relocation
moving intentions or not, regardless of their motives. Hence, the dummy variable
‘moving intentions’ reflects whether or not respondents were already considering a
move when they received notice of the forced relocation. A final independent
variable is perceived neighbourhood difference. It is a dummy variable indicating that
respondents state that their current neighbourhood is better than the previous one.
Unfortunately, we could not properly include a measure indicating whether or not
residents relocated within the same neighbourhood, which may be a relevant for the
relocation impact on residents’ social ties (see section 2). Apart from data problems,
we come across the ‘eternal’ issue of definition. The administrative neighbourhoods
in The Hague are much bigger than what residents typically define as a
neighbourhood, i.e. an area of 5–10 minutes walk from one’s home (Kearns &
Parkinson, 2001, p. 2103). Such a measure is lacking in the available survey data.
19
Table 5. Summary statistics: per cent of respondents reporting dwelling progress
Characteristic Per cent
Survey year
2001 0.80
2004 0.83
Neighbourhood
Transvaal 0.85
Spoorwijk 0.84
Morgenstond 0.80
Vrederust 0.79
Age
less than 35 years) 0.83
35 – 50 years 0.77
50 – 65 years 0.85
65 and older 0.87
Household composition
Single-person household 0.79
Single-parent household 0.78
Couple without children 0.83
Couple with children 0.88
Education (highest completed level)
Primary school 0.78
Lower professional education 0.82
Medium or higher professional education/ university 0.88
Other 0.76
Net household income
less than € 1,100) 0.82
€ 1,100 - € 1,700 0.84
> € 1,700 0.78
Ethnic background
Native Dutch 0.84
Ethnic minority 0.79
Length of residence in previous dwelling 0-2 years 0.74
3-5 years 0.77
6-10 years 0.84
More than 10 years 0.86
Understanding
No/no opinion 0.72
Yes 0.87
Pre-relocation moving intentions
No 0.79
Yes 0.89
Neighbourhood difference
No / no opinion 0.71
Yes, current neighbourhood better than previous one 0.91
Notes:
Dwelling progress: “If you compare your current house with your previous one, did you benefit from the relocation or not?”
0 = no / no opinion; 1 = yes, I did benefit with regard to my dwelling.
20
Results
A simple frequency distribution of our dependent variable, dwelling progress, reveals
an impressive result of the relocation (see table 5). Almost 80 per cent (2001) and 83
per cent (2004) of the forced movers claim that their current dwelling is an
improvement, compared to the previous one. Overall, 93 per cent of all respondents
relocated within the social rented sector. This is not uncommon, compared to other
Dutch cases (Kleinhans (2003); Leveling & Vos (2004); Steunpunt Wonen (2003).
Only four per cent moved to an owner-occupied dwelling and the remainder
acquired a private rented dwelling (0.6 per cent), moved into a nursing home or
found another solution.
Table 6. Top 10 reported improvements with regard to the new dwelling
Feature Share of respondents (n=380) mentioning this feature
Size of the new dwelling 40% Insulation 29% Maintenance 25% Dwelling type 25% Number of bedrooms 20% Quality bathroom and/or kitchen 20% Size of the rooms 14% Location 13% View 11% Size of the balcony or garden 9%
Note: the data refer only to respondents of both 2001 and 2004 that indicated dwelling progress (n=380). As each respondent could indicate more than one feature, the total percentage exceeds 100 per cent.
The most mentioned improvement aspect is the size of the dwelling, followed by
better insulation, maintenance of the dwelling, and dwelling type (see table 6).
Separate analyses by the City of The Hague confirm that many forced relocation
movers managed to leave multi-family blocks and to move into apartments with
elevators, single-family dwellings and maisonettes. Many residents acquired dwellings
with much more floor space, especially respondents from the 2004 survey (City of
The Hague, 2001, 2005a). Finally, the technical quality of the new house is often
higher, especially with new construction. This is no surprise, since in general social
rented dwellings in the worst state are demolished first. Thus, realising dwelling
21
progress is a realistic opportunity for many movers (cf. Rubenstein, 1988). But what
is the role of respondents’ individual characteristics and pre-relocation attitudes?
Table 7 presents the results of our multivariate analysis. We first consider age,
household composition, education and ethnic background. Couples with children are
significantly more likely to report dwelling progress. This is most likely the result of
the housing allocation model in the Haaglanden region. For families with children
and elderly people, the options profile is somewhat extended to increase their
relocation options (see section 3 and Stadsgewest Haaglanden 2004, p. 15). However,
unlike families with children, we find no statistical evidence that elderly people
benefited significantly more from this than other age groups.
Respondents with a medium professional education or higher are also more
likely to report a perceived improvement. In other words, human capital and skills
appear as valuable resources in the search for another dwelling. Educated people are
more likely to deal successfully with the complexity of the housing allocation model
and related information of the housing market than low-educated people (cf.
Kullberg, 2002; Van Kempen & Őzűekren, 1998). This raises the probability of
successfully choosing a relocation dwelling that meets the household’s preferences.
In contrast, households with somewhat higher net incomes (above € 1,700
per month) are significantly less likely to report dwelling progress. This category
seems to fall between two stools. They are clearly not the lowest income households,
but they can apparently neither afford to buy an owner-occupied house. As less than
one per cent of all respondents relocated into private rented housing, this is not an
attractive alternative. The most likely explanation is twofold. First, heir income levels
exclude them from the least expensive social rented housing when relocating.
Second, many of them are probably also not (anymore) eligible for a housing
allowance. This means that they must pay the net increase of their monthly rent after
relocation, whereas relocating movers who are still eligible for a housing allowance,
benefit from its dampening effect on the rent price (see section 3). In sum, for
middle- and higher income households, it is more difficult to attain a favourable
price-quality relation when relocating in the social rented sector than for the lower
income households.
22
Table 7. Logistic regression analysis of dwelling progress
Dependent variables (N= 301) Dwelling progress
B SE Exp(B)
Survey year (0 = 2001; 1 = 2004) -0.254 0.357 0.776
Age (ref = < 35 years)
35 – 50 years -0.453 0.410 0.636
50 – 65 years 0.048 0.494 1.049
65 and older 0.805 0.655 2.237
Household composition (ref = single-person household)
Single-parent household 0.218 0.452 1.244
Couple without children 0.640 0.539 1.896
Couple with children 0.905* 0.387 2.472
Education (ref = primary education)
Lower professional education 0.463 0.387 1.589
Medium or higher professional education/ university 1.126* 0.516 3.083
Other 0.051 0.456 1.052
Net household income (ref = < € 1,100)
€ 1,100 - € 1,700 -0.249 0.382 0.779
> € 1,700 -1.026* 0.498 0.359
Ethnic background (0, 1; 1 = ethnic minority) -0.310 0.348 0.733
Length of residence in previous dwelling 0.670* 0.346 1.954
(0 = up till five years; 1 = more than five years)
Understanding (0, 1; 1 = yes) 0.657* 0.327 1.929
Pre-relocation moving intentions (0, 1; 1 = yes) 0.834* 0.408 2.303
Neighbourhood difference 1.755*** 0.346 5.785
(0, 1; 1 = current neighbourhood better than previous one) Constant -0.180 0.587 0.835
-2LL 276.515
Model Chi-square 65.560
Df 17
Significance 0.000
Nagelkerke R2 0.267
Notes: Dwelling progress: “If you compare your current house with your previous one, did you benefit from the relocation or
not?” 0 = no / no opinion; 1 = yes, I did benefit with regard to my dwelling.
Significance levels: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001 (two-sided). Method = Enter.
Length of residence in the previous dwelling also has a positive impact on the
probability of dwelling progress. Again, the housing allocation design in Haaglanden
is most likely the primary cause. Respondents who lived more than five years in their
previous house are more likely to report dwelling progress. Apart from their
certificate of urgency, they could also stake their length of residence in the search
process, applying for dwellings beyond their options profile. In several cases, forced
movers with a substantial length of residence were able to relocate into a type of
dwelling that had not been accessible through their certificate of urgency. This
23
increased their relocation options, because a substantial length of residence strongly
improved their chances in the competition with regular house seekers.
Residents who expressed a certain amount of understanding and approval
before the relocation are more likely to report dwelling progress afterwards. Adapting
to the new dwelling may have been easier for residents not coping with the stress of
a fully involuntary move (cf. Allen, 2000; Fried, 1967; Goetz, 2002, p. 121-122). A
clear association also appears between pre-relocation moving intentions and post-
relocation dwelling progress. We expected pre-relocation understanding and moving
intentions to be strongly correlated. In other words, people with moving plans may
react with more understanding towards the relocation itself. However, a bivariate
analysis shows only a moderate but significant correlation (phi=0.286, p<0.000).
Hence, residents who were already planning a move are more likely to report
progress in the new dwelling, but this is not necessarily accompanied with approval
of the forced relocation.
Finally, perception of neighbourhood improvement is strongly related to self-
reported dwelling progress. Clearly, neighbourhood perception is part of the overall
evaluation of the new house (cf. Amerigo & Aragones, 1997; Parkes et al., 2002).
Further bivariate analysis (not shown) indicate that neighbourhood improvement is
predominantly attributed to more quietness and privacy, less litter on the streets,
better access to public transport, a ‘better composition of the neighbourhood
population’, more parking space and better playgrounds for children. A move to a
more attractive living environment, whether or not a different neighbourhood, thus
contributes to the satisfaction with the new dwelling. To conclude, most forced
movers experienced dwelling progress. This is partly the result of the fact that they
leave the most unpopular social rented dwellings that are usually in the worst state
and demolished first. The remainder of the social rented housing stock is often of
better quality and more popular. For the other part, the housing allocation model
helps to quickly relocate, but there are differences in the extent to which the model
benefits forced movers. For instances, couples with children and households with a
substantial length of residence seem to benefit slightly more often. On the other
hand, low-educated as well as middle- and higher income households less often
report dwelling progress, indicating that some groups are less able to make gains by
way of the system than others.
24
6. Conclusions and policy implications
This paper has reported the results of empirical research into the housing chances
and perceptions of movers confronted with forced relocation in the Haaglanden
region. Despite several data problems that limit the representativeness of the surveys,
this study provides an added value to earlier explorative studies. The combination of
two identical cross-sectional surveys and time series data of housing allocations and
house seekers enabled us to go beyond a single cross-sectional measurement.
The evidence suggests that the share of forced relocation movers has been
increasing since 2002, both in absolute and relative terms. Nevertheless, the long-
term relocation perspectives of restructuring urgency movers have declined only
slightly since 2000. The general picture is a continuing ability of local authorities and
housing associations to quickly relocate residents from restructuring sites. We also
conclude that the increasing share of forced relocation movers appears not related
with the housing chances of regular, non-urgent house seekers in the social rented
sector, in spite of the fears of both policymaker and scholars. Regular house seekers
do have much smaller probabilities of success than movers, but their chances have
actually increased slightly since 2001. The main explanation is a substantial
programme of new housing construction, which resulted, amongst others, in a net
increase of the social rented housing stock in the Haaglanden, but a net decrease in
the city of The Hague (Begeman et al., 2005). Additionally, the significant rise in
regular house seekers’ probability of success in 2005 is largely explained by a
administrative correction in the allocation system.
Our second research question concerned the association between perceptions
of dwelling progress on the one hand and respondents’ pre-relocation attitudes and
their individual characteristics on the other hand. First of all, most forced movers
reported dwelling progress after relocation. Many of them moved from relatively
unpopular social rented dwellings, whether or not in a bad state of repair, to larger
and higher-quality dwellings. Second, residents who expressed a certain amount of
understanding and approval before the relocation are more likely to report dwelling
progress afterwards. The same applies to those residents who were already planning a
move before the notification of forced relocation. Various moving motives are
conceivable such as changes in jobs and household composition. But residents who
were looking for opportunities to improve their housing situation, have succeeded
25
often in their attempts (cf. Kleinhans, 2003, p. 495). Following the original definition
of displacement, these residents could be labelled as displacees, but they clearly do
not class themselves as such (see also Atkinson, 2000, p. 310).
The design of the housing allocation model in the Haaglanden appears to
moderate the potentially negative effects of forced relocation and displacement due
to urban restructuring. First, the extension of their options profile has provided
couples with children with a broader range of relocation options. This has raised
their chances of dwelling progress compared to other household types with a
certificate of urgency. Second, a longer length of residence in the previous house has
the same positive impact on self-reported dwelling progress. It enables relocation
movers to successfully apply for attractive social housing beyond their options
profile. If they did not benefit from their certificate of urgency, they successfully
staked their length of residence in their application.
To conclude, the institutional context of forced relocation is essential in
explaining experiences of forced movers and their perception of dwelling progress,
despite the obligatory nature of the move for most of them. This finding is at odds
with the mainstream literature on displacement. However, some groups are relatively
less able to make gains by way of the system than others. Low-educated people are
less likely to benefit from forced relocation than more educated people, as they are
less able to deal with the complexities of the housing allocation and relocation
process. Other research points out that this is also a more general problem for
regular house seekers (Brokken et al., 2001; Kullberg, 2002; Pawson et al., 2006). This
is a worrisome finding. While choice-based letting systems were, among other
reasons, introduced to improve clarity and transparency, the result may be that
transparency is highly dependent on educational attainment and therefore not an
asset equal for all house seekers.
Moreover, households with somewhat higher, but still relatively low net
incomes appear to fall between two stools. Apparently, their relocation into social
rented housing indicates that they could not afford to buy a dwelling. They were also
excluded from the least expensive parts of the social rented sector and from eligibility
for a housing allowances, which might have dampened their higher rent costs after
relocation. Altogether, they are slightly less likely to benefit from the relocation.
Our findings have several policy implications. First, investing time and effort
in public support for urban restructuring projects seems worthwhile, considering the
26
relation between pre-relocation approval rates and dwelling progress. We suggest
making explicit how residents can benefit from relocation, and actually providing a
clearly visible range of relocation choices and good practice examples. Disapproval
may then ease a little, but the effects of investing in public support must not be
overestimated. New housing construction is crucial for the public support for urban
restructuring projects, as probabilities of success for regular house seekers in
Haaglanden have not been harmed. However, it is unclear whether other major
Dutch housing market regions can measure up to the substantial construction
programme of Haaglanden. This region is quite ahead and unique in its connection
between urban restructuring and the anti-segregation policy to lower the share of
social rented housing in The Hague, but enlarging it in the remainder of the region.
Second, the finding that education can make a difference with regard to
dwelling progress, gives reason for concern. The Dutch choice-based letting system
is intended to provide equal access and housing opportunities for those in need of
social housing. Hence, forced relocation movers should receive proper assistance
during their search process. Counsellors of housing associations should make efforts
to ensure that their clients really understand the relocation process in general and the
choice-based letting model principles in particular. This may require a more
outreaching approach from counsellors to residents, already in the early stages of the
relocation process (cf. Kleinhans, 2003, p. 494-496). Third, a move from social
rented to owner-occupied housing is still very difficult, in view of the small minority
of relocation movers that acquired owner-occupied housing. Housing associations
can help bridging the gap, by offering parts of their social rented housing for
different forms of sale, with discounts and risk-reducing conditions. An earlier study
has shown that this can contribute to the freedom of choice and housing
opportunities for those who are ‘outgrowing’ the social rented sector, but lack the
financial power to move into regular owner-occupation (see Gruis et al., 2005).
Further research should clarify to which extent this option can be properly integrated
into a forced relocation process.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial assistance of the Dutch government
through the Habiforum Program Innovative Land Use and Delft University of
27
Technology through the Delft Centre for Sustainable Urban Areas. We are also
indebted to the anonymous referees, for their valuable comments on an earlier
version of this paper.
References
Allen, T. (2000) Housing Renewal – Doesn’t it Make You Sick? Housing Studies 15 (3),
pp. 443-461.
Amerigo, M. & Aragones, J. (1997) A Theoretical and Methodological Approach To
The Study of Residential Satisfaction, Journal of Environmental Psychology 17 (1),
pp. 47-57.
Atkinson, R. (2000) The Hidden Costs of Gentrification: Displacement in Central
London, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 15 (4), pp 307-326.
Atkinson, R. (2004) The Evidence on The Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons
for the Urban Renaissance? European Journal of Housing Policy 4 (1), pp. 107-
131.
Baker, E. & Arthurson, K. (2006) The Impacts and Outcomes from a Large Scale
Tenant Relocation Project. Paper presented at the ENHR 2006 Conference,
Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2-5 July 2006.
Begemann, C., Vlist, A. van der & Smid, G. (2005) Haaglanden slaagt in doorbreken
ruimtelijke segregatie (Haaglanden Succeeds in Breaking Through Spatial
Segregation), Tijdschrift voor de Volkshuisvesting 11 (2), pp. 22-26.
Brokken, M., Zanden, W van der & Lepelaars, C. (2001) Migranten op de Rotterdamse
Woningmarkt: Verhuisstromen en zoekervaringen binnen het aanbodmodel (Immigrants
on the Rotterdam Housing Market: Moves and Experiences) (Rotterdam,
RADAR, COS).
Brown, T. & King, P. (2005) The Power to Choose: Effective Choice and Housing
Policy, European Journal of Housing Policy 5 (1), pp. 59-75.
Brown, T. & Yates, N. (2005) Allocations and Lettings – Taking Customer Choice
Forward in England? European Journal of Housing Policy 5 (3), pp. 343-357.
Buron, L., Popkin, S., Levy, D., Harris, L. & Khadduri, J. (2002) The HOPE VI
Resident Tracking Study. A Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original
28
Residents from Eight Sites (Abt Associates Inc./Urban Institute, Washington
DC).
City of The Hague (2001) Nota monitoring herhuisvesting. Ervaringen van
herhuisvestingskandidaten uit diverse complexen (Monitoring Forced Relocation.
Experiences of Forced Relocation Movers from Various Housing Blocks)
(The Hague, Dienst Stedelijke Ontwikkeling, Gemeente Den Haag).
City of The Hague (2005a) Onderzoek herhuisvesting 2004. Ervaringen van
herhuisvestingskandidaten uit diverse complexen (Forced Relocation Study 2004.
Experiences of Forced Relocation Movers from Various Housing Blocks)
(The Hague. Dienst Stedelijke Ontwikkeling, Gemeente Den Haag).
City of The Hague (2005b, 2006) Monitor herhuisvesting Den Haag (Biannual Monitor
Forced Relocation The Hague) (The Hague, Dienst Stedelijke Ontwikkeling,
Gemeente Den Haag).
Dekker, S. (2006) Voortgang Actieprogramma Herstructurering 56 wijken (Progress in
Action Programme Urban Restructuring). Letter to the Second Chamber of
Parliament, DGW/SR2005019594 (The Hague, Ministry of Housing,
Planning and the Environment).
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000) Quality and Choice:
A Decent Home for All (London: DETR).
Ekström, M. (1994) Elderly people’s experiences of housing renewal and forced
relocation: social theories and contextual analysis in explanations of
emotional experiences, Housing Studies 9 (3), pp. 369–391.
Freeman, L. & Braconi, F. (2004) Gentrification and Displacement. New York City
in the 1990s, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70 (1), pp. 39-52.
Fried, M. (1967) Functions of the Working-class Community in Modern Urban
Society: Implications for Forced Relocation, Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 33, pp. 90-103.
Gans, H.J. (1991) People, Plans, and Policies. Essays on Poverty, Racism, and Other National
Urban Problems (New York, Columbia University Press).
Goetz, E.G. (2002) Forced relocation vs. voluntary mobility: the effects of dispersal
programmes on households, Housing Studies 17 (1), pp. 107–123.
Grier, G. & Grier, E. (1978) Urban Displacement: a Reconnaissance (Washington DC, US
Department of Housing and Urban Development).
29
Gruis, V., Elsinga, M., Wolters, A. & Priemus, H. (2005) Tenant Empowerment
Through Innovative Tenures: An Analysis of Woonbron–Maasoevers’
Client’s Choice Programme, Housing Studies 20 (1), pp. 127–147.
Hackworth J. & Smith, N. (2001) The Changing State of Gentrification, in: Tijdschrift
voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 92 (4), pp. 464 - 477.
Kearns, A. & Parkinson, M. (2001) The Significance of Neighbourhood, Urban
Studies, 38 (12), pp. 2103-2110.
Kempen, R. van & Őzűekren, A.S. (1998) Ethnic Segregation in Cities: New Forms
and Explanations in a Dynamic World, Urban Studies, 35, pp.1631-1656.
Kempen, R. van & Priemus, H. (2002) Revolution in Social Housing in the
Netherlands: Possible Effects of New Housing Policies, Urban Studies 39 (2),
pp. 237-253.
Kleinhans, R. (2003) Displaced but still Moving Upwards in the Housing Career?
Implications of Forced Residential Relocation in The Netherlands, Housing
Studies 18 (4), pp. 473-499.
Kleinhans, R. (2005) Sociale implicaties van herstructurering en herhuisvesting (Social
Implications of Urban Restructuring and Forced Relocation) (Delft, Delft
University Press).
Kleit, R.G. & Manzo, L. (2006) To Move or Not to Move: Relationships to Place and
Relocation Choices in HOPE VI, Housing Policy Debate 17 (2), pp. 271-308.
Kullberg, J. (1997) From Waiting Lists to Adverts: the Allocation of Social Rented
Dwellings in the Netherlands, Housing Studies 12 (3), pp. 393-403.
Kullberg, J. (2002) Consumers’ Responses to Choice-based Letting Mechanisms,
Housing Studies 17 (5), pp. 549-579.
Kullberg, J. & Sjoer, E. (2001) Woonkranten zijn amateuristisch; vertaalslag naar
klant ontbreekt (Housing magazines are amateurish; practical application is
lacking), Aedes Magazine 10(1), pp. 20-21.
LeGates, R. & Hartman, C. (1986) The anatomy of displacement in the United
States, in: Smith, N. & Williams, P. (Eds) Gentrification of the City, pp. 178-203
(London, Unwin Hyman).
Leveling, D. & Vos, M. (2004) Gelukkig verhuisd? Een onderzoek onder oud-bewoners van
deelgebied C, Osdorp (Happily Relocated? A Survey Among Former Residents
of Area C, Osdorp) (Amsterdam, Regioplan Beleidsonderzoek).
30
Marcuse, P. (1986) Abandonment, gentrification and displacement; the linkages in
New York, in: Smith, N. & Williams, P. (Eds) Gentrification of the City, pp. 153-
177 (London, Unwin Hyman).
Marsh, A., Cowan, D., Cameron, A., Jones, M., Kiddle, C. & Whitehead, C. (2004)
Piloting Choice Based Lettings. An Evaluation (London: Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister).
MVROM (1997) Nota Stedelijke Vernieuwing (Policy Memorandum Urban Renewal)
(The Hague, Ministry of Housing, Planning and the Environment).
MVROM (2000), Mensen Wensen Wonen: wonen in de 21ste eeuw (What People Want,
Where People Live) (The Hague, Ministry of Housing, Planning and the
Environment).
MVROM (2006) Cijfers over wonen 2006 (Statistics on Housing 2006) (The Hague,
Ministry of Housing, Planning and the Environment).
Mulder, C. (1996) Housing Choice: Assumptions and Approaches, Netherlands Journal
of Housing and the Built Environment 11 (3), pp. 209- 232.
Mulder, C. & Hooimeijer, P. (1999) Residential Relocations in the Life Course, in:
Wissen, L. van & Dykstra, P. (Eds.) Population Issues: An Interdisciplinary Focus,
pp. 159-186 (New York: Kluwer/Plenum).
Newman, K. & Wyly, E. (2006) The Right To Stay Put: Gentrification and Resistance
to Displacement in New York City, Urban Studies 43 (1), pp 23-57.
Parkes, A., Kearns, A. & Atkinson, R. (2002) The Determinants of Neighbourhood
Dissatisfaction. CNR Paper 1 (Glasgow/Bristol,
http://www.neighbourhoodcentre.org.uk).
Pawson, H., Jones, C., Donohoe, T., Netto, G., Fancy, C., Clegg, S. & Thomas, A.
(2006) Monitoring the Longer Term Impact of Choice Based Lettings (London:
Department for Communities and Local Government).
Priemus, H., Kemp, P. & Varady, D. (2005) Housing Vouchers in the United States,
Great Britain and the Netherlands: Current Issues and Future Perspectives,
Housing Policy Debate 16 (3/4), pp. 575-609.
Rubenstein, J. (1988) Relocation of Families for Public Improvement Projects:
Lessons from Baltimore, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 54 (2), pp.
185-196.
31
Staatsblad (2000) Wet ter stimulering van de integrale stedelijke vernieuwing (Urban Renewal
Act), nr. 504, The Hague, 15 November 2000.
Stadsgewest Haaglanden (2004) Regionale Huisvestingsverordening Stadsgewest Haaglanden
2005 (Regional Housing Regulation City Region Haaglanden 2005). (The
Hague, 24 November 2004).
Steunpunt Wonen (2003) Waar blijf je met herstructurering? (Where Do You End Up
with Urban Restructuring?) (Rotterdam, Steunpunt Wonen).
Sociale Verhuurders Haaglanden (2006), Aanbodrapportage Haaglanden 2005 Sociale
Huursector (Housing Supply Report Haaglanden 2005 Social Rented Sector).
(The Hague, DSO-Beleid/Onderzoek).
Uitermark, J., Duyvendak, J.W. & R. Kleinhans (2007), Gentrification as a
Governmental Strategy. Social Control and Social Cohesion in Hoogvliet,
Rotterdam, Environment and Planning A, 39 (1), pp. 125-141.
VROM-Raad (2002) Haasten en onthaasten in de stedelijke herstructurering. Advies over de
herstructurering van stedelijke woonmilieus (Acceleration and Deceleration in Urban
Restructuring. Advice on Restructuring of Urban Housing Environments)
(The Hague, Netherlands Council of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment).
VROM-Raad (2006) Stad en stijging. Sociale stijging als leidraad voor de stedelijke vernieuwing
(City and Social Mobility. Upward Social Mobility as a Guiding Principle for
Urban Renewal) (The Hague, Netherlands Council of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment).
Wolf, S. & Vriens, G. (2006) Herhuisvesting na sloop. Ervaringen van bewoners uit
herstructureringsgebieden (Relocation after Demolition. Experiences of Residents
From Restructuring Areas) (Utrecht, Afdeling Wonen Gemeente Utrecht).
32
Appendix A
Table 1. House seekers and actual moves in the Haaglanden region
Category 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Actively house seeking N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Restructuring urgency movers n.a - 1,134 1,8 903 1,3 843 1.2 1,204 1.7 1,549 2.2 1,505 2.3
Medical/social urgency status n.a - 2,278 3,7 2,660 3,8 2,418 3.4 2,396 3.3 1,853 2.6 1,681 2.6
Regular house seekers n.a - 58,995 94,5 67,355 95,0 68,173 95.4 68,032 95.0 68,084 95.2 62,750 95.1
Total 60,566 - 62,407 100.0 70,918 100.0 71,434 100.0 71,632 100.0 71,486 100.0 65,936 100.0
Actual moves (i.e. newly esta-
blished tenancy agreements)
N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Restructuring urgency movers 699 5.6 819 7.0 675 6.0 482 4.1 847 6.7 1,064 8.4 1,029 7.6
Medical/social urgency status 779 6.3 1,210 10.4 1,584 14.0 1,444 12.2 1,478 11.6 1,217 9.6 1,038 7.7
Regular house seekers 10,918 88.1 9,627 82.6 9,037 80.0 9,870 83.7 10,390 81.7 10,412 82.0 11,413 84.7
Total 12,396 100.0 11,656 100.0 11,296 100.0 11,796 100.0 12,715 100.0 12,693 100.0 13,480 100.0
Source: Association of Social Landlords Haaglanden (Vereniging Sociale Verhuurders Haaglanden). Data specially provided at request.
Table 2. Demolition of social rented housing and new construction in Haaglanden, absolute numbers
Data 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Total social rented housing stock 158,379 159,283 159,242 159,394 159,718 160,629 159,910
Demolished social rented housing* 245 835 1,218 838 433 1,164 1,391
Newly constructed social housing 1,128 685 1,048 1,043 1,464 603 876
Newly constructed private rent 596 873 277 456 886 843 853
Newly constructed owner-occupied 3,700 3,531 4,963 5,600 4,203 3,956 3,900
* The demolition figure also includes houses that were destroyed by fire or other major accidents. Precise numbers are unknown, but these cases constitute
only a small fraction of the number of purposively demolished dwellings. Source: ABF Vastgoedmonitor.