TT
Tiit Tammaru
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
6 records found
1
Journal article
(2025)
-
Rūta Ubarevičienė, Tiit Tammaru, Maarten van Ham, Leandro Basílio Junior, Māris Bērziņš, Kevin Credit, Diogo Gaspar Silva, Richard Harris, David Manley, More authors...
Previous research based on 2001 and 2011 census data indicated rising levels of residential segregation between socio-economic groups in many large city-regions in Europe as well as globally. Rising segregation is an important societal concern, as place of residence plays a crucial role in shaping access to urban opportunities. Residential isolation can be especially harmful for the most vulnerable groups. Income inequality was identified as the primary driver of this segregation. The current paper extends comparative research on residential segregation in Europe by incorporating the latest 2021 census and register-based data to determine whether segregation levels have continued to rise or have peaked, or whether there are signs of desegregation. It also examines how changes in segregation align with shifts in income inequality and occupational structures. A comparative analysis of 16 European capital city-regions shows a slowdown in the rise of segregation, with some city-regions transitioning from segregation to desegregation. These changes coincide with both a slowdown in the growth of income inequality and increased professionalisation of the workforce. The study suggests that future research should focus on the mechanisms driving residential desegregation in different urban contexts, with particular attention to the diversification of residential patterns among the expanding professional class.
...
Previous research based on 2001 and 2011 census data indicated rising levels of residential segregation between socio-economic groups in many large city-regions in Europe as well as globally. Rising segregation is an important societal concern, as place of residence plays a crucial role in shaping access to urban opportunities. Residential isolation can be especially harmful for the most vulnerable groups. Income inequality was identified as the primary driver of this segregation. The current paper extends comparative research on residential segregation in Europe by incorporating the latest 2021 census and register-based data to determine whether segregation levels have continued to rise or have peaked, or whether there are signs of desegregation. It also examines how changes in segregation align with shifts in income inequality and occupational structures. A comparative analysis of 16 European capital city-regions shows a slowdown in the rise of segregation, with some city-regions transitioning from segregation to desegregation. These changes coincide with both a slowdown in the growth of income inequality and increased professionalisation of the workforce. The study suggests that future research should focus on the mechanisms driving residential desegregation in different urban contexts, with particular attention to the diversification of residential patterns among the expanding professional class.
It has been nearly fifteen years since a large European Union–funded project called RESTATE explored challenges in housing estates throughout several European countries and served as a clearinghouse for the exchange of ideas for counteracting negative trends in large housing estates (van Kempen et al. 2005). Since that time, a series of riots in the Paris banlieues and in the “Million Homes Programme” suburbs in Stockholm have revealed that many problems remain. Major European newspapers, including The Guardian, frequently publish articles about deep social problems in housing estates, the poor image from which they suffer, and dissident groups that reside in them. Families with resources often move away from large housing estates, and housing estates contribute to increasing segregation levels in European cities (Tammaru et al. 2016a). Immigration currently introduces new groups to European cities, and their initial places of settlement are low-cost neighborhoods, often in large housing estates (Wessel 2016). Moreover, new challenges arise, such as the ongoing aging of buildings along with their environments, which necessitates new investments and raises challenges related to sustainability, energy reduction, and aging populations. With many cities operating on austerity budgets and lacking cash to invest in improving housing and neighborhoods, now is a good time to revisit the challenges faced by large housing estates in European cities.
This essay presents the key findings of the book Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges, and is structured around ten takeaway messages. These messages convey, on the one hand, that few substantial changes have occurred in large housing estates in Europe since the RESTATE project, but they also carefully clarify some of the strategies for improvement that might help to secure a solid future for the dwellings and inhabitants of Europe’s large housing estates.
Findings from past studies including High-Rise Housing in Europe (Turkington et al. 2004) and the RESTATE project (Van Kempen et al. 2005) provide in-depth evidence of the varieties of change in large housing estates in Europe through the mid-2000s. A recent book entitled Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities (Tammaru et al. 2016b) documents growing levels of segregation across Europe, suggesting an increasing overlap of ethnic and social segregation often to be found in large housing estates. Our current book focuses on the formation and later socio-spatial trajectories of large housing estates in Europe. The long-term growth in social inequalities in Europe, a growing number of immigrants in European cities seeking affordable housing, and the physical aging of apartment buildings form key policy challenges related to large housing estates in Europe.
This essay provides comparative city- and metropolitan-level evidence of the origins, trajectories of change, and future prospects of large housing estates. It specifically investigates the actions needed to realistically improve the fortunes of housing estates experiencing downward trends and pathways to enhance life for the residents living in them. This chapter is organized around ten synthesized takeaway messages distilled from the sixteen chapters of the book Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges. ...
This essay presents the key findings of the book Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges, and is structured around ten takeaway messages. These messages convey, on the one hand, that few substantial changes have occurred in large housing estates in Europe since the RESTATE project, but they also carefully clarify some of the strategies for improvement that might help to secure a solid future for the dwellings and inhabitants of Europe’s large housing estates.
Findings from past studies including High-Rise Housing in Europe (Turkington et al. 2004) and the RESTATE project (Van Kempen et al. 2005) provide in-depth evidence of the varieties of change in large housing estates in Europe through the mid-2000s. A recent book entitled Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities (Tammaru et al. 2016b) documents growing levels of segregation across Europe, suggesting an increasing overlap of ethnic and social segregation often to be found in large housing estates. Our current book focuses on the formation and later socio-spatial trajectories of large housing estates in Europe. The long-term growth in social inequalities in Europe, a growing number of immigrants in European cities seeking affordable housing, and the physical aging of apartment buildings form key policy challenges related to large housing estates in Europe.
This essay provides comparative city- and metropolitan-level evidence of the origins, trajectories of change, and future prospects of large housing estates. It specifically investigates the actions needed to realistically improve the fortunes of housing estates experiencing downward trends and pathways to enhance life for the residents living in them. This chapter is organized around ten synthesized takeaway messages distilled from the sixteen chapters of the book Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges. ...
It has been nearly fifteen years since a large European Union–funded project called RESTATE explored challenges in housing estates throughout several European countries and served as a clearinghouse for the exchange of ideas for counteracting negative trends in large housing estates (van Kempen et al. 2005). Since that time, a series of riots in the Paris banlieues and in the “Million Homes Programme” suburbs in Stockholm have revealed that many problems remain. Major European newspapers, including The Guardian, frequently publish articles about deep social problems in housing estates, the poor image from which they suffer, and dissident groups that reside in them. Families with resources often move away from large housing estates, and housing estates contribute to increasing segregation levels in European cities (Tammaru et al. 2016a). Immigration currently introduces new groups to European cities, and their initial places of settlement are low-cost neighborhoods, often in large housing estates (Wessel 2016). Moreover, new challenges arise, such as the ongoing aging of buildings along with their environments, which necessitates new investments and raises challenges related to sustainability, energy reduction, and aging populations. With many cities operating on austerity budgets and lacking cash to invest in improving housing and neighborhoods, now is a good time to revisit the challenges faced by large housing estates in European cities.
This essay presents the key findings of the book Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges, and is structured around ten takeaway messages. These messages convey, on the one hand, that few substantial changes have occurred in large housing estates in Europe since the RESTATE project, but they also carefully clarify some of the strategies for improvement that might help to secure a solid future for the dwellings and inhabitants of Europe’s large housing estates.
Findings from past studies including High-Rise Housing in Europe (Turkington et al. 2004) and the RESTATE project (Van Kempen et al. 2005) provide in-depth evidence of the varieties of change in large housing estates in Europe through the mid-2000s. A recent book entitled Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities (Tammaru et al. 2016b) documents growing levels of segregation across Europe, suggesting an increasing overlap of ethnic and social segregation often to be found in large housing estates. Our current book focuses on the formation and later socio-spatial trajectories of large housing estates in Europe. The long-term growth in social inequalities in Europe, a growing number of immigrants in European cities seeking affordable housing, and the physical aging of apartment buildings form key policy challenges related to large housing estates in Europe.
This essay provides comparative city- and metropolitan-level evidence of the origins, trajectories of change, and future prospects of large housing estates. It specifically investigates the actions needed to realistically improve the fortunes of housing estates experiencing downward trends and pathways to enhance life for the residents living in them. This chapter is organized around ten synthesized takeaway messages distilled from the sixteen chapters of the book Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges.
This essay presents the key findings of the book Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges, and is structured around ten takeaway messages. These messages convey, on the one hand, that few substantial changes have occurred in large housing estates in Europe since the RESTATE project, but they also carefully clarify some of the strategies for improvement that might help to secure a solid future for the dwellings and inhabitants of Europe’s large housing estates.
Findings from past studies including High-Rise Housing in Europe (Turkington et al. 2004) and the RESTATE project (Van Kempen et al. 2005) provide in-depth evidence of the varieties of change in large housing estates in Europe through the mid-2000s. A recent book entitled Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities (Tammaru et al. 2016b) documents growing levels of segregation across Europe, suggesting an increasing overlap of ethnic and social segregation often to be found in large housing estates. Our current book focuses on the formation and later socio-spatial trajectories of large housing estates in Europe. The long-term growth in social inequalities in Europe, a growing number of immigrants in European cities seeking affordable housing, and the physical aging of apartment buildings form key policy challenges related to large housing estates in Europe.
This essay provides comparative city- and metropolitan-level evidence of the origins, trajectories of change, and future prospects of large housing estates. It specifically investigates the actions needed to realistically improve the fortunes of housing estates experiencing downward trends and pathways to enhance life for the residents living in them. This chapter is organized around ten synthesized takeaway messages distilled from the sixteen chapters of the book Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges.
Fifty years after the Schelling's Models of Segregation
Bibliometric analysis of the legacy of Schelling and the future directions of segregation research
In 1969 Thomas C. Schelling published his paper “Models of Segregation” and in 1971 he published a follow-up paper introducing “Dynamic Models of Segregation”. Schelling's papers developed the theoretical models of interactive dynamics of individual residential choices, resulting in pronounced patterns of residential segregation at the city level. Even after 50+ years, the topic of residential segregation and sorting remains as relevant as when Schelling published his papers. The two Schelling papers have been cited more than 8000 times together, and have made a strong impact on the residential segregation literature and beyond. In this paper, we examine how Schelling's ideas have impacted empirical research on residential segregation, and thus contributed to a greater understanding of urban processes. We find that few empirical papers explicitly test the Schelling models in residential segregation studies, and there are a growing number of influential papers in the field of segregation that do not reference Schelling. However, the papers by Schelling have served as a source of inspiration for a diverse set of empirical studies, new ways of defining neighbourhoods and developing more comprehensive theories of segregation.
...
In 1969 Thomas C. Schelling published his paper “Models of Segregation” and in 1971 he published a follow-up paper introducing “Dynamic Models of Segregation”. Schelling's papers developed the theoretical models of interactive dynamics of individual residential choices, resulting in pronounced patterns of residential segregation at the city level. Even after 50+ years, the topic of residential segregation and sorting remains as relevant as when Schelling published his papers. The two Schelling papers have been cited more than 8000 times together, and have made a strong impact on the residential segregation literature and beyond. In this paper, we examine how Schelling's ideas have impacted empirical research on residential segregation, and thus contributed to a greater understanding of urban processes. We find that few empirical papers explicitly test the Schelling models in residential segregation studies, and there are a growing number of influential papers in the field of segregation that do not reference Schelling. However, the papers by Schelling have served as a source of inspiration for a diverse set of empirical studies, new ways of defining neighbourhoods and developing more comprehensive theories of segregation.
This comparative study of socio-economic segregation in European cities, involving researchers from 16 European countries, aims to examine the evolving geography of segregation over a 20-yeartimeframe and provide an up-to-date understanding of residential socio-economic segregation. By utilising three data points and a substantial number of case studies, this study stands out in its ability to offer a comprehensive observation and analysis of the levels and spatial dynamics of residential segregation in Europe. To achieve this, the study addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the current levels of residential socio-economic segregation in European cities? Do levels of segregation continue to increase?
2. How have the patterns of segregation changed over the past 20 years, and are these patterns and their trends of change similar between European cities?
3. What are the key factors contributing to the observed levels and spatial changes of residential segregation in European cities?
The paper includes the following case studies associated with the author teams with in-depth local knowledge and access to data: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Bratislava, Dublin, Helsinki, Lisbon, London, Oslo, Paris, Prague, Riga, Rome, Stockholm, Tallinn, Vilnius and Warsaw. To ensure comparability, researchers adopted a consistent definition of functional urban areas and used small spatial units to analyse segregation levels and spatial patterns, following a pre-established and unified methodology. The empirical analysis draws on census or register-based data, from approximately 2001, 2011, and 2021. Socio-economic groups are distinguished based on occupational status and classified into Top, Middle, and Bottom categories. The study is currently in advanced progress. ...
1. What are the current levels of residential socio-economic segregation in European cities? Do levels of segregation continue to increase?
2. How have the patterns of segregation changed over the past 20 years, and are these patterns and their trends of change similar between European cities?
3. What are the key factors contributing to the observed levels and spatial changes of residential segregation in European cities?
The paper includes the following case studies associated with the author teams with in-depth local knowledge and access to data: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Bratislava, Dublin, Helsinki, Lisbon, London, Oslo, Paris, Prague, Riga, Rome, Stockholm, Tallinn, Vilnius and Warsaw. To ensure comparability, researchers adopted a consistent definition of functional urban areas and used small spatial units to analyse segregation levels and spatial patterns, following a pre-established and unified methodology. The empirical analysis draws on census or register-based data, from approximately 2001, 2011, and 2021. Socio-economic groups are distinguished based on occupational status and classified into Top, Middle, and Bottom categories. The study is currently in advanced progress. ...
This comparative study of socio-economic segregation in European cities, involving researchers from 16 European countries, aims to examine the evolving geography of segregation over a 20-yeartimeframe and provide an up-to-date understanding of residential socio-economic segregation. By utilising three data points and a substantial number of case studies, this study stands out in its ability to offer a comprehensive observation and analysis of the levels and spatial dynamics of residential segregation in Europe. To achieve this, the study addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the current levels of residential socio-economic segregation in European cities? Do levels of segregation continue to increase?
2. How have the patterns of segregation changed over the past 20 years, and are these patterns and their trends of change similar between European cities?
3. What are the key factors contributing to the observed levels and spatial changes of residential segregation in European cities?
The paper includes the following case studies associated with the author teams with in-depth local knowledge and access to data: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Bratislava, Dublin, Helsinki, Lisbon, London, Oslo, Paris, Prague, Riga, Rome, Stockholm, Tallinn, Vilnius and Warsaw. To ensure comparability, researchers adopted a consistent definition of functional urban areas and used small spatial units to analyse segregation levels and spatial patterns, following a pre-established and unified methodology. The empirical analysis draws on census or register-based data, from approximately 2001, 2011, and 2021. Socio-economic groups are distinguished based on occupational status and classified into Top, Middle, and Bottom categories. The study is currently in advanced progress.
1. What are the current levels of residential socio-economic segregation in European cities? Do levels of segregation continue to increase?
2. How have the patterns of segregation changed over the past 20 years, and are these patterns and their trends of change similar between European cities?
3. What are the key factors contributing to the observed levels and spatial changes of residential segregation in European cities?
The paper includes the following case studies associated with the author teams with in-depth local knowledge and access to data: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Bratislava, Dublin, Helsinki, Lisbon, London, Oslo, Paris, Prague, Riga, Rome, Stockholm, Tallinn, Vilnius and Warsaw. To ensure comparability, researchers adopted a consistent definition of functional urban areas and used small spatial units to analyse segregation levels and spatial patterns, following a pre-established and unified methodology. The empirical analysis draws on census or register-based data, from approximately 2001, 2011, and 2021. Socio-economic groups are distinguished based on occupational status and classified into Top, Middle, and Bottom categories. The study is currently in advanced progress.
Residential mobility and new forms of spatial inequality in the settlement system
A comparative study of Estonia and Lithuania
Journal article
(2024)
-
Rūta Ubarevičienė, Kadi Kalm, Maarten van Ham, Tautvydas Žinys, Jaak Kliimask, Tiit Tammaru
This study examines how socio-spatial inequalities are associated with population concentration and de-concentration processes shaped by residential mobility. The study explores whether the patterns of residential mobility vary in different settlement system contexts. It reviews the cyclical urbanization models and the inequality of opportunities they provide in urban, suburban, and counter-urban contexts for individuals in various life stages. The theoretical models are tested by analysing individual-level data covering the entire populations of Estonia and Lithuania – two countries with similar social but different settlement system contexts. The study utilizes linked individual-level data from the 2011 and 2021 censuses, and harmonized variables in the two countries. The results show that individuals engaging in concentration, suburbanization, or de-concentration have distinct characteristics, with little differences between countries characterized with different settlement systems. While the life-course approach assumes that young people are most likely to urbanize (concentrate), those in family ages shift towards suburbanization, and older individuals tend to counter-urbanize (de-concentrate), our findings challenge these assumptions, demonstrating that young adults have a high likelihood of migration in all three directions. These findings call for more in-depth studies on the interplay between age and migration patterns that would go beyond the life-course approach and delve deeper into the residential decision-making of young people.
...
This study examines how socio-spatial inequalities are associated with population concentration and de-concentration processes shaped by residential mobility. The study explores whether the patterns of residential mobility vary in different settlement system contexts. It reviews the cyclical urbanization models and the inequality of opportunities they provide in urban, suburban, and counter-urban contexts for individuals in various life stages. The theoretical models are tested by analysing individual-level data covering the entire populations of Estonia and Lithuania – two countries with similar social but different settlement system contexts. The study utilizes linked individual-level data from the 2011 and 2021 censuses, and harmonized variables in the two countries. The results show that individuals engaging in concentration, suburbanization, or de-concentration have distinct characteristics, with little differences between countries characterized with different settlement systems. While the life-course approach assumes that young people are most likely to urbanize (concentrate), those in family ages shift towards suburbanization, and older individuals tend to counter-urbanize (de-concentrate), our findings challenge these assumptions, demonstrating that young adults have a high likelihood of migration in all three directions. These findings call for more in-depth studies on the interplay between age and migration patterns that would go beyond the life-course approach and delve deeper into the residential decision-making of young people.
Over many decades, academics, policymakers, and governments have been concerned with both the presence of inequalities and the impacts these can have on people when concentrated spatially in urban areas. This concern is especially related to the influence of spatial inequalities on individual outcomes in terms of health, education, work and income, and general well-being amongst other outcomes. In this commentary, we provide an overview of the literature on spatial inequalities and on contextual and neighbourhood effects. We address some of the main challenges in modelling contextual effects and provide evidence that no single study can definitively provide the answer to the question whether—and how much—spatial context effects are relevant for understanding individual outcomes. It is only when taken together that the rich body of research on spatial context effects shows convincingly that spatial context effects are relevant. The commentary ends with the presentation of the vicious circle of the segregation model and suggest some ways in which this vicious circle of spatial inequality and segregation can be broken.
...
Over many decades, academics, policymakers, and governments have been concerned with both the presence of inequalities and the impacts these can have on people when concentrated spatially in urban areas. This concern is especially related to the influence of spatial inequalities on individual outcomes in terms of health, education, work and income, and general well-being amongst other outcomes. In this commentary, we provide an overview of the literature on spatial inequalities and on contextual and neighbourhood effects. We address some of the main challenges in modelling contextual effects and provide evidence that no single study can definitively provide the answer to the question whether—and how much—spatial context effects are relevant for understanding individual outcomes. It is only when taken together that the rich body of research on spatial context effects shows convincingly that spatial context effects are relevant. The commentary ends with the presentation of the vicious circle of the segregation model and suggest some ways in which this vicious circle of spatial inequality and segregation can be broken.