Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Ian Shuttleworth (QUB), Myles Gould (UoL) & Paul Barr (QUB)
Modelling short-distance residential moves using the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS) Ian Shuttleworth (QUB), Myles Gould (UoL) & Paul Barr (QUB)
2
Outline The project Research questions The data
Scope and rationale Research questions The data Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS) Analytical strategy (ML models) Model Results answers to 3 questions about residential moves through sectarian space Conclusion
3
The Project & Research Questions
4
The Project Analysis of address changes within NI (2001-2007)
76,741 people (with 2001 NI Census record) who moved between 890 SOAs, within NI, between 2001 & 2007 Residential segregation moving apart or moving together? understanding migration patterns – which areas are gaining and losing population through migration after the 2001 Census? All part of wider project who moves, how far, from/to where, and what influences moves exploring how far internal migration in NI sifts the population with regard to residential segregation (community background & socio-economic deprivation) Today’s focus: residential moves through sectarian space (with particular focus community background) There were in fact 97,100 people who moved (either moving back to NI or being born, & be added to NILS) - In terms of sifting segregation of socio-economic deprivation – is there social-selectivity in moves & entrapment in deprived areas?
5
Research Questions With respect to residential moves across sectarian space... Are individuals more likely to move in areas where they are in the minority? Is there evidence of longer distance moves in areas where individuals are in the minority? Do Catholics and Protestants move to different areas? Does it matter? [i.e. Our Conclusion] How far does migration redistribute the population and does it lead to greater residential segregation?
6
The Data & Analytical Strategy
7
The Data: Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study
A 28% sample of the NI population (based on 104/365 birthdates) data on individuals and households collected by the 2001 Census; information on post-census moves from health card registrations ( ); information on residents of 890 SOAs in NI – built from OAs – c1,800-2,500 residents; in total, c500,000 NILS members Project selection criteria: were in NI in 2001 and had a census record were still in NI in 2007 (e.g. not dead or left NI) were aged 25-74; exclude student age group (who bias results) & very old c.274,000 in the analytical database
8
Analytical Strategy (ML Models)
Approach: Complex modelling, simple graphing/presentation Relatively simple hierarchical data structure individuals (level-1) nested within 890 SOAs (level-2) Properly handle spatial clustered data Get purchase on within-area and between-area variability Precision weighted estimation Individual variables: sex, religion, marital status, SES, age, limiting long-term illness, housing tenure can include as overall main effects (as here) allow different, differentials between SOAs - complex between-area random variation (done but not presented here today) Ecological level-2 variables: %Catholic, deprivation score Can also model cross-level interaction between individual & ecological variables (presenting today)
9
Source: Tacq (1986) cited in Snijders & Bosker (1999)
Different Modelling Strategies Macro-level effect on micro-level response Macro model Micro model Multilevel models Cross-level interaction Main effects only Source: Tacq (1986) cited in Snijders & Bosker (1999)
10
Results
11
1. Are individuals more likely to move in areas where they are in the minority?
Average 42.9% Average 42.9% Logit Propensity to move Predicted Probability to move Predicted Ratio %Cath Origin/Destination ceteris paribus – other things being equal Propensity to move – one or more residential moves ≈0% 14.4% 42.9% 71.4% 99.9% ≈0% 14.4% 42.9% 71.4% 99.9% %Catholic %Catholic Catholics are less mobile (less likely to make one or more moves) than Protestants everywhere Catholics, ceteris paribus, are less likely to move in areas where they are in the majority Protestants are slightly more likely to move in highly-Catholic areas Overall, cross-level interactions between individual community background and ecological religion are small but highly statistically significant
12
2. Is there evidence of longer distance moves in areas where individuals are in the minority?
Average 42.9% Average 42.9% ≈0% 14.4% 42.9% 71.4% 99.9% ≈0% 14.4% 42.9% 71.4% 99.9% Protestants in most places tend to move greater distances than Catholics Protestants who lived in highly Catholic areas tended to travel further than those who were in highly Protestant places Catholics in highly Catholic areas tend to move shorter distances than Catholics in Protestant areas Cross-level interactions are large and statistically significant
13
3. Do Catholics and Protestants move to different areas?
Null model, for Ratio %Catholics receiving over sending response, before including any predictors Biggest ratio: SOAs 419 WHERE?, 439 WHERE?, & 118 WHERE? Smallest ratio SOAs: 201 WHERE?, 822 WHERE?, & 782 WHERE? CONFIRMED: Class Intervals: Quartiles Considerable place variation (0.034 units, 34% of tot. variation) Biggest ratio: SOAs 419, 439 & 118 Smallest ratio SOAs: 201, 822, & 782
14
Ratio %Catholic Receive : Sending – Main Effects
Variable/Characteristic Age* (Base is ) +ve (except 55-64) Religion: Protestant*; Other/None combi.* (Base is Catholics) –ve (large) Education –ve Illness (Base is not ill) +ve Tenure: Rented*; Private Rented (Base is Owner occupied) Social Economic Status: Professionals; Self-employed*; Not working*, Student (Base is Routine Occupations) Social Economic Status: Intermediate; Lower supervisor; Marital status: Separated; Widowed (Base is Married) Marital status: Single*, Remarried; Divorced % Catholics* -ve Long distance move* (Base is short move) Log MDM* (social deprivation) +ve (v. large) Log Density* Predicted logten ratio %Cath receiving / %Cath destination equals Plus got some statistical interactions tenure & religion N.B. A Few signs have changed compared to above model, ditto stats significance Note for Ian: originally forgotten to include %Catholic (area effect) in this table, we have it next graph – but don’t worry. I’ve now added it above. Note this was centred on average, which is – average percentage of percentage Cathoics in SOAs across N.Ire – think that’s right. It is significant & term is negative can see this in graph in next slide! [Will be interested to hear whether people have thoughts on simultaneously incl. ratio %Cath receiving/destination. Plus individual effect for religion, plus ecological effect for religion all in same model!!!
15
3. Do Catholics and Protestants move to different areas?
Difference %Catholics receiving compared to sending Logten Ratio %Catholics receiving over sending Logten Ratio %Catholics receiving over sending Predicted Ratio %Catholics receiving over sending Predicted Ratio %Catholics receiving over sending %Catholic %Catholic %Catholic %Catholic Average 42.9% Average 42.9% Catholics are always more likely to go to more Catholic areas than Protestants Others/nones lie somewhere between Catholics and Protestants Everybody in highly-Protestant areas are more likely to move to more Catholic areas – a function of the balance of opportunities for moves At the other end of the scale, in highly-Catholic areas, everyone moves to more Protestant (e.g. less Catholic) areas but Protestants are more likely to move to less Catholic areas than Protestants
16
3. Do Catholics and Protestants move to different areas?
Response: Ratio %Catholics receiving over sending response PLUS: individual & ecological effects; and also cross-level interaction: individual community background/ %Catholic Biggest ratio: SOAs 419 WHERE? [as before], 439 WHERE? [as before] & 634 WHERE? Smallest ratio SOAs: 235 WHERE?, 110 WHERE?, & 61 WHERE? CONFIRMED: Class intervals – QUARTILES Large reduction in place variation (reduced to units, now 10% of tot.) Biggest ratio: SOAs 419, 439 & 634 Smallest ratio SOAs: 235, 110, & 61
17
Conclusion (1): Does it matter?
Clear evidence for communal differentials in: migration propensity distance moved and the types of SOA to which Catholics and Protestants move Even 12 years after the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement of 1998 communal/national identity remains an important factor shaping short-distance migratory moves in NI eg How far does migration redistribute the population and does it lead to greater residential segregation?
18
Conclusion (2): Does it matter?
But this is very different from saying that the segregation is increasing as the two communities ‘move apart’. This is because: Although Catholics are more likely than Protestants to move to more Catholic SOAs some Protestants still move to more Catholic areas Catholics move to areas that are typically only ‘slightly more Catholic’ – most moves are short-distance to very similar areas [& vice versa?] Moves to less Catholic areas tend to cancel out moves to ‘more Catholic areas’ Differences in migration propensities and distances moved (eg long distance moves for Protestants who live in SOAs more than 80% Catholic) tend to be numerically less noteworthy in changing the demographic composition of SOAs because of the relatively small numbers living at the ends of the distribution (eg Catholics living in Protestant areas and vice versa) eg How far does migration redistribute the population and does it lead to greater residential segregation?
19
Conclusion (3): Does it matter?
Most moves tend to be short distance and most to and from very similar SOAs in terms of religious composition Given the already existing social geography/sectarian geography of NI, migration of the type and level seen since 2001 is unlikely to redistribute the population to lead to either more segregation or integration More moves, particularly over a long distance, are needed to lead to either of these two outcomes eg How far does migration redistribute the population and does it lead to greater residential segregation?
20
Conclusion With regard to community background, migration did not redistribute the population fundamentally This suggests that ‘normal’ migration will on its not desegregate the NI population The other implication is that to increase/decrease segregation more individuals need to move and to move further Was the population system much more dynamic when biggest increases in residential segregation seen?
21
Acknowledgements The help provided by the staff of the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS) and NILS Research Support Unit is acknowledged. NILS is funded by the HSC R&D function of the Public Health Agency. The NILS-RSU is funded by the ESRC and the Northern Ireland Government. The authors alone are responsible for the interpretation of the data.
Similar presentations
