BSPS Annual Conference, University of St Andrews, 11 -13 September 2007 Allowing for the effect of migration in calculating future needs of affordable housing in rural areas Tony Champion tony. champion@ncl. ac. uk Acknowledgements: Trevor Cherrett and Commission for Rural Communities Census data: Crown copyright NB: The author alone is responsible for the findings.
Allowing for the effect of migration in calculating future needs of affordable housing in rural areas • • • Background to policy issue Context of the specific research question Calculating rural England’s housing needs Observed net (within-UK) migration rates How to allow for the effect of observed migration • The needs of ‘forced’ and ‘frustrated’ migrants • Conclusions
Background to policy issue • Lack of affordable housing is a critical issue for rural England (Affordable Rural Housing Commission, 2006; Best & Shucksmith for JRF, 2006) • Soaring demand by non-locals, while affordable housing squeezed by Right to Buy sales, reduction in tied housing and new building focussed on towns • Means that ‘people have to move out of the countryside to find a decent home’, while ‘lack of housing is stifling rural enterprise: employers say they find it difficult to find workers’ (ARHC, 2006, p 14) • Backlog of 42, 299 homes in rural England, according to CRC (2006, p 16) • Looking forward, ca 45% of newly-forming households aged 16 -34 (the ‘critical cohorts’) are unable to access housing in their home ward = 22, 840 households each year (CRC, 2006, p 18)
Context of specific research question • But this estimated need of 23 k new affordable homes each year ‘does not take into account the causes and effects of migration’ (ARHC, 2006, p 3) • The CRC methodology (Roger Tym & Partners, with David Jordan Research, 2006) uses only mortalitybased cohort survival method for first 15 years of population projections for ‘critical cohorts’ of 16 -34 • Yet it is well known that rural areas experience much net out-migration of young adults, much of which is for other reasons besides housing (e. g. further education, training, work) • This suggests the 23 k is an overestimate of needs, but by how much? ‘Further work is needed (on) urban-rural migration patterns and motivations, and their impact on needs of rural affordable housing. ’ (CRC, 2006, p 12)
Calculating rural England’s housing needs The current CRC model involves the following steps: • Extract 2001 census population data by age/sex • Run cohort-survival model for 5 -year age groups • Apply Household Reference Person rate projections • Breakdown by housing tenure • Allow for housing re-lets • Apply affordability thresholds: i) Renting unable to afford ii) Owning unable to afford, adjusted for access to capital (i) + (ii) = Total unable to afford market housing Definitions of Rural England: R 1: ‘small villages and dispersed dwellings’ (settlements of <1, 500) R 2: ‘small villages and market towns’ (including ‘town/ fringe’ in ‘sparse areas’) R 3: ‘all rural areas’ (including ‘town/fringe’ in ‘non-sparse areas’)
HRP projections for South West R 1 areas Source: calculated from Roger Tym & Partners’ Report to CRC, March 2006 Age 2001 2006 2011 <20 589 544 476 20 -24 3814 5847 6725 25 -29 11692 10907 16444 30 -34 23303 16773 15870 35 -39 32533 25767 21596 40 -44 34600 33947 26901 … … … 3893 3288 3801 371769 365419 364872 39398 34071 39515 …. 90+ All ages Aged <35 NB. These do not allow for the effect of migration on change in cohort size over time
Observed net (within-UK) migration rates • What scale of net migration loss of young adults from rural England? • Ward-level data from the 2001 Census on net within-UK migration (Standard Table S 003) • R 1 (‘small villages & dispersed dwellings’) record net loss of 9% of 20 -24 s in one year, and net loss of 5% for 16 -19 s • R 3 (‘all rural areas’) register -6% and -5% respectively for pre-Census year • Pretty consistent across 8 Government Office Regions see next two slides…
Net migration rate (%), 2000 -01, for England’s R 1, R 2 and R 3 areas, by broad age group Source: calculated from 2001 Census ST 008
Net migration rate (%), 2000 -01, for Government Office Regions’ R 3 areas, selected age groups Source: calculated from 2001 Census ST 008
Need to allow for the effect of migration? • Clearly, there is substantial net out-migration from Rural England (however defined) by young adults, especially 16 -24 BUT • This exodus may not significantly reduce the need for affordable housing here, because few are leaving for housing reasons: - DTZ Pieda (1998): 13% housing reasons in highest of 5 study areas (2 in 5 of the ca 33% involuntary movers) - Findlay et al (1999): 6% left households for housing reasons, 18% education, 22% jobs, 47% personal (e. g. partnership) - Rugg & Jones (1999): few HE students expected to return BUT • CRC model applies observed HRRs for the (remaining) residents to the whole mortality-survived cohort • so it is necessary to deduct the net migration effect
How to allow for the effect of migration? Within the context of current CRC model, there would seem to be three options: • Adjust the 23 k outcome of the model process, i. e. by a factor based on the migration effects • Insert an additional ‘cohort-survival’ component alongside mortality-based one, using evidence about the migration effect • Replace the mortality-based cohort-survival model with estimates of aggregate change in age/sex cohort size Look at each of these options in turn…
Adjust the final outcome of the model? • Has the advantage of not needing to modify the current CRC model and repeat all the runs • Simplest method is to apply the census-based one-year net migration rates for the ‘critical cohorts’ • Ideally, at level of individual GOR or even LA/UA, but broad effect (national rate for R 3) will be to apply -5. 2% annual rate for 16 -19 s, 6. 5% 20 -24 s, -0. 5% 25 -29 • Use compound rate, e. g. for 20 -24 s, 93. 5% left after year 1, 87. 4% after 2 years… 71. 5% after 5 years when aged 25 -29 • Ditto for 16 -19 s, 76. 6% left after 5 years; for 25 -29 s 97. 5% • In terms of cohort survival through 15 ‘critical’ years, 16 -year old cohort has reduced by 46. 6% by age 30 due to net (within-UK) migration effect • More severe depletion for R 1 (small villages and dispersed dwellings), e. g. at -9. 3% for 20 -24 s = 61. 4% become 25 -29 after 5 years • But also need to allow for migration effect on cohorts entering the ‘critical cohorts’, e. g. aged under 16 in year 0, and international migration
Insert an additional ‘cohort-survival’ component? • The CRC projection model begins with cohort-survival stage, based on ward-level data on mortality rates by 5 year age group • Would seem logical to insert an additional cohortsurvival component, based on ward-level migration rates by 5 -year age group • As previously, could apply the one-year migration rates from the 2001 Census, but would be better if data for several (more recent) years could be derived from the Patient Register (ward type aggregated to LA or GOR) • This would produce ‘realistic’ populations to which the observed HRR, tenure, etc. , rates directly relate • Would still need an estimate of international migration: traditionally not a major component for rural areas, but quite significant now with A 8 etc labour migration
Use estimates of aggregate change in age/sex cohort size? • Replace the CRC model’s current mortality-based cohort-survival model with estimates of aggregate change in age/sex cohort size (e. g. by comparing size of 20 -24 group at time t with size of 15 -19 at t-5) • Next slide shows example based on 5 -year age groups of 2004 compared in size with projected 5 -year-older age groups of 2009, for England’s most rural districts (‘Rural-80’) and all types (England total) • This obviously allows for all ‘survival’ components (deaths, internal migration & international migration) • But to feed into model, this LA-level data would need to be split into wards & re-aggregated to ward types • Seems unsophisticated compared to having separate models for each component, but fit for this purpose?
Projected % change in size of age cohorts, 2004 -09, for Rural-80 LAs compared to all types Source: calculated from ONS 2004 -based projections for England International immigration Mainly counterurbanization Exodus of young adults Mainly mortality effects
But still the needs of ‘forced’ and ‘frustrated’ migrants • The 3 options are mainly based on observed migration, i. e. rates that have led to current backlog of 43 k affordable homes in rural England • So, need to allow for those leaving ‘involuntarily’ for housing reasons, also for some for job etc reasons in any policy of rural economic regeneration • Also need to allow for those denied the chance of moving into rural settlements because of housing availability/cost: rural workers, closer to family, lifestyle Frost (2006): rural workers commuting from towns & cities (e. g. 51% of those working in ‘less sparse’ England villages): how sustainable? - DTZ Pieda (1998): ca 9% households reported people wanting to live near them, of whom only half were likely to manage this: should the rest? - CRC (2006): England surveys regularly report strong preferences for living in the countryside: should this desire be entirely market selected? • But very little hard evidence on size of these 2 groups
Allowing for the effect of migration in calculating future needs of affordable housing in rural areas: conclusions • Shortage of affordable rural housing is a key policy issue • CRC projections need to be adjusted for migration • 3 options suggested for allowing for observed migration, with varying levels of sophistication • Still need to allow for aspects of ‘involuntary’ outmigration and ‘frustrated’ in-migration • Yet still only a weak evidence base for gauging both observed migration and extra unmet needs
BSPS Annual Conference, University of St Andrews, 11 -13 September 2007 Allowing for the effect of migration in calculating future needs of affordable housing in rural areas Tony Champion tony. champion@ncl. ac. uk Acknowledgements: Trevor Cherrett and Commission for Rural Communities Census data: Crown copyright NB: The author alone is responsible for the findings.
Скачать презентацию BSPS Annual Conference University of St Andrews 11
834c5d0d4649b579c71e0480131c0a00.ppt