View
7
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Separation and Housing Transitions in England and Wales
Júlia Mikolai and Hill Kulu, University of Liverpool
Abstract
This study investigates the interrelationship between partnership and residential changes in
England and Wales focusing on moves related to union dissolution. The aim is to determine
whether marital and non-marital separation has a long-term effect on individuals’ residential
and housing trajectories. Using data from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) and
applying multilevel competing-risks event history models we analyse the risk of a move of
single, married, cohabiting, and separated men and women to different housing types. We
distinguish between moves due to separation and moves of separated people. Our analysis
shows that many individuals move due to separation, as expected, but the likelihood of
moving is also relatively high among separated individuals. Interestingly, separated women
are more likely to move to terraced houses, whereas men tend to move to flats.
2
Introduction
This paper investigates the interrelationship between partnership and residential histories in
England and Wales focusing on moves related to union dissolution. Partnership events, such
as the start and end of a co-residential union, usually trigger a move as they imply a change
of residence for at least one of the partners (Dewilde 2008; Mulder and Wagner 1998; Mulder
2006; Clark 2013; Mulder and Lauster 2010). Moves related to union formation are usually
‘upward’ and are directed towards finding an ideal home, whereas moves related to union
dissolution are ‘downward’. In other words, following union dissolution, individuals are
likely to move to smaller, lower quality dwellings (Feijten 2005; Gober 1992) because moves
after separation are usually urgent and financially restricted (Feijten and van Ham 2007).
The link between separation and residential moves is of relevance to policy makers
and town planners because increasing divorce and union dissolution rates exacerbate the
magnitude of moves and imply an increased need for more, and smaller dwellings (Mulder
and Malmberg 2011; Dieleman and Schouw 1989; Feijten 2005). Additionally, the way in
which people from different socio-economic backgrounds move in relation to separation will
influence demand and supply on the local housing market (Mulder and Malmberg 2011). The
social stratification of access to housing and of family formation (Feijten and van Ham 2010;
Dewilde 2008) makes England and Wales an interesting and important context for the study
of the interrelationship between separation and residential relocations.
Previous research has shown that separated individuals are more likely to move than
those who are single or in a relationship, they are likely to move out of homeownership, and
from single-family to multi-family dwellings (Feijten and van Ham 2007, 2010; Mulder and
Malmberg 2011; Feijten 2005; Lersch and Vidal 2014; Sullivan 1986; Dieleman and Schouw
1989; Speare and Goldscheider 1987). Although previous studies have advanced our
understanding of housing changes related to separation, they suffer from shortcomings. First,
3
distinguishing between moves due to separation (also called induced moves or event moves)
and moves of separated people (also referred to as state moves) is essential to understand
whether and how separation influences housing careers in short and long term. Most previous
studies have either not distinguished between such moves or have excluded moves due to
separation from their analysis (except Feijten 2005). Second, previous research has not
accounted for possible selection effects (except Lersch and Vidal 2014); individuals who are
more likely to move might also be more likely to separate due to unobserved characteristics.
If this is true we would overestimate the potential effect of separation on moving. Third,
previous research has either not investigated the destination of residential moves or has solely
focused on moves out of homeownership and from single- to multi-family dwellings (Feijten
and van Ham 2010; Sullivan 1986; Lersch and Vidal 2014). However, housing type at
destination might be a better indicator of socio-economic differences in a country where over
60 per cent of the housing stock is owner occupied (Department for Communities and Local
Government 2015).
We aim to fill these gaps in the literature by, first, comparing moving risks of
separated individuals to those who are single or who are in a co-residential union in England
and Wales. We then analyse moving risks by housing type at destination. Finally, we
investigate whether the impact of separation on people’s residential and housing careers is
temporary or long-term. We distinguish between moves due to separation and moves of
separated people using time since separation. Additionally, we account for possible
unobserved selection effects into separation and residential moves.
Separation and residential moves
A change in family size or family structure usually triggers a move in order to adjust housing
conditions to the new circumstances (Mulder and Lauster 2010; Kulu 2008). According to
4
utility maximization theory, residential moves should only take place if the benefits of the
move exceed its costs. Thus, each subsequent dwelling is assumed to meet the housing needs
of a household better than the previous one (Feijten 2005). Therefore, union formation and
childbirth usually lead to an ‘upward’ move on the housing ladder.
However, moves related to separation are different because they are urgent and
financially restricted (Feijten and van Ham 2007)1. By definition, upon separation at least one
of the partners has to move out of the joint home. This suggests that individuals are likely to
settle for any type of housing (often moving to parent’s or friends’ place) even if it is of low
quality and not in the preferred area. Additionally, separation leads to a lower household
income, a decrease in resources due to loss of economies of scale, and a division of savings
and assets. Therefore, moves after separation are usually to smaller, lower quality dwellings,
from home ownership to renting, and from single-family to multiple-family dwellings (Gober
1992; Feijten 2005; Feijten and van Ham 2007).
Separation may also have a long-lasting impact on individuals’ residential careers. As
housing situation right after separation is likely to be temporary, it may take several
adjustment moves before separated individuals acquire housing of a similar quality, size, and
type as before separation (Feijten and van Ham 2007; Dieleman and Schouw 1989).
Additionally, those who remained in the matrimonial home upon separation may be unable to
pay for housing costs such as rent, mortgage and maintenance (Feijten and Mulder 2010).
Thus, separated people are expected to move more often than those in a relationship.
Previous research from the Netherlands has found that separated individuals (whether
single or re-partnered) are more likely to move than steady single and those in a first union
and that this relationship persists over time since separation, although the differences become
1 Throughout this paper, we use the term 'separation' to denote the dissolution of both marital and non-marital
co-residential unions. This is because even in case of a divorce, it is usually the actual date of separation (and
not the date of the legal divorce) which implies an immediate move out of the joint home for at least one of the
partners (Feijten 2005).
5
smaller (Feijten and van Ham 2007). Similarly, in the UK Feijten and van Ham (2010) found
that recently divorced and separated people have much higher risks of moving than those who
are in a relationship. Although their moving risk decreases over time, it remains higher than
for partnered individuals. Thus, these studies conclude that separation has a long-term effect
on housing careers. However, these studies only investigated moves of separated people and
excluded moves due to separation.
A study by Feijten (2005) found that immediately after separation (0-3 months)
individuals are most likely to move to shared dwellings followed by rental accommodation.
Additionally, for women separation had a long-term effect on the risk of moving out of
homeownership but for men it only had a temporary effect (Feijten 2005). Similarly, Feijten
and Mulder (2010) found that the long-term effects of separation are stronger for women; 80
percent of moves of men who separated two or more years ago were to single-family housing,
whereas this was only 60 percent among women. Additionally, immediately after separation
women are better off in terms of type of housing (they usually stay in the joint single-family
home especially if they have the children), whereas men are better off in terms of tenure
(owner occupied dwellings). One explanation for such gender differences in the Netherlands
is that upon divorce women are usually left with fewer resources than men because women
earn less and most women with children work part-time (or do not work). For men, a decline
in resources can occur when they have to pay alimony. Interestingly, Lersch and Vidal (2014)
found no gender differences in the risk of re-entering homeownership after separation in
Britain and in Germany.
To summarise, previous studies have shown that separated individuals have higher
risks of moving than those who are single or are in a relationship, that they are more likely to
move out of home ownership and out of single-family dwellings. Most of these studies have
typically focused on housing tenure and moves out of homeownership as an indicator of
6
socio-economic status following separation and they have not studied the destination of
moves by dwelling type2. Additionally, some studies suggest that separation has a long-term
effect on housing careers but these studies do not distinguish between moves due to
separation and moves of separated individuals. Furthermore, while some authors suggest that
the effect of separation on housing careers over time is different for men and women, others
find no gender differences. Thus, there is clearly a need to explicitly study the link between
separation and housing changes to improve our understanding of this, potentially complex,
relationship. The following sections briefly describe trends in separation and housing in
England and Wales and summarise the hypotheses of this study.
Separation and housing in England and Wales
In England and Wales the number of divorces increased from about 24,000 per year in 1960
to about 150,000 a year in the early 1980s and the figure remained fairly constant until 2003.
Between 2003 and 2009, the number of divorces declined to about 114,000 per year followed
by an increase in 2010 after which it has remained stable (Office for National Statistics
2012). At the same time, the number of marriages has dropped from 415,000 a year to
250,000 between the early 1970s and 2012 (Office for National Statistics 2012). Thus, the
fall in the number of divorces between 2003 and 2009 coincides with the decreasing number
of marriages. In line with this trend, the proportion of first unions that started as cohabitation
as opposed to marriage has increased (Beaujouan and Ní Bhrolcháin 2011). As cohabiting
unions are less stable than marriages, this increase in the prevalence of cohabitation is likely
to contribute to an increase in the number of unions that end with separation (Feijten and van
Ham 2010). Although official statistics on the prevalence of cohabitation and dissolution of
cohabitation are not available, survey estimates show that approximately 60 percent of
2 One exception is Feijten and van Ham (2010) who found that separated individuals in the UK are three times
as likely as married individuals to move to a flat or shared accommodation while those who are married mainly
move to single-family dwellings.
7
cohabitations become marriages while about 30 percent ends in union dissolution within 10
years (Ermisch and Francesconi 2000; Hannemann and Kulu 2015). The dissolution of
marital and non-marital co-residential unions may have different impact on housing careers.
Cohabiting couples are less likely to own a home together or to have invested in their housing
(Feijten and van Ham 2010). This suggests that there is less to loose when cohabitors split up
compared to the dissolution of a marriage. However, for couples who are long-term
cohabitors, the effects of separation might be similar to that of a divorce.
According to the 2011 census, there were 24 million households in England and
Wales. The housing market was dominated by owner occupied dwellings (61%), 17 percent
of the dwellings was socially rented while 16 percent was privately rented (Office for
National Statistics 2014). In England, the proportion of households in owner occupied
dwellings has increased from the 1980s to 2003 when it reached a peak of 71 percent. Since
then, there has been a gradual decline to 63 percent in 2014. The proportion of private sector
households remained at about 10 percent throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, the
sector has undergone sharp growth due to e.g. the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies
and the buy-to-let mortgage. By 2014, 19 percent of the households was renting privately in
England. The proportion of households in socially rented accommodation (this includes
housing from local authorities and housing associations) has decreased from 31 percent in
1980 to 17 percent in 2014. This is primarily due to the introduction of the Right to Buy
program which enabled many tenants to purchase their homes at a discounted price
(Department for Communities and Local Government 2015). The trends were very similar in
Wales where after 1991/1992, the proportion of owner occupied and privately rented
dwellings increased while that of socially rented dwellings decreased, although the proportion
of owner occupied dwellings decreased somewhat since 2000-01 (Statistics for Wales 2015).
8
Hypotheses
Based on the theoretical arguments and in light of previous findings, we develop the
following hypotheses. First, we expect that separated men and women in England and Wales
are more likely to move than those who are single or who are in a co-residential partnership
(moves hypothesis).
Second, we expect that separated individuals will be more likely to move to smaller
dwellings such as a flat, shared accommodation, or terraced house compared to their single
counterparts and particularly to those who are in a steady relationship (destination
hypothesis). This is expected to be especially so immediately after separation (short-term
effect). As separated individuals make adjustment moves later on after separation, we expect
that separation has a long-term effect on individual’s residential careers (duration
hypothesis). We expect that individuals will be more likely to move to a detached and semi-
detached house sometime after separation than they were immediately after separation,
although it will be interesting to find out whether and how the patterns vary by population
subgroups. Finally, as a previous study in Britain found no gender differences in the effect of
separation on moves, we do not expect to find such differences (gender hypothesis). In
Britain most women with children return to the labour market after a short period of
maternity leave, which may leave them with more resources upon divorce than in the
Netherlands or Germany. Additionally, in Britain housing benefits and social housing is
available for single mothers.
Data and Methods
We use data from 18 waves of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), a nationally
representative sample of 5,500 households and about 10,300 individuals. Between 1991 and
2008, the same sample of adults was interviewed each year. If a household splits, the original
household members are still followed up and new household members are also interviewed.
9
In our analyses, we use information on original sample members and two additional sub-
samples (the European Community Household Panel and the Wales Extension Sample). We
exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland from the sample, as in these countries of Great Britain
social norms, behaviours, and legislation are different from that in England and Wales.
Individuals are observed from age 16 or from the entry into the study (if later) until age 50,
widowhood, or the end of observation, whichever happens first. We use a sample of 4797
men and 5019 women and prepare a person-months dataset to study the risk of moving. For
the study of residential moves, panel attrition might be an issue because individuals with high
geographic mobility are more likely to be lost to follow-up than those with low mobility
(Uhrig 2008). Rabe and Taylor (2010) and Washbrook et al. (2014) found that attrition in
BHPS is not related to mobility rates and thus it does not influence analyses related to
moving risks.
We estimate four sets of models. First, we focus on the relationship between
partnership status and moves (Model 1). Second, in order to distinguish moves due to
separation from moves of separated individuals we split the category of separated individuals
by time since separation (0-4 months after separation versus 5 or more months after
separation) (Model 2). Third, we analyse moves of separated individuals by order of move
(Model 3). Preliminary analysis showed that in the first four months following separation
most individuals only move once; we therefore study the moves that happened five or more
month after separation by order of move. Finally, we include information on previous
residential history to further investigate whether separation has a long-term effect on moving
risks (Model 4).
We apply multi-level event history models with a piecewise linear baseline hazard to
study the risk of a move by partnership status for men and women. Multi-level models are
estimated because each individual can experience several moves. These moves are not
10
independent from each other and standard errors, therefore, need to be adjusted. The risk of a
move is expressed by:
ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚(𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜(𝑡) + ∑ 𝛼𝑗𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑚 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑚 (𝑡) + ԑ𝑖,𝑙𝑗 (1)
where 𝜇𝑖(𝑡) denotes the hazard of a move of order m (first or higher order) for individual i, ln
𝜇𝑜(𝑡) denotes the baseline log-hazard which is specified as piecewise linear. For first moves,
the baseline is individual’s age in months whereas for second and higher order moves it is
time since previous move. 𝑥𝑖𝑗 represents a time-constant variable and 𝑤𝑖𝑗(𝑡) denotes time-
varying variables. We also include an individual-level random effect to control for
unmeasured time-constant characteristics that influence individuals’ moving propensities.
Then, we estimate multi-level competing-risks event history models to calculate the
risk of a move to different dwelling types by partnership status for each set of models. This
model is depicted in Figure 1. Each box represents a possible state that individuals can
occupy over the life course while the arrows indicate possible transitions between there
states. Each state is defined as a combination of partnership status and housing type. If
several events occur in the same month, we assume the following order of events: separation,
residential move, union formation. The risk of a move to different dwelling types is expressed
by:
ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝐷 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜
𝐷(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝐷(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗
𝐷𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝐷𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡) + ԑ𝑖𝑙𝑗
ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑆 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜
𝑆(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝑆(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗
𝑆𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡) + ԑ𝑖𝑙𝑗
ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑇 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜
𝑇(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝑇(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗
𝑇𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝑇𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡)𝑙𝑗 + ԑ𝑖
ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝐹 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜
𝐹(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝐹(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗
𝐹𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝐹𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡)𝑙𝑗 + ԑ𝑖
ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑂 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜
𝑂(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝑂(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗
𝑂𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝑂𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡) + ԑ𝑖𝑙𝑗 (2)
11
where 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝐷 (𝑡), 𝜇𝑖𝑚
𝑆 (𝑡), 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑇 (𝑡), 𝜇𝑖𝑚
𝐹 (𝑡), 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑂 (𝑡) denote the hazard of a move of order m for
individual i to detached house, semi-detached house, terraced house, flat, and other type of
dwelling, respectively, ln 𝜇𝑜(𝑡) denotes the baseline log-hazard for each dwelling type which
is specified as piecewise linear (again it is age for first moves and time since previous move
for second and higher order moves). The parameter 𝑧𝑘(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) denotes the spline
representation of a time-varying variable that is a continuous function of t with origin 𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘
(e.g. time since separation). 𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 represents a time-constant variable and 𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑗(𝑡) denotes
time-varying variables. Again, we include an individual-level random effect to control for
unmeasured time-constant characteristics that influence individuals’ moving propensities.
Additionally, we study whether the impact of separation on the risk of residential moves and
housing transitions is temporary or long-lasting. All models are estimated using aML.
In all steps, we analyse men and women separately because their partnership and
residential histories are not independent. Analysing them within the same model would
violate the independence assumption and would lead to biased estimates of parameters and
standard errors.
Variables
The BHPS contains rich information on many important individual characteristics such as
partnership and family events, educational level, educational enrolment, household
composition, housing tenure, housing type, and housing conditions. Respondents’ age is
measured in 5-year age groups: 16-19 (reference), 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-45, and 45-
50. Housing type at origin is measured with a categorical variable: detached house, semi-
detached house (reference), terraced house, flat, and other/missing category and indicates the
type of dwelling before individuals moved to a new dwelling. Respondents’ partnership
12
status is operationalised as single, married, cohabiting, or separated. When we study long-
term effects of separation, we replace the variable “separated” with time since separation (0-4
months and 5+ months). Housing tenure at origin is measured as home-ownership (owned
outright or with mortgage) (reference), social renting (from local authority, housing
association, or employer), private renting (furnished or unfurnished), and missing.
Respondents’ educational level is categorised as high (university degree or teaching
qualification), medium (A level) (reference category), and low (O levels, CSE, none) while
their employment status is categorised as self-employed, full-time employee (reference), part-
time employee, in education, unemployed, other, and missing. Additionally, we distinguish
between seven types of areas of residence based on the size and population density of the
local authority district at origin: the capital city of London, large cities with a population of
more than 400,000 (reference), medium cities (200,000-400,000 inhabitants), towns (less
than 200,000 inhabitants but a population density or at least 1000 individuals per km2), small
towns (less than 200,000 inhabitants and a population density of 250-1000 individuals per
km2), and rural areas (less than 200,000 inhabitants and less than 250 individuals per km
2).
The analyses are controlled for order of move, whether separation was from
cohabitation or marriage, and the order of separation. Additionally, in order to control for
period effects in the risk of residential moves, we distinguish four periods: 1991-1994
(reference), 1995-1999, 2000-2004, and 2005-2008. We also control for whether the woman
(or wife in case of men) was pregnant in a given month, the number of children (one, two,
and three or more children) and whether respondents were part of a minority group. Table 1
reports the number and proportion of person-months and residential moves in each category
of the variables used in the multivariate analyses.
Results
13
Table 1 shows that in total, women and men experienced 5,720 and 5,181 residential moves,
respectively. For both genders, most of these moves (28% for women, 26% for men) were
directed towards terraced houses, followed by semi-detached houses (25% for women, 24%
for men), flats (20% for women, 22% for men), detached houses (18% for women, 17% for
men), and other types of housing (10% for men and women).
Table 2 and Table 3 show the results of four event history models of the risk of a
residential move by partnership status for women and men, respectively. Results from four
sets of models (Model 1 to Model 4) are shown in the different columns of these tables.
Model 1 shows that separated men and women have around 40 per cent higher risk of a
residential move than single men and women. This is in line with what we expected based on
previous studies. Additionally, compared to single individuals, married men and women have
a smaller risk of moving. Cohabiting women are less likely to move than single women while
for men this difference is not significant. Figure 2a and Figure 2b presents the risk of a
residential move to different housing types by partnership status for women and men,
respectively. Interestingly, single individuals are most likely to move to a flat or terraced
house, cohabiting individuals mainly move to terraced and semi-detached houses, while those
who are married have the highest moving risks to detached and semi-detached houses.
Separated women are most likely to move to a terraced house, followed by a semi-detached
and a flat while separated men are equally likely to move to a flat, terraced house, and semi-
detached house.
In Model 2, we distinguish between moves due to separation and moves of separated
individuals by replacing the category of separated individuals with a variable showing time
since separation. The analysis reveals that the risk of a residential move is more than twice as
large in the first four months following separation as it is for single men and women. This
suggests that many men and women move due to separation, which corresponds to
14
expectations. Five or more months after separation, the risk of a residential move is similar to
that of single individuals. Separated men and women still exhibit higher risks of a residential
move than those who are in a relationship. Figure 3a and Figure 3b shows that immediately
after separation, women are most likely to move to a terraced house and this is also the case
later. For men, there is a tendency to move to flats which becomes more distinct (but not
significantly different from the risk of moving to a terraced house) over time. This seems to
suggest that separated men are more likely to move to smaller dwellings, whereas this may
not be necessarily the case for women. One explanation for this might be that in relationships
where children are present, children usually stay with their mother upon separation. Indeed,
additional analyses (not shown) revealed that women without children are more likely to
move to flats than those with children and that men with children are less likely to move to a
flat compared to the other dwelling types.
To gain a better understanding of whether separation has a long-term effect on
individuals’ residential and housing careers, Model 3 further distinguishes moves that
occurred five or more months after separation by order of residential moves. We find that five
or more months after separation, the risk of a move is highest for men and women who had
already moved once during separation. Separated women who moved once are 16 per cent
more likely to move again compared to single women while separated men are 30 per cent
more likely to do so. When we break down these risks by destination of move, we find that
women who move for the first time five or more months after separation are most likely to
move to a terraced and semi-detached house (Figure 4a). Upon a second move, they are
equally likely to move to semi-detached and terraced houses and flats. However, higher order
moves are mainly directed towards terraced houses. For men we find a different pattern
(Figure 4b). First moves after five months since separation are to terraced and semi-detached
15
houses as well as to flats. Upon second, and third and higher order moves, men are most
likely to move to a flat, although they also move to terraced houses.
Finally, Model 4 introduces indicators of past residential histories to further examine
the potential long-term effect of separation on individuals’ residential careers. We examine
whether the first move occurred due to separation (0-4 months) or later (5 or more months).
This is an indicator for whether the individual moved out upon separation. We find that men
who moved out upon separation and moved again five or more months after separation have a
21 per cent higher risk of moving again than those who did not move upon separation. For
women, we do not find any significant differences by past history. These results indicate that
for men who move out upon separation, separation has a longer-lasting effect than for
women.
Other variables in the models show consistent results with what we know from the
literature. In short, the risk of a residential move decreases with age and with time since
previous move. Living in a flat and other type of dwellings, and in private rented
accommodation as well as being more educated are associated with an increased risk of a
residential move. Additionally, couples, where the woman is pregnant, are more likely to
move. We find some gender differences in the effect of some control variables. For example,
for women, being in part-time employment and living in a rural area decreases the risk of a
move while for men being in education and belonging to a minority group increases the risk
of a move. Also, women who have two children are less likely to experience a residential
move compared to those who do not have any children while for men having children is
associated with increased moving risks.
Conclusion and Discussion
16
This study investigated the interrelationship between partnership and residential histories in
England and Wales focusing on moves related to union dissolution. The aim of the study was
to determine whether separation (of both cohabitation and marriage) has a long-term effect on
men’s and women’s residential and housing careers. We explicitly distinguished between
moves due to separation and moves of separated people. Using multilevel and competing-
risks event history models, we analysed the risk of a move of single, married, cohabiting, and
separated men and women and moving patterns by housing type at destination (detached,
semi-detached, and terraced house, flat, and other).
As expected (moves hypothesis), and in line with previous studies, we found that
separated men and women are more likely to experience a residential move than those who
are single or are in a relationship. When distinguishing between moves due to separation (0-4
months after separation) and moves of separated individuals (5 or more months after
separation) the analysis showed that the risk of a move due to separation is more than twice
as high as that among separated individuals. This was expected; upon separation, at least one
of the ex-partners will have to move to a new dwelling in order to adjust their living
conditions to the new circumstances. Five or more months after separation, the risk of a
residential move is comparable to that of single individuals, but still higher than that for
partnered individuals. This finding provides some evidence for a potential long-term effect of
separation on individuals’ residential careers, thus supporting the duration hypothesis. To
further investigate this hypothesis, we first disaggregated the risk of a move of separated
individuals by order of move and found that separated men and women who had moved once
or more had a higher risk to move again. We then also analysed the likelihood of moving by
past residential history. Men who had moved out upon separation (and had moved again five
or more months after separation) had a higher risk of moving again than those who did not
move upon separation. For women, we did not find any significant differences by past
17
history. These results indicate that separation has a long-term effect for those separated
individuals who have either moved several times or, in case of men, for those who move out
upon separation.
Additionally, we expected that separated individuals would be most likely to move to
smaller dwelling types such as flats, other types of dwellings, and terraced houses, especially
soon after separation (destination hypothesis). We found that moves of women were mainly
directed towards terraced houses while men were equally likely to move to flats, terraced
houses, and semi-detached houses. For women, this pattern also held when we distinguished
separated individuals by time since separation whereas for men the results were less clear.
After separation men were equally likely to move to terraced and semi-detached houses and
flats while later the highest risk was observed for moves to flats and terraced houses. Further
analysis showed that over time women had a tendency to move to terraced houses and men to
move to flats.
Finally, based on previous literature, we did not expect to find gender differences in
the risk of moving for separated men and women. While the overall findings were similar for
men and women, we found one distinct difference: the tendency of women to move to
terraced houses and of men to move to flats. This pattern persisted whether we examined
moves due to separation or moves of separated individuals.
18
Table 1. Number of events by partnership status, gender, and housing type.
Men
semi-detached detached terraced flat other Total
single 232 448 613 653 283 2229
cohabiting 92 224 247 150 52 765
married 487 400 289 106 106 1388
separated 78 186 222 228 85 799
separated 0-4 months 14 54 48 50 26 192
separated 5+ months 64 132 174 178 59 607
Total 889 1258 1371 1137 526 5181
Women
semi-detached Detached terraced flat other Total
single 219 408 619 617 278 2141
cohabiting 110 250 263 167 48 838
married 546 478 333 106 155 1618
separated 129 282 359 266 87 1123
separated 0-4 months 27 62 66 58 29 242
separated 5+ months 102 220 293 208 58 881
Total 1004 1418 1574 1156 568 5720
µ(t) µ(t) µ(t) Separated,
House type 3
Separated,
House type 4
Separated,
House type 5
µ(t) µ(t) µ(t) In union,
House type 2
In union,
House type 3 In union,
House type 4
µ(t) µ(t) µ(t) Single,
House type 1 Single,
House type 2
Single,
House type 3
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
19
Table 2. Risk of a move, women, hazard ratios
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Constant 0.052 *** 0.053 *** 0.053 *** 0.054 ***
Age
16-19 1.369 *** 1.358 *** 1.359 *** 1.361 ***
20-24 0.942 *** 0.944 *** 0.944 *** 0.947 ***
25-29 0.924 *** 0.928 *** 0.928 *** 0.928 ***
30-34 0.936 *** 0.937 *** 0.937 *** 0.937 ***
35-39 0.952 *** 0.956 *** 0.956 *** 0.956 ***
40-44 0.930 *** 0.930 *** 0.930 *** 0.930 ***
45+ 1.022
1.026
1.026
1.026
Time since previous move
Intercept 0.179 *** 0.177 *** 0.177 *** 0.177 ***
0-1 year 9.135 *** 9.425 *** 9.364 *** 9.432 ***
1-3 years 0.780 *** 0.782 *** 0.783 *** 0.783 ***
3-5 years 1.099 ** 1.100 ** 1.100 ** 1.098 **
5+ years 0.962 * 0.952 ** 0.952 ** 0.952 **
House type
detached 1.076
1.068
1.066
1.066
semi detached (ref) 1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
terraced 1.039
1.039
1.039
1.040
flat 1.376 *** 1.371 *** 1.371 *** 1.379 ***
other & missing 1.589 *** 1.578 *** 1.574 *** 1.574 ***
Partnership status
single (ref) 1
1
1
1
married 0.825 *** 0.803 *** 0.802 *** 0.774 ***
cohabiting 0.879 *** 0.866 *** 0.865 *** 0.839 ***
separated 1.401 ***
Time since separation
0-4 months
2.093 *** 2.095 *** 2.095 ***
5+ months
1.090
Long-term effect
Separated 5+ months ago & non-mover
1.101
Separated 5+ months ago & moved once
1.161 *
Separated 5+ months ago & moved 2+
times
0.962
Past history
Separated 5+ months ago & non-mover
0.883
Separated 5+ months & 1st moved 5+
months after separation (ref)
1
Separated 5+ months & 1st moved 0-4
months after separation
0.949
Union type at separation
cohabitation 1
1
1
1
marriage 1.098
1.069
1.064
1.130 **
Order of separation
first 1
1
1
1
20
second and subsequent 1.366 *** 1.322 *** 1.321 *** 1.374 ***
Pregnancy status of woman
not pregnant 1
1
1
1
pregnant 1.341 *** 1.362 *** 1.362 *** 1.371 ***
Number of children
no child (ref) 1
1
1
1
one 1.036
1.050
1.051
1.062
two 0.917 * 0.912 * 0.913 * 0.918 *
three plus 0.956
0.950
0.949
0.954
Housing tenure
homeowner (ref) 1
1
1
1
social rent 1.486 *** 1.508 *** 1.509 *** 1.515 ***
private rent 3.347 *** 3.365 *** 3.373 *** 3.371 ***
missing 1.404 *** 1.385 *** 1.386 *** 1.382 ***
Area type
London 0.961
0.960
0.960
0.958
large city (ref) 1
1
1
1
medium city 1.056
1.051
1.052
1.053
town 1.060
1.055
1.055
1.057
small town 1.112 * 1.108 * 1.107 * 1.111 *
rural area 1.079
1.075
1.075
1.078
Employment status
full-time (ref) 1
1
1
1
self employed 0.885
0.879
0.878
0.878
part-time 0.867 *** 0.868 *** 0.868 *** 0.869 ***
in education 1.045
1.049
1.050
1.045
unemployed 1.028
1.014
1.014
1.014
other 1.045
1.046
1.046
1.048
missing 1.145
1.164
1.165
1.157
Educational level
high 1.186 *** 1.184 *** 1.184 *** 1.180 ***
medium (ref) 1
1
1
1
low 0.802 *** 0.796 *** 0.795 *** 0.794 ***
Member of a minority group
no (ref) 1
1
1
1
yes 0.868
1.104
1.105
1.106
Period
1991-1994 (ref) 1
1
1
1
1995-1999 1.089 ** 1.075 * 1.078 * 1.069
2000-2004 0.955
0.950
0.952
0.942
2005-2008 0.868 *** 0.854 ** 0.856 ** 0.848 **
Order of move
< two moves (ref) 1
1
1
1
two+ moves 0.779 *** 0.787 *** 0.795 *** 0.789 ***
Standard deviation of residuals 1.488 *** 1.487 *** 1.493 *** 1.493 ***
ln-L -35458.26
-35408
-35406
-35408
21
Table 3. Risk of a move, men, hazard ratios
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Constant 0.032 *** 0.032 *** 0.032 *** 0.032 ***
Age
16-19 1.359 *** 1.349 *** 1.354 *** 1.349 ***
20-24 0.986
0.986
0.987
0.988
25-29 0.949 *** 0.953 *** 0.953 *** 0.954 ***
30-34 0.934 *** 0.936 *** 0.936 *** 0.936 ***
35-39 0.918 *** 0.921 *** 0.921 *** 0.921 ***
40-44 0.952 ** 0.953 ** 0.953 ** 0.954 **
45+ 0.935 ** 0.933 ** 0.933 ** 0.933 **
Time since previous move
Intercept 0.171 *** 0.169 *** 0.166 *** 0.169 ***
0-1 year 10.344 *** 10.615 *** 10.634 *** 10.642 ***
1-3 years 0.774 *** 0.774 *** 0.777 *** 0.773 ***
3-5 years 1.099 ** 1.104 ** 1.109 ** 1.105 **
5+ years 0.956 * 0.947 ** 0.946 ** 0.947 **
House type
detached 0.947
0.950
0.951
0.951
semi detached (ref) 1
1
1
1
terraced 1.044
1.049
1.050
1.051
flat 1.326 *** 1.345 *** 1.346 *** 1.347 ***
other & missing 1.270 *** 1.290 *** 1.292 *** 1.291 ***
Partnership status
single (ref) 1
1
1
1
married 0.854 *** 0.837 *** 0.840 *** 0.828 ***
cohabiting 0.992
0.976
0.983
0.968
separated 1.435 ***
Time since separation
0-4 months
2.242 *** 2.239 *** 2.210 ***
5+ months
1.076
Long-term effect
Separated 5+ months ago & non-mover
0.870
Separated 5+ months ago & moved once
1.302 ***
Separated 5+ months ago & moved 2+ times
1.160
Past history
Separated 5+ months ago & non-mover
0.948
Separated 5+ months & 1st moved 5+
months after separation (ref)
1
Separated 5+ months & 1st moved 0-4
months after separation
1.208 *
Union type at separation
cohabitation 1
1
1
1
marriage 1.333 *** 1.227 *** 1.241 *** 1.238 ***
Order of separation
first separation 1
1
1
1
22
second and subsequent separation 1.219 *** 1.143 * 1.145 * 1.142 *
Pregnancy status of woman
not pregnant 1
1
1
1
pregnant 1.517 *** 1.530 *** 1.529 *** 1.531 ***
Number of children
no child (ref) 1
1
1
1
one 1.258 *** 1.267 *** 1.264 *** 1.268 ***
two 1.182 *** 1.168 *** 1.160 *** 1.168 ***
three plus 1.264 *** 1.244 *** 1.238 *** 1.242 ***
Housing tenure
homeowner (ref) 1
1
1
1
social rent 1.773 *** 1.789 *** 1.793 *** 1.789 ***
private rent 3.577 *** 3.586 *** 3.592 *** 3.587 ***
missing 1.457 *** 1.420 *** 1.426 *** 1.421 ***
Area type
London 0.910
0.914
0.909
0.914
large city (ref) 1
1
1
1
medium city 1.003
1.005
1.002
1.006
town 1.012
1.012
1.007
1.011
small town 1.018
1.014
1.010
1.015
rural area 0.956
0.960
0.955
0.959
Employment status
full-time (ref) 1
1
1
1
self employed 0.998
0.995
0.995
0.996
part-time 1.028
1.030
1.031
1.031
in education 1.290 *** 1.301 *** 1.303 *** 1.299 ***
unemployed 1.077
1.084
1.083
1.086
other 0.939
0.940
0.936
0.940
missing 0.993
0.992
0.989
0.992
Educational level
high 1.100 ** 1.102 ** 1.102 ** 1.102 **
medium (ref) 1
1
1
1
low 0.721 *** 0.721 *** 0.722 *** 0.723 ***
Member of a minority group
no (ref) 1
1
1
1
yes 1.313 *** 1.330 *** 1.329 *** 1.330 ***
Period
1991-1994 (ref) 1
1
1
1
1995-1999 1.083 * 1.068
1.066
1.065
2000-2004 0.991
0.985
0.985
0.981
2005-2008 0.918
0.907 * 0.905 * 0.903 *
Order of move
< two moves (ref) 1
1
1
1
two+ moves 0.744 *** 0.760 *** 0.756 *** 0.757 ***
Standard deviation of residuals 1.586 *** 1.578 *** 1.577 *** 1.574 ***
ln-L -32377.5
-32332.2
-32326.8
-32331.3
23
Figure 2a. Results of multi-level multi-state models, risk of moving into different types of
housing by partnership status, Model 1, women
Figure 2b. Results of multi-level multi-state models, risk of moving into different types of
housing by partnership status, Model 1, men
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
single cohabiting married separated
detached semi terraced flat other
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
single cohabiting married separated
detached semi terraced flat other
24
Figure 3a. Results of multi-level multi-state models, risk of moving into different types of
housing by partnership status, Model 2, women
Figure 3b. Results of multi-level multi-state models, risk of moving into different types of
housing by partnership status, Model 2, men
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
single cohabiting married sep 0-4 sep 5+
detached semi terraced flat other
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
single cohabiting married sep 0-4 sep 5+
detached semi terraced flat other
25
Figure 4a. Results of multi-level multi-state models, risk of moving into different types of
housing by partnership status, Model 3, women
Figure 4b. Results of multi-level multi-state models, risk of moving into different types of
housing by partnership status, Model 3, men
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
single cohabiting married sep 0-4 non-mover 1st move 2+ move
sep 5+
detached semi terraced flat other
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
single cohabiting married sep 0-4 non-mover 1st move 2+ move
sep 5+
detached semi terraced flat other
26
Appendix
Table A 1 Number and proportion of person-months and residential moves by categories of variables, men
and women
Men Women
Person-Months
Residential
moves Person-Months
Residential
moves
Number % Number % Number % Number %
Age
16-19 53,788 11 563 11 52,310 10 766 13
20-24 70,745 15 1390 27 66,706 13 1660 29
25-29 64,653 13 1166 23 68,180 13 1149 20
30-34 67,641 14 788 15 77,736 15 791 14
35-39 73,184 15 571 11 85,035 16 580 10
40-44 76,352 16 406 8 85,724 16 436 8
45+ 76,866 16 297 6 84,167 16 338 6
Time since previous move
0-1 year 55,299 11 977 19 61,132 12 1081 19
1-3 years 63,242 13 1247 24 69,734 13 1401 24
3-5 years 34,266 7 420 8 38,788 7 458 8
5+ years 45,893 9 352 7 53,442 10 362 6
no previous move 284,530 59 2185 42 296,761 57 2418 42
House type
detached 107,396 22 826 16 116,384 22 989 17
semi detached (ref) 168,275 35 1486 29 182,117 35 1552 27
terraced 139,066 29 1509 29 152,346 29 1694 30
flat 47,016 10 1013 20 48,088 9 1106 19
other & missing 21,477 4 347 7 20,923 4 379 7
Partnership status
single (ref) 167,392 35 2229 43 127,319 24 2141 37
married 215,819 11 1388 15 264,561 51 1618 28
cohabiting 53,503 45 765 27 60,563 12 838 15
separated 46,517 10 799 15 67,416 13 1123 20
Union type at separation
marriage 25,062 5 351 7 482,894 93 5276 92
cohabitation 458,169 95 4830 93 36,966 7 444 8
Order of separation
first 472,475 98 4986 96 500,222 96 5352 94
second and subsequent 10,756 2 195 4 19,638 4 368 6
Pregnancy status of woman
not pregnant 470,808 97 4971 96 504,712 97 5444 95
pregnant 12,423 3 210 4 15,148 3 276 5
Number of children
no child (ref) 270,417 56 3477 67 231,220 44 3567 62
one 58,871 12 650 13 76,276 15 796 14
two 108,898 23 755 15 145,035 28 926 16
27
three and more 45,045 9 299 6 67327 13 431 8
Housing tenure
homeowner (ref) 324,671 67 2154 42 337,716 65 2296 40
social rent 72,108 15 917 18 91,182 18 1111 19
private rent 57,918 12 1800 35 62,373 12 2002 35
missing 28,533 6 310 6 28,588 5 311 5
Are type
London 66,301 14 757 15 73,722 14 889 16
large city (ref) 55,673 12 624 12 64,564 12 658 12
medium city 94,469 20 1066 21 98,068 19 1128 20
town 61,654 13 684 13 63,494 12 713 12
small town 84,272 17 876 17 89,833 17 983 17
rural area 120,860 25 1174 23 130,178 25 1349 24
Employment status
full-time (ref) 302,684 63 3072 59 205,805 40 2388 42
self employed 52,922 11 443 9 23,087 4 188 3
part-time 19,894 4 216 4 117,287 23 838 15
in education 41,339 9 699 13 44,756 9 841 15
unemployed 33,659 7 472 9 21,734 4 320 6
other 24,771 5 217 4 101,417 20 1079 19
missing 7,961 2 62 1 5,771 1 66 1
Educational level
high 94,287 20 1251 24 93,376 18 1317 23
medium (ref) 120,129 25 1564 30 101,975 20 1527 27
low 268,814 56 2366 46 324,509 62 2876 50
Period
1991-1994 (ref) 98,373 20 976 19 102,819 20 1048 18
1995-1999 136,501 28 1608 31 145,867 28 1721 30
2000-2004 151,927 31 1630 31 163,874 32 1803 32
2005-2008 96,429 20 967 19 107,299 21 1148 20
Order of move
no move 284,530 59 2185 42 296,761 57 2418 42
first move 95,187 20 1251 24 107,228 21 1390 24
second and subsequent move 103,513 21 1745 34 115,870 22 1912 33
Total 483,232 100 5181 100 519,861 100 5720 100
28
References
Beaujouan, E., & Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (2011). Cohabitation and marriage in Britain since the
1970s. Population Trends(145), 1-25.
Clark, W. A. V. (2013). Life course events and residential change: Unpacking age effects on
the probability of moving. Journal of Population Research, 30, 319-334.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2015). English Housing Survey,
Headline Report 2013-14. London: Department for Communities and Local
Government.
Dewilde, C. (2008). Divorce and the housing movements of owner-occupiers: A European
comparison. Housing Studies, 23(6), 809-832.
Dieleman, F. M., & Schouw, R. J. (1989). Divorce, mobility, and housing demand. European
Journal of Population, 5, 235-252.
Ermisch, J., & Francesconi, M. (2000). Cohabitation in Great Britain: not for long but here to
stay. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 163, 153-171.
Feijten, P. (2005). Union dissolution, unemployment and moving out of homeownership.
European Sociological Review, 21(1), 59-71.
Feijten, P., & Mulder, C. H. (2010). Gender, divorce and housing - a life course perspective.
In D. Reuschke (Ed.), Wohnen und Gender. Theoretische, politische, soziale und
räumliche Aspekte (pp. 175-193). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2007). Residential mobility and migration of the divorced and
separated. Demographic Research, 17, 623-654.
Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2010). The impact of splitting up and divorce on housing careers
in the UK. Housing Studies, 25(4), 483-507.
Gober, P. (1992). Urban houisng demography. Progress in Human Geography, 16(2), 171-
189.
Hannemann, T., & Kulu, H. (2015). Union formation and dissolution among immigrants and
their descendants in the United Kingdom. Demographic Research, 33, 273-312.
Kulu, H. (2008). Fertility and spatial mobility in the life course: evidence from Austria.
Environment and Planning A, 40, 632-652.
Lersch, P. M., & Vidal, S. (2014). Falling out of love and down the housing ladder: A
longitudinal analysis of marital separation and home ownership. European
Sociological Review, 30(4), 512-524.
Mulder, C. H. (2006). Population and housing: A two-sided relationship. Demographic
Research, 15, 401-412.
Mulder, C. H., & Lauster, N. T. (2010). Housing and family: An Introduction. Housing
Studies, 25(4), 433-440.
Mulder, C. H., & Malmberg, G. (2011). Moving related to separation: who moves and to
what distance. Environment and Planning A, 43, 2589-2607.
Mulder, C. H., & Wagner, M. (1998). First-time home-ownership in the family life course: A
West-German-Dutch comparison. Urban Studies, 35(4), 687-713.
Office for National Statistics (2012). Divorces in England and Wales, 2012. Statistical
Bulletin.
Office for National Statistics (2014). CT0259 - Tenure of dwelling by accommodation type
(of dwelling). Source: 2011 Census.
Rabe, B., & Taylor, M. (2010). Residential mobility, quality of neighbourhood and life
course events. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A(173), 531-555,
doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00626.x.
Speare, A. J., & Goldscheider, F. K. (1987). Effects of marital status change on residential
mobility. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 455-464.
29
Statistics for Wales (2015). Dwelling stock estimates for Wales, 2013-14.
Sullivan, O. (1986). Housing movements of the divorced and separated. Housing Studies,
1(1), 35-48, doi:10.1080/02673038608720561.
Uhrig, S. C. N. (2008). The nature and causes of attrition in the British Household Panel
Study. ISER Working Paper Series, No. 2008-05.
Washbrook, E., Clarke, P. S., & Steele, F. (2014). Investigating non-ignorable dropout in
panel studies of residential mobility. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C,
63, 239-266.
Recommended