Socio-economic segregation in European cities. A comparative study of Brussels, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo and Stockholm

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of expectations: how the drivers of spatial inequalities might contribute to the levels and patterns of socioeconomic segregation in each city (relative to the other cities)

	Social inequalities	Housing systems	Area-based interventions	Migration dynamics	Housing policies and urban morphology
Brussels	Similar level to other cities	Higher segregation due to liberal housing market and low social housing	No evidence whetherinterventions have been effective	Higher segregation: highest ethnic segregation both at large and local scales; most globally connected	Deprived central area and affluent outskirts
Amsterdam	Similar level to other cities	Lower segregation due to high shares of public housing	Lower segregation: interventions have been effective	Higher segregation: high large-scale ethnic segregation; most globally connected	Mixed in central area, lower incomes in suburbs
Stockholm	Similar level to other cities	Higher segregation due to decrease in public housing and increase in property prices	Higher segregation: interventions have not been effective	Higher segregation: highest migration inflows; globally connected	Marginalized areas in northwest and southeast
Copenhagen	Similar level to other cities	Lower segregation due to large public sector and regulated housing market	No evidence whether interventions have been effective	Lower segregation: lowest large-scale ethnic segregation; least globally connected	South and southwest more marginalized, central city and outermost ring most affluent
Oslo	Lowersegregation due to more equal income distribution	Higher segregation due to high home ownership and low social housing	Lower segregation: interventions have been effective	Lower segregation: lowest local ethnic segregation; least globally connected	Affluent west and persistent poor east with the presence of postwar large-scale housing

Table 2. Total population and overall levels of poverty and affluence in the five metropolitan areas

	Total population	At risk of poverty (percent)	High income (percent)
Brussels	2,349,631	22.6	12.7
Amsterdam	2,159,410	18.0	9.2
Stockholm	1,897,982	14.5	17.4
Copenhagen	1,398,650	16.0	14.2
Oslo	989,569	12.8	14.5

Table 3. Dissimilarity index (percent) of poverty and affluence in the five metropolitan areas

	Brussels	Amsterdam	Stockholm	Copenhagen	Oslo
	At risk of poverty
k = 200	37.9	29.2	38.0	27.1	33.9
k = 1,600	33.5	19.4	39.2	21.1	25.3
k = 12,800	30.6	13.0	29.7	16.8	19.1
k = 51,200	29.0	9.2	22.0	15.5	14.0
	High income
k = 200	55.6	62.5	71.4	66.9	61.9
k = 1,600	46.9	47.9	62.3	56.7	53.7
k = 12,800	41.7	35.4	45.9	46.0	45.0
k = 51,200	35.8	26.6	32.7	35.6	40.8

Figure 1. Representation of persons at risk of poverty in percentiles

Figure 2. Representation of persons with high income in percentiles*

* Copenhagen’s curves are flat on the low end because of data capping; low concentrations of high income were set at 5% for privacy considerations

Figure 3. Location quotients for poverty at k = 200

Figure 4. Location quotients for poverty at k = 1,600

Figure 5. Location quotients for poverty at k = 12,800

Figure 6. Location quotients for poverty at k = 51,200

Figure 7. Location quotients for affluence at k = 200

Figure 8. Location quotients for affluence at k = 1,600

Figure 9. Location quotients for affluence at k = 12,800

Figure 10. Location quotients for affluence at k = 51,200