MIGRATION AND MAJOR CITIES POLICY IN ROTTERDAM

APPENDIX 2 Deprivation scores in Rotterdam

The following data were derived from the report Deprivation Scores in Rotterdam from the Research and Statistics Centre (COS), dated June 1995.

This report presents the scores on a social deprivation scale for neighbourhoods in Rotterdam.

Eight aspects, which are generally associated in some way with social deprivation, are translated into numerical indicators. Each of these indicators tells us something about a certain aspect of social deprivation. Together, it can be assumed that the indicators give as complete a picture of social deprivation as could be quantified.

The following eight indicators were used to construct the scale:

1. level of education
2. proportion of inhabitants on social welfare
3. proportion of ethnic groups
4. mobility (percentage of relocations)
5. average income
6. economic value of dwellings
7. proportion of inhabitants unemployed
8. mortality rate

The social deprivation scale is constructed by means of a so-called principal-components analysis. A precondition when using this analysis is that all eight indicators, or variables, are fairly strongly correlated, statistically speaking. The aim of this analysis is to find a factor that accounts for as much of the total variance as possible. In this case, the first factor that was found in the analysis accounted for 67.9% of the total variance. This factor can therefore be identified, with good reason, as a general score of deprivation.

The component ‘proportion of ethnic minorities’ has been included in the social deprivation scale only for reasons of statistical correlation. A disadvantage of this is however that this inclusion can be interpreted as if the presence of ethnic groups (or individuals) in a neighbourhood causes deprivation. For this reason it is now under consideration to exclude this component in future measurements of the social deprivation scale.

When looking at the scores on the social deprivation scale, some things must be borne in mind:

For some neighbourhoods, the scores seem to have altered enormously when compared to earlier calculations. In most cases, however, these scores relate to the smaller neighbourhoods of Rotterdam; neighbourhoods with less than 1000 inhabitants. Apparently the smaller the numbers, the larger the fluctuations.

Another thing that must be kept in mind is, that some of the indicators were not available for these smaller neighbourhoods. In these cases, the contribution made by the missing indicators had to be estimated.

As a result of the problems stated above, scores for neighbourhoods with less than 1000 inhabitants are less reliable.

The results

The scores are standardised to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of one for the whole of Rotterdam, so the scores only lend themselves to intra-city comparisons. The scores vary from -2 (social deprivation) to +3 (no social deprivation).

Almost 2/3 of the neighbourhoods with more than 1000 inhabitants have a score between -1 and +1, as can be seen in table 3.1. The most striking fact is that there are more neighbourhoods with an extremely negative score (less than -1) on the south bank of the River Maas, whilst there are more neighbourhoods with an extremely positive score (more than +1) on the north bank of the Maas.

Comparing the scores for 1995 with those for 1980, it can be seen that again, there is some difference between the south and north bank of the Maas. On the south bank, there are apparently more neighbourhoods with a lower score than the previous time. On the north bank, on the other hand, there are more neighbourhoods with an improved score. For Rotterdam as a whole, the number of better and worse scores is almost equal. (This is the logical outcome of the standardisation).

When looking at the development of the scores between 1980 and 1995, it can be stated that most of the neighbourhoods have scores that fluctuate over the years: better one year, worse the next. Only a few neighbourhoods show a clear rise or fall in the trend of their scores over the years. Almost all neighbourhoods with a constantly rising score are found on the north bank of the River Maas, almost all neighbourhoods with a constantly falling one, on the other hand, on the south bank.

When looking at the scores for the so-called urban renewal areas, it can be stated that the scores for about 2/3 of the 'first generation' urban renewal areas, designated in 1974/1975, were higher than for 1980.

The 'second generation' urban renewal areas, designated in 1980, show an entirely different picture. About 2/3 of these areas have a worse score than for 1980. This may be due to the fact that the urban renewal in these 'second generation' areas is not fully completed.

[Back] [Table of contents] [Tables]