In this report, we analyze urban social sustainability in the three largest city regions in Finland. We focus on the differentiation in housing conditions and on residential segregation by income and ethnicity in the 20 to 64 years old population. The aim is to provide a descriptive overview of basic tendencies in the regions and of differences between
the regions.
Our primary statistical data source is a register-based individual-level longitudinal dataset created in Statistics Finland for the URMI (Urbanization, Mobilities and Immigration) project, containing data for the total populations of the study regions. Additionally, we use secondary statistical data sources, and in an assessment of the development
of anti-segregation policies in the central cities of the regions (Helsinki,
Turku and Tampere) we use qualitative interview and document data.
In each of the study regions, we analyze (1) the development of income inequality, (2) residential segregation by ethnicity and income, (3) differentiation in housing conditions by country of birth and income, (4) housing subsidies for low-income households, and (5) anti-segregation policies of the central cities. Statistical analyses focus on the years 2005 to 2014, while the policy analysis pertains to a longer time span.
Income inequality is at a modest level in Finland in an international comparison. In the central cities of the study regions it is stronger, as measured by the Gini index, the strongest in Helsinki. As a whole, income inequality did not increase during the study period, although there had been clear increase earlier, in the 1990s.
There were no large changes in the level of residential segregation in the study regions during the study period, as measured by the index of dissimilarity. However, a slight increase in ethnic segregation was observed, and the shares of immigrants in the regional populations also increased, leading to higher shares in neighbourhood populations.
Ethnic segregation is strongest in the Turku region. In all regions, ethnic segregation in the 0-17-years-old population by background country – based on parents’ countries of birth – is stronger than ethnic segregation among the working-age population. Increase in income segregation occurred in the Turku and Tampere regions. The Helsinki region differs from the other regions by stronger segregation between the
high-income population and the rest, especially when looking only at the city of Helsinki, and by weaker segregation between the low- and middle-income populations.
The differentiation by income in the level of homeownership increased in all study regions between 2005 and 2014. Immigrants have lower homeownership rates in all income categories, but higher income predicts higher homeownership rates also among them. Homeownership has become more common in several immigrant groups, although
large differences between the groups remain. The association between income and overcrowding has become a little stronger. The standard of equipment in dwellings is generally good and differences are small in this respect. Immigrants do not live more commonly in sub-standard dwellings, as they are concentrated in newer dwellings
built since the 1960s.
Housing costs in the central cities of the regions have risen so much – the most in Helsinki – that many low-income households need both housing assistance and social assistance to cover their housing costs. Also state-subsidized rental dwellings have been important: in Helsinki, over 20 per cent of housing stock has consisted of them, and slightly less in Turku and Tampere. In Helsinki, rents per square meter are significantly
lower in state-subsidized rental dwellings than in the private rental dwellings. A larger proportion of the low- and middle-income population lives in state-subsidized rental dwellings in Helsinki than in the other cities.
All three central cities have had anti-segregation policies. However, the cities of Helsinki and Tampere have had more persistent social mix policies, where mixing of different housing tenures spatially in new housing construction has been a central instrument. The city of Turku has had similar overt aims, but they have not led similarly to action. Corresponding to these differences in policies, state-subsidized rental dwellings have a more even spatial distribution in Tampere and Helsinki than in Turku. In all cities, targeted area-based policies have been conducted for decades. The resources for these have been the strongest and the most constant in Helsinki. Area-based policy programs launched by the state have so far been terminated and this has led to a situation
in which local solutions are emphasized.
All in all, the changes occurring in income inequality, residential segregation, and housing conditions between 2005 and 2014 have not been large in the Helsinki, Turku and Tampere regions. However, those changes that have happened have primarily increased differentiation by income and ethnicity. Therefore, the regions may be moving slowly towards stronger internal differentiation. Based on existing international comparisons of the city of Helsinki or the metropolitan area around the city, residential segregation by income or ethnicity has so far been at a rather modest level. The main exception to this finding of rather low levels of segregation seems to be the higher level of ethnic segregation in Turku. We do not observe such levels of segregation indices that would typically be considered to be very high, however. Possibilities for sustainable urban development certainly exist in the cities, offering good opportunities to strengthen other dimensions of sustainability
as well.