Michael Lloyd PG Researcher School of Urban Studies Glasgow University

Research overview  Centered on gentrification, place attachment and affordability  Asks households claiming housing stress, in an area subject to gentrification-led pressures, how they are coping: What problems are they facing? What solutions have they sought? Is migration one of those solutions? If not, why not? What are the consequences of constraint?

Constrained displacement  Certain low-income household groups are often asserted to be displaced from gentrifying areas  Are there constraints on displacement and how do they operate?  Identified in this research are: Place attachment & kinship bonds Uncertain financial benefit A sense of entitlement

Consequences  The consequences for the study area of constrained displacement were considered  If participant households are not leaving they will not solve their housing stress  This may exacerbate social problems such as: Homelessness Overcrowding Loss of social cohesion

The study area – East Lothian

The study area  East Lothian popular“Garden of Scotland”  Employment structure has changed - de- industrialised over 50 years  Gentrification may have been a trailblazer for higher housing costs  Influx of higher earners to previously low- income area – agriculture and industry  Indigenous population - strong attachment

Why a local authority?  Other options were considered Macro – regional ‘SESplan’ area Micro - town or village or neighbourhood  Local authority was chosen because Political accountability Administrative unit Availability of statistics In this case, coherent sense of local identity - and High prices in all areas  Some disadvantages Markets don’t respect administrative boundaries Spillover into other LA areas, nearby

Methodology  Qualitative - trying to answer questions about human behaviour  Previous quantitative work in this area, esp. Housing Needs and Demands Analysis  Self-selecting participants - their own histories and perceptions of need and stress  32 accepted with range of ‘stories’ of need and ‘housing histories’ - some rejected  Longitudinal study

The Research Questions  Looking for evidence that gentrification and high housing costs had caused housing problems for participants  Asking whether migration would be a viable option for them  If not, why not?  Asking what the consequences would be for them - and other households - if displacement was ‘constrained’...

The Participant questions  Semi structured interviews lasting c.1 hour  Designed to elicit: Their current housing situation Their housing history How they tried to solve their housing problems Reasons for success or failure Their views about causation Their views about the UK/East Lothian market

The Research Findings  Most of the participant households found the cost of getting adequate housing to be too high (25/32)  Many attributed this cost to gentrification and high earning ‘incomers’ (21/32)  Most would not consider moving away from the area (27/32)  Most wanted the local Council and/or the Scottish Gvt. to solve the problems (30/32)

Specific Findings - Affordability  The responses were analysed to see how they matched theory and previous research into affordability... Many respondents had poor affordability using the ratio concept (Residual Income not available) Some could have tolerated their affordability issues but faced other problems, as well For many, affordability was not the only cause of housing stress But resolving their problems required money they did not have

Specific Findings - Displacement  The majority of these households wanted to stay in East Lothian despite their pressing housing problems: Very strong place attachment was evident Prices in surrounding areas are not significantly lower and employment prospects uncertain Participants felt there was ‘nowhere to go’ There was also a sense of entitlement to stay BUT these households could only be selected because they had not moved

Specific Findings - Place Attachment  PA a significant constraining factor in EL  Very strong, and working on multiple levels - neighbourhood, town and county  Ties are not just about emotional or psychological wellbeing  There are strong practical reasons for some income groups to stay (Lyons)  And disadvantages to moving

Specific findings - Dependency?  Does the behaviour of the participants suggest EL has a dependency culture?  Many households look to authorities to solve their problems They hope and expect that the local council will help them to find suitable housing They are quite fatalistic about their prospects without help They are nervous about taking the initiative

The Impacts of Constrained Displacement?  Participants believed social cohesion was being undermined by the rising cost of housing throughout EL: Social change brought in by newcomers was leaving them behind. ‘Scamming’ to get a house was rife Multiple-generation long-term residents could be squeezed out Their children would never be housed ‘Surreyfication’

The Impact (2)  High homelessness presentations in EL - is CD a contributing factor?  How many households are living in unsuitable housing ‘under the radar’ of detection?  How many never seek help because they “know” it is hopeless?  Does a rising tide float all boats?

A reality check  Households do not always act rationally according to objective assumptions They may lack information or misinterpret it They may substitute short-term comfort for long-term gain They are not driven simply by cost pressures, except in the direst of circumstances Their priorities will be determined by the cultural assumptions and norms of their area and their peers

Conclusion  There seems to be considerable resistance to displacement in East Lothian  Partly because households think there is nowhere suitable to be displaced to  And because of place attachment  As well, because of a sense of entitlement  Unless the LA/Government increases the affordable housing supply, housing problems are likely to persist in this area.  Work in progress – thoughts to date