Mixed Residential Communities in Northern Ireland

Shared Living Mixed residential communities in Northern Ireland Jonny Byrne, Ulf Hansson and John Bell Shared Living Mixed residential communities in Northern Ireland Jonny Byrne, Ulf Hansson and John Bell Institute for Conflict Research First Published September 2006 Institute for Conflict Research North City Business Centre 2 Duncairn Gardens Belfast BT15 2GG Tel: +44 (0)28 9074 2682 Fax: +44 (0)28 9035 6654 Email: [email protected] www.conflictresearch.org.uk ISBN: 0-9552259-2-2 978-0-9552259-2-5 This project was funded through the Community Relations Council. Produced by: three creative company ltd Table of Contents Contents Maps 2 Executive summary 9 Chapter 1 Patterns of Segregation 13 Chapter 2 Ballynafeigh 34 Chapter 3 Areema 73 Chapter 4 Rathfriland 99 Chapter 5 Mixing, Sharing and Integration 122 References 137 ICR Reports 142 1 aps 2 M Ballynafeigh Maps 3 aps 4 M Areema Maps 5 aps 6 M Rathfriland Maps 7 Shared Living 8 Executive Summary Executive Summary This research was the outcome of an eighteen-month qualitative study into mixed residential communities in Northern Ireland. The research was funded by the Community Relations Council through the European Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. The primary aim of the research was to offer an analysis of the quality of life issues and nature of social relationships in mixed residential communities. Furthermore, by conducting the research there was an opportunity to explore the value and relevance of the theoretical concepts of bonding, bridging and linking social capital in creating sustainable, integrated residential communities. Three mixed residential areas were selected for analysis: the Ballynafeigh district of Belfast, the Areema estate on the edge of Lisburn and Rathfriland in County Down. The research in these three areas explored the perceptions and understandings of residents and people working in the areas of what it meant to call an area ‘mixed’, explored something of the history that has helped to sustain a sense of sharing and mixing and considered the current pressures that challenge that diversity. The research involved qualitative and quantitative fieldwork in the three mixed areas, including interviews and focus groups with a wide range of local residents, community workers, representatives of statutory bodies and local politicians. In two of the study areas (Areema and the Lissize estate in Rathfriland) a short household survey / community audit was conducted as part of the fieldwork. Ballynafeigh was not selected for quantitative fieldwork because the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had recently completed a large-scale survey in the area (Carmichael and Murtagh 2005). A number of themes emerged in the analysis of the three areas, and for the most part similar themes recurred throughout each of the areas. However, there were occasions when distinctive differences developed which could be attributed to rural / urban differences. It was soon apparent that many respondents found it difficult to define what was meant by ‘integration’ and ‘mixed’. They perceived their communities as mixed, but were unclear of what that actually meant. For many there was a clear distinction between mixing and integrating. They perceived mixing as informal and casual and integration as more formal and official. 9 Executive Summary There were occasions when respondents declined to discuss reasons why their communities were perceived as mixed, for fear of raising the profile of their area. They were content with their lives and the environment in which they were residing. For many there was no magic ingredient that facilitated mixing, in their words a degree of common sense and respect for your neighbour was all it took. However a number of themes have emerged from the research, which provide us with a greater understanding of the social dynamics that exist in mixed areas, and what mechanics could be put in place to both develop and sustain these communities. Indicators of Sharing A number of indicators were developed from the three areas that local residents used to determine that they resided in a mixed community. These indicators were prominent within all of the areas and there was no distinctive difference in urban or rural perspectives. Theses included a cross section of people from both Catholic and Protestant community backgrounds; mixed relationships; a minimal number of sectarian incidents; an acceptance of cultural symbols; freedom of movement; the ability to express your culture; a high degree of community participation and diversity. Changing Demographics Within each of the three areas there was a clear indication that in recent years there had been a dramatic change in the demographic make up of the areas, and this has had implications on internal relationships, integration and perceptions within them. Communities were aware that further increases in the population of a particular grouping could result in the ‘tipping’ of the numerical balance and potentially result in a segregated community. Further findings revealed that there were growing minority ethnic communities moving into these mixed areas due to the perceived attractive nature of mixed communities. It was also interesting to note that one of the key findings in relation to interaction and building relationships was the length of time a person / family had spent in the area and not their community background. Subsequently, the influx of new people relocating to mixed communities was adversely impacting on the ability for local people to generate relationships. Agents of Integration It was evident that there were a number of organisations and physical environments that existed within communities that facilitated 10 Executive Summary integration. In each of the areas there was a prominent community group or residents association that championed concerns of local residents and promoted the area, both socially and economically. It was clear that such groups were crucial in both sustaining and developing their communities. A number of environments were also identified as key to allowing a community to develop internal relationships: leisure facilities, clubs / associations, shops and bars. It was also apparent that communities looked to people in authority within their area for guidance and leadership. In some cases this was the local clergy, who worked together and developed a close relationship where they promoted acceptance and engagement. Community Participation Throughout the three areas the research examined the role of local people in less formal community groups, programmes and initiatives. The underlying theme was that a minority of local residents participated in community led initiatives within their areas. These groups usually consisted of a small number of people who had been involved since the conception of the group. There was a large degree of apathy within communities to joining these groups, with respondents highlighting the amount of personal time and resources required. However, it was also clear that the majority of residents acknowledged the work of the community groups, and welcomed their contribution to the community as a whole. Age and Integration There were clear differences in the perceptions of adults and young people in relation to their views of levels of integration within their community. Adults often were more likely to perceive their community as mixed compared to young people, and whereas adults would feel that they had freedom of movement within the community, young people were often more likely to see invisible interfaces and lines of demarcation. Levels of Integration Within each of the areas there were various levels of integration, ranging from basic acknowledgements to socialising together. There was consensus from older residents that relationships within the communities were not as strong as in previous years. However, many felt that this was reflective of society in general, with contemporary lifestyles 11 Executive Summary very much centred on the individual and not the community. In each of the areas, people from different community backgrounds managed to live together in relative harmony. For many this was a suitable environment to reside in, but for others this was nothing more than co- existence with limited integration. The research findings indicated that there were very few differences between urban and rural mixed communities. It was apparent that within mixed communities there were a number of complex social dynamics that existed which allowed for the facilitation of sharing and relationship building. A review of the theoretical concepts around social capital and community cohesion revealed that ideas around bonding, bridging and linking social capital can be applied to mixed communities in Northern Ireland to get a better understanding of the mechanics that drive these communities on. A number of recommendations were developed from the research. These have been expanded in the discussion section of the report: 1. A consultation should be undertaken to debate and develop a standard terminology to be used in discussions on shared living; 2. Any future policies relating to shared living should have at the forefront elements of choice and opportunity; 3. Any schemes relating to shared living should involve the implementation and support of programmes and initiatives that improve and sustain community development; 4. Current strategic policy commitments should be translated into operational action; 5. Future policies relating

Load more