DISAVANTAGED AREAS GETTING CAUGHT IN A PERNICIOUS CYCLE Master Thesis i n Sustainable C i t i e s H e l e n a L e u & Anita Pedersen S t u d e n t n o.: 20147113 and 20181 6 2 1 S u p e r v i s o r : R i k k e Skovgaard Nielsen Date 04/06/2020 Disclaimer from Head of Studies and Head of Study Boards COVID19 and the consequences of the lock-down of society and the university since March 13, 2020 have had influence on which activities that have been possible to stage and carry out as part of the project work. More specifically, this means that activities have been limited to online activities, and that activities such as lab activities; surveying activities; on-site ethnographic studies and on-site involvement activities have not been possible. When assessing this project, please bear this in mind. Students own reflections on the challenges they have experienced: Due to the circumstances under the lock-down period it has been more challenging to get a hold on materials. Instead, they have sought to overcome these challenges by reaching out in their own network in case the searched materials were not available in digital format. Another challenge has been all interviews had to be conducted over electronic devices. The recordings for the transcript are missing some words due to bad connection. The interviewees sometimes had to repeat themselves and it affected the flow of conversation under the interview. The working environment has also led to disturbance of different kinds since everybody currently has to work from home. This also contributed to slower internet connection when there were multiple meetings happening at the same time. Page 1 of 120 Abstract Municipalities and housing organisations in Denmark are currently facing significant changes due to the launch of the Danish government’s strategy “One Denmark without Parallel Societies - No Ghettos by 2030” resulting in amendments to the Consolidation Act on Social Housing. The required transformation of disadvantaged ghetto areas is pushed high up on the political agenda, but there are other areas than the ones identified by the Danish government which are disadvantaged. Research shows there is not a collective understanding of what identifies a disadvantaged area. Neither international research nor the public sector in Denmark use the exact same methods or variables to identify disadvantaged areas. This project sat out to examine the discrepancy between how municipalities and the Danish government identify disad- vantaged areas and what implications the strategy has on the effort in disadvantaged areas not identified disadvantaged by the Danish government's definition. In this context, the effort to alleviate problems refers to social housing master plans from the National Building Fund. This was examined using the theories of social mix and governance networks for two case municipalities Copenhagen and Aarhus. The interview design for the two municipalities were directed for the interviewees to possess the same positions in the municipality and were thus comparable. An analysis of the governance network actors for social housing master plans, showed the actors were dependent on another's resources and the amendments have linked the disadvantaged areas on the governmental list closer to funding for social housing master plans. The amendments have resulted in limited means for areas not on the list. Furthermore, it was analysed why Copenhagen and Aarhus municipalities use their own identification method instead of the Danish government’s. The analysis demonstrated their methods either aims to avoid stigmatising areas or proactively preventing disadvantaged areas. The insights gained from this study led to the recommendation of extending the on-going social housing master plans to root valuable relations and positive development. Future research is needed to identify other ways to alleviate problems in disadvantaged areas without a social housing master plan if the amount of means remains unchanged. A discrepancy was identified on the allocation of finances to the national strategy by the National Building Fund. This paper reflected that disadvantaged areas identified officially by the Danish government were more likely to receive grants over areas that were not on the list. A consequence of not receiving funding, these areas were prone to face socio-economic development issues. Page 2 of 120 Table of content Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Context: What Characterises Disadvantaged Areas? ....................................................... 8 1.3 The Danish Government's Strategy ..............................................................................10 1.4 Social Housing in Denmark ..........................................................................................11 1.5 The National Building Fund ..........................................................................................13 2 Theory of Science ................................................................................................................17 2.1 Critical Realism ............................................................................................................17 3 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................22 3.1 Social Mix ........................................................................................................................22 3.2 Governance Network .......................................................................................................27 4 Research Methodology ........................................................................................................32 4.1 Case Selection ................................................................................................................32 4.2 Copenhagen Municipality .............................................................................................34 4.3 Aarhus Municipality ......................................................................................................37 4.4 Interview ......................................................................................................................40 4.5 Selection of Respondents ............................................................................................40 4.6 Interview Format ..........................................................................................................43 4.7 Interview Guide ............................................................................................................44 4.8 Transcription ................................................................................................................45 4.9 Methods for Analysing Governance Networks .................................................................46 5 The Amendments .................................................................................................................50 5.1 Changes to the Consolidation Act on Social Housing ......................................................50 5.2 Amendment no. 1322 ...................................................................................................50 5.3 Amendment. no. 1561 ..................................................................................................54 5.4 The social housing master plan’s governance network ....................................................55 5.5 The institutional framework ..........................................................................................56 5.6 National Building Fund .................................................................................................57 5.7 The municipalities ........................................................................................................58 5.8 The social housing organisation ...................................................................................62 5.9 Sub-conclusion ................................................................................................................65 Page 3 of 120 6 The Municipal’s Perception of Disadvantaged Areas ........................................................66 6.1 Perception of Disadvantaged Areas .................................................................................66 6.2 Aarhus Municipality ......................................................................................................67 6.3 Copenhagen Municipality .............................................................................................72 6.4 Threshold values Copenhagen vs. Aarhus ...................................................................77 6.5 Sub-conclusion ................................................................................................................80 7 Discussion ............................................................................................................................83 7.1 Future Implications ..........................................................................................................83 7.2 Unrecoverable Relations .................................................................................................86 7.3 Balance of Power ............................................................................................................88
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages121 Page
-
File Size-