from the School for Policy Studies
Findings from a first-of-its-kind study into migration and housing tenure indicate that settlers into multiple European countries are less likely to have a home of their own, both compared with the wider populations of the destination countries and those who never left (stayers) or who returned to their country of origin (returnees).
These findings are drawn from the pioneering 2000 Families Survey which conducted personal interviews with 5980 individuals nested within 1770 families who originated from Turkey.
The Survey located men who moved from Turkey to Europe as guestworkers and their comparators who stayed behind, and traced their families across Turkey and Europe up to the fourth generation.
The results show that 79% of the returnees, 56% of the stayers and 50% of the settlers own a house (with or without a mortgage) where they currently live.
Looking at those who have no mortgage on their property, or who live rent free, this applies to more than four fifths of the returnees (84%) and two thirds of the stayers (69%) but less than half (48%) of the settlers.
There are, however, tenure differences based on the housing market type of the destination country.
In countries with a regulated rental regime that places less emphasis on home ownership, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland, the proportion of homeowner settlers (with or without a loan or mortgage) is, at 40%, not incomparable to the wider populations of these countries.
This is also true for countries with a regulated expansion regime, such as France and Belgium, that produce better homeownership outcomes for higher income groups. Here, 71% of settlers are homeowners, as compared with 63% and 73% of the wider populations in France and Belgium, respectively.
Strikingly, however, in countries with a liberal expansion regime that are renowned for their support of disadvantaged groups to buy their own homes, such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, the proportion of homeowners is as low as 42% among the settlers while the figures for the wider national populations stand at 64% in Denmark, 83% in Norway, 70% in Sweden and 67% in the Netherlands.
The research also shows that 51% of the settlers in Europe, mostly comprised of the first goers, possess a house in Turkey either jointly or individually. The analysis reveals that 64% of the settlers who own a house in Europe, and 42% of the settlers renting there, have part or full ownership of a house in Turkey.
Lead author Dr Sebnem Eroglu, from the School for Policy Studies, said:
“Under the guest-worker agreements, labourers (typically men) from Turkey, and other Balkan and Southern European countries, were invited to contribute to the building of Northern and Western Europe. Despite their significant contributions to their economies and societies, the guestworkers and their descendants settled in Europe often find themselves disadvantaged against the destination country populations as well as their stayer and returnee counterparts.”
“We have found that returnees display the highest share of homeownership whereas the settlers’ share remains the lowest. This finding indicates the significance of migration in helping the returnees accumulate financial resources and convert them into housing assets in the country of origin whilst supporting the past research which documents the barriers faced by migrants in European housing markets – albeit to varying degrees.”
“It is striking that in the countries with a liberal expansion regime, where one would expect greater home ownership amongst the settlers, the figures remain significantly lower than the wider populations of the destination countries. A more positive picture emerges in the housing markets of other destinations, though still not as good as for those who returned to Turkey or never left.”
Co-authors
Eroglu, Sebnem
Bayrakdar, Sait (Dr, Warwick)
Guveli, Ayse (Prof, Warwick)
Additional information
See article published in Housing Studies journal: Full article: Understanding the consequences of international migration for housing tenure: evidence from a multi-site and intergenerational study
Photo by Wynand van Poortvliet on Unsplash
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK, generating substantial financial burdens through healthcare and lost productivity. Public Health interventions are crucial in addressing these issues.
Several risk factors contribute to developing breast cancer and survival rates. Being physically active is one lifestyle behaviour that has been shown to help aid recovery and lower your risk of cancer coming back. Exercise also helps alleviate many of the common side effects of cancer treatment, including fatigue, low mood, and lack of energy.
Physical activity guidelines for individuals with a breast cancer diagnosis are the same as for the adult population. That is, to accumulate 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week (like brisk walking) or 75 minutes of vigorous activity (like jogging), plus strength training twice a week. Meeting these recommendations before and after a breast cancer diagnosis can cut the risk of breast cancer recurrence by almost half, and your risk of dying from breast cancer by nearly one-third.
However, despite the known benefits, physical activity engagement decreases following a breast cancer diagnosis, with around 50% of women not meeting guidelines. There are several reasons why women might not be physically active during treatment. These include physical limitations like shoulder problems from surgery, feeling tired and lacking energy, and not having a good space or time to exercise. Gentle exercise can help alleviate many of these symptoms so, finding activities that make getting moving easier is important.
Electrically assisted bicycle (e-bikes; also known as pedelecs), provide electrical assistance to the user only when they pedal. They have become increasingly popular recently and help users to ride further with less effort. E-cycling may increase physical activity levels due to users riding them more often and for longer distances than conventional bicycles. This is despite the reduced physical effort associated with riding an e-bike in comparison to a conventional bicycle. Researchers have also found that engaging in e-cycling has a favourable impact on fitness and mental health. Given the reduced physical exertion of e-cycling in comparison to regular cycling and the promising health outcomes, e-cycling maybe an acceptable physical activity for individuals diagnosed and or being treated for breast cancer. However, no research to date has examined the perception of e-cycling among these individuals.
We conducted one-on-one interviews with 24 women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer (mean age = 57 years). On average individuals were approximately 3-years since diagnosis. We held two interviews with each individual: one before trialling an e-bike and one after. E-bike taster sessions lasted 1-hour and were conducted by qualified cycling instructors in the community. All equipment required for the taster session was provided. We looked for themes across the interviews that captured the thoughts and feelings of these individuals.
The cancer treatment individuals received had a large impact on their activity levels. This was due to reduced energy, feelings of weakness, fatigue and a general lack of motivation to be active. For women who were previous cyclists, e-bikes were seen as a way of helping them to get back on the road due to the extra help provided. Women commented that the prospect of e-cycling provided a sense of independence. It was also a chance to regain their identity which they had lost due to the breast cancer diagnosis. Often women were anxious about how much effort e-cycling would need. Following the taster session women commented on the ease of e-cycling and felt it would not lead to feelings of exhaustion. While some participants saw e-bikes as a way to stay active even on low-energy days, others were cautious. They worried about pushing themselves too hard and compromising their health. Women felt it was important to listen to their bodies and prioritise rest on days when fatigue was high. For those individuals e-bikes could be a great option on good days, but sometimes taking it easy was the best choice.
After the taster session many participants felt that e-cycling had raised their heart rate, and they were able to have a ‘good workout.’ They said that they worked harder than expected despite the assistance of the e-bike. Individuals felt e-cycling played a type of ‘psychological trick’ on them and their willingness to cycle. The ability to change the level of assistance was extremely important to this group. It meant they could alter their exertion level based on how they were feeling. This assistance meant that tackling hills was not a concern.
Participants said e-cycling could help with fitness, strength, and boosting their circulation. Improved circulation can help treatment drugs work better. However, they felt the biggest advantage of e-bikes was psychological. Being outdoors and breathing in the fresh air made people want to keep e-cycling. Many who first thought e-bikes weren’t for them, changed their minds after completing the taster session. They found e-cycling to be an enjoyable way to exercise, making them more likely to give it another go in the future. For some women, who often felt out of control during treatment, riding the e-bike was empowering. Feelings of achievement motivate people to sticking with exercise, especially during cancer treatment. It is also good for keeping active in the long term.
A key reported benefit of e-cycling was the social opportunities that e-cycling provides. Many had not been able to cycle with others since their diagnosis, but e-bikes made it possible to join in again. The shared experience of cycling with others created a sense of encouragement and made it even more enjoyable. The electrical assistance evened out everyone’s speed. This reduced users’ anxiety about being too slow or comparing themselves to others.
This social connection is more than just having fun with friends. It can also be a powerful motivator to keep exercising. Studies show that we are more likely to stick with something if we do it with others who are cheering us on. E-bikes provide a perfect opportunity for that social support system, making physical activity less like a chore.
The biggest barrier that participants mention about e-cycling was the potential financial investment. For many this would stop them from considering engaging in e-cycling in the future. Related to this were concerns around theft. Discussions arose around fear and anxiety associated with parking an e-bike in a public space for fear it would not be there on return. Several other e-bike perception studies have also reported this. Environmental changes to the availability of parking facilities for bicycle users may therefore need to change for them to become more popular.
Despite the challenges, e-bikes emerged as a promising option for boosting physical activity among individuals being treated for and recovering from breast cancer. E-bikes can help to overcome many barriers associated with regular cycling. They also offer both physical and mental benefits. Participants responded positively to e-bike taster sessions. This suggests that they could be a valuable tool for encouraging exercise in this group. Yet, the best time to introduce an e-bike intervention in this population is hard to pinpoint. Different patients have different experiences of breast cancer and receive different treatments. Therefore, an individual approach might be best.
Read the published study here.
These blogs and policy briefs were co-authored by multi-disciplinary teams of students on the MSc in Public Policy (MPP), Migration, asylum and human rights: UK, EU and global policy perspectives unit. The blogs and briefs were prepared in discussion during class and finalised by the students outside the formal teaching programme. The exercise proved to be very popular. It provided experience of team-work, collaborative research and practice in writing clear and concise text for public and policy audiences – Ann Singleton, Reader in Migration Policy. (more…)
These blogs and policy briefs were co-authored by multi-disciplinary teams of students on the MSc in Public Policy (MPP), Migration, asylum and human rights: UK, EU and global policy perspectives unit. The blogs and briefs were prepared in discussion during class and finalised by the students outside the formal teaching programme. The exercise proved to be very popular. It provided experience of team-work, collaborative research and practice in writing clear and concise text for public and policy audiences – Ann Singleton, Reader in Migration Policy. (more…)
These blogs and policy briefs were co-authored by multi-disciplinary teams of students on the MSc in Public Policy (MPP), Migration, asylum and human rights: UK, EU and global policy perspectives unit. The blogs and briefs were prepared in discussion during class and finalised by the students outside the formal teaching programme. The exercise proved to be very popular. It provided experience of team-work, collaborative research and practice in writing clear and concise text for public and policy audiences – Ann Singleton, Reader in Migration Policy. (more…)