Retaining Rotterdam s Elites

Retaining Rotterdam’s Elites Urban binding of Rotterdam‟s educated inhabitants and the role of leisure

Final Master thesis Arjan Koster January 2011 Delft University of Technology Faculty of Architecture Department of Real Estate and Housing

Retaining Rotterdam’s Elites Urban binding of Rotterdam‟s educated inhabitants and the role of leisure

Final Report

Author: Student number:

Arjan Koster 1402528

E-mail:

[email protected]

University: Faculty: Department: Graduation lab:

Delft University of Technology Architecture Real Estate and Housing (REH) Leisure and Retail

Primary mentor: Secondary mentor: External examiner:

Dr. ir. D.C. Kooijman Dr. C.J. van Oel Dr. Ir. R.M. Rooij

P5 presentation date:

18 January 2011

Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

ii

Preface This is my final master thesis for the Real Estate and Housing master at the Faculty of Architecture at the Delft University of Technology. As the title of this thesis already states, it is aimed at the city of Rotterdam and its elite class inhabitants. These elites are well educated and professionally trained and have at least a bachelor degree. The objective of this thesis is to provide more insight on the preferences of these elite class inhabitants, to find out which settlement elements are important to them and to find out which role leisure has in their settlement choice. The subject of this thesis came into being after a news article in the Dutch newsletter NRC Handelsblad about Rotterdam and its leisure facilities. In this article, author Marcel Möring made some statements about Rotterdam and its leisure facilities. Möring states that leisure facilities, in particular cultural facilities, are an important element for retaining the elite class inhabitants. His publication has led to a public discussion with politicians and professionals who argued about the importance of cultural leisure facilities and other kinds of settlement elements that would be of importance to retain Rotterdam‟s elites. The cause of this article and the public discussion is based on the issue of negative selective migration in Rotterdam, which means that on average more well educated people (elite class inhabitants) are leaving the city, rather than coming into the city. This discussion together with the negative selective migration issue have led to this thesis, where insight will be given in the importance of several settlement elements and preferences of the elite class in habitants of Rotterdam. The report is divided in four parts and contains eight chapters. The first three chapters are about the research framework, the chapters four, five and six contain literature studies about the history and performance of Rotterdam and leisure time and activities. Chapter seven describes the results of the practical research and the final chapter contains the final conclusions and recommendations. I would like to thank both my supervisors from the Delft University of Technology, Dr. Ir. D. Kooijman and Dr. C. van Oel for their support and guidance through the research process and I would like to thank my examiner Dr. Ir. R. M. Rooij (Delft University of Technology) for commissioning the process. My gratitude also goes out to Wim van der Zanden and Vera van den Maagdenberg (COS Rotterdam) for their feedback and assistance with during the practical part of the research. Finally I would like to thank all those people who were willing to help and have participated in the internet survey. Delft, January 2011


iii

Contents Preface ......................................................................................................... iii Contents ...................................................................................................... iv Nederlandse samenvatting (Dutch summary) .......................................... vi 1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 1.1

Background ............................................................................................... 1

1.2

Discussion and criticism ............................................................................ 3

2. Theoretical framework .......................................................................... 5 2.1

An attractive city ........................................................................................ 5

2.2

Overview of elements ................................................................................ 8

3. Research framework ........................................................................... 10 3.1

Problem description ................................................................................. 10

3.2

Problem statement .................................................................................. 12

3.3

Research questions ................................................................................. 12

3.4

Demarcations .......................................................................................... 13

3.5

Research methodology............................................................................ 14

3.6

Read instructions..................................................................................... 17

4. Development of Rotterdam ................................................................ 18 4.1

History of Rotterdam................................................................................ 18

4.2

Rotterdam in the 19th century ................................................................. 20

4.3

The World Sea Port Rotterdam ............................................................... 21

4.4

Consequences of the WOII...................................................................... 23

4.5

Reconstruction after WOII ....................................................................... 25

4.6

Changed role of the (inner) city ............................................................... 30

4.7

Rotterdam in the 21th century ................................................................. 32

4.8

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 35

5. Current performance of Rotterdam ................................................... 36 5.1

Overall performance of Rotterdam........................................................... 36

5.2

Economy of Rotterdam ............................................................................ 38

5.3

Population of Rotterdam .......................................................................... 40

5.4

The labour force of Rotterdam ................................................................. 41

5.5

Safety of Rotterdam................................................................................. 42

5.6

Facilities in Rotterdam ............................................................................. 43

5.7

The housing market of Rotterdam ........................................................... 48


iv

5.8

The quality of the environment in Rotterdam ........................................... 51

5.9

The accessibility of Rotterdam ................................................................. 53

5.10 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 54

6. Leisure time and consumption behaviour ........................................ 56 6.1

The economical importance of leisure ..................................................... 56

6.2

Available leisure time............................................................................... 57

6.3

Leisure activities ...................................................................................... 61

6.4

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 64

7. Settlement and leisure preferences of elites .................................... 66 7.1

Response analyses ................................................................................. 66

7.2

Settlement elements of the elite class ..................................................... 70

7.3

Priorities .................................................................................................. 73

7.4

Importance of accessibility....................................................................... 75

7.5

Facilities in the immediate environment ................................................... 76

7.6

Exploring leisure ...................................................................................... 84

7.7

Other analysis ......................................................................................... 89

8. Conclusions and recommendations.................................................. 92 8.1

Conclusions ............................................................................................. 92

8.2

Recommendations for further research ................................................... 97

Afterword .................................................................................................... 98 Bibliography ............................................................................................... 99 Appendixes .............................................................................................. 102 A:

Accompanying letter for the respondents............................................... 103

B:

Questionnaire of the survey ................................................................... 105

C:

Ranking model for the TOP5 priorities ................................................... 111

D:

Composite variables (cronbach‟s alpha) ................................................ 116

E:

Overview of logistic regression models .................................................. 119


v

Nederlandse samenvatting (Dutch summary) Aanleiding en onderzoeksvraag Rotterdam heeft zich door de geschiedenis heen ontwikkeld tot een wereldhavenstad met een sterke industriële sector. De werkgelegenheid in de industriële sector is in de laatste decennia echter sterk afgenomen. Industrie en haven gerelateerde werkzaamheden zijn geautomatiseerd en met de globalisering van de economie gedeeltelijk verplaatst vanuit het Westen naar Azië of andere gebieden. Steeds meer mensen zijn nu werkzaam in de kennisintensieve, creatieve en dienstverlenende sectoren van de economie. Voor deze „nieuwe‟ economische sectoren is een kundige en hoog opgeleide beroepsbevolking van groot belang, zij zijn immers het productiemiddel geworden. Rotterdam heeft de ambitie om deel te nemen in deze creatieve en kennis economie, de beschikking over een hoog opgeleide beroepsbevolking is daarom ook voor deze stad van groot belang. Net als in veel andere grote steden bestaat er echter in Rotterdam een spanningsveld tussen de roltrapfunctie van de stad voor mensen aan het begin van hun maatschappelijke levensloop en het effect daarvan op de migratiebalans van de stad. Jongeren komen hier naartoe voor een opleiding aan hogeschool of universiteit, vinden hier hun eerste baan en woonruimte en vaak ook een partner. Stijging op de roltrap brengt andere wensen met zich mee, waardoor een deel van de hoog opgeleide stijgers de stad weer inruilt voor een minder stedelijke woonomgeving. Dit leidt tot een selectieve migratie met een vertrek van veelal hoger opgeleiden met een hoger inkomen en een vestiging van mensen onderaan de maatschappelijke ladder met een lager inkomen. Deze ontwikkeling is door de gemeente Rotterdam opgemerkt en er is een toekomstvisie ontwikkeld en een strategisch plan opgesteld die het tij moeten keren. Een doelstelling is geformuleerd om de economie te versterken en daarnaast een aantrekkelijke woonstad te worden waar iedereen zich in thuis voelt. Vrijetijdsvoorzieningen (Leisure) hebben tot op heden hierbij een belangrijke rol gespeeld. In het centrum van de stad zijn diverse voorzieningen aangebracht om de aantrekkelijkheid van de stad te vergroten. Ook thema‟s gericht op winkelen, cultuur, moderne architectuur, sport, enz. en diverse evenementen zijn gebruikt om de stad aantrekkelijk te maken. Zo won Rotterdam in 2005 voor de 2 e keer een nationale titel voor beste evenementen stad en is Rotterdam in 2010 zelfs uitgeroepen tot werelds beste festival stad in de categorie 500.000 tot 1 miljoen inwoners, door de International Festivals and Events Association (IFEA) uit de Verenigde Staten. De voorzieningen zorgen voor omzet en veel bezoekers. Het is echter de vraag of deze voorzieningen ook bijdragen aan het behouden van de hoger opgeleide Rotterdammer (Rotterdams Elite). De discussie die ontstaan is na de publicatie van de schrijver Marcel Möring geeft een beeld van de verdeeldheid die heerst. In september 2009 heeft de schrijver Marcel Möring een artikel gepubliceerd in het NRC handelsblad. In dit artikel heeft hij de stelling ingenomen dat een kwalitatief aanbod van cultuur van groot belang is voor het aantrekken en behouden van de elite in Rotterdam. Het huidige aanbod zou te oppervlakkig zijn. Naar aanleiding van deze publicatie is een debat gehouden, waarbij naast de schrijver zelf ook politici en diverse professionals aanwezig waren. Tijdens deze discussie werd


vi

duidelijk dat er verschillende meningen zijn over het behouden van de Rotterdamse elite. Sommige geven Marcel Möring gelijk, andere noemen bijvoorbeeld de woningmarkt in Rotterdam als belangrijkste aandachtspunt. Het blijft onduidelijk welke elementen van belang zijn en prioriteit dienen te krijgen in Rotterdam. Dit onderzoek richt zich op deze discussie, op het behoud van Rotterdams elite en de rol van leisure. De onderzoeksvraag waarop in dit onderzoek is geprobeerd een antwoord te geven is de volgende: Welke rol heeft leisure binnen de verschillende vestigingsfactoren voor de elite in Rotterdam, en welke leisure voorzieningen zijn gewenst in de directe omgeving van de woning? Methodologie Voor beantwoording van de hoofdvraag is gebruik gemaakt van literatuuronderzoek en een enquête. Er is eerst literatuur gezocht die ingaat op de aantrekkelijkheid van de stad. Uit deze literatuur zijn diverse variabelen naar voren gekomen die gebruikt zijn als uitgangspunt voor een enquête onder de elite van Rotterdam. Aangezien het onderzoek zich specifiek richt op de stad Rotterdam is literatuur onderzoek verricht naar de historische ontwikkeling van de stad Rotterdam. Daarnaast is onderzoek gedaan naar de huidige prestaties van Rotterdam (op gebied van: economie, bevolking, veiligheid, woonomgeving, bereikbaarheid, etc.) en de huidige vrije tijd en vrijetijdsbestedingen. Dit alles om een compleet beeld te verkrijgen van de context en de problemen die zich in deze stad afspelen en de rol die vrije tijd heeft in het hedendaagse leven. Vervolgens zijn er door middel van 3 gelijkwaardige steekproeven 2250 Rotterdammers benaderd om deel te nemen aan een enquête. De steekproeven zijn gehouden in het centrum (Kop van Zuid), het rustigstedelijk gebied rondom het centrum (Hillegersberg-Zuid en Blijdorp) en het groenstedelijk gebied aan de rand van de stad (Prinsenland en s‟Gravenland). Daarnaast zijn ook medewerkers benaderd van een viertal organisaties in Rotterdam (met een hoog potentieel aan hoger opgeleiden) en zijn mensen benaderd via het sociale netwerk Linkedin. Met behulp van het programma SPSS zijn vervolgens analyses uitgevoerd en de resultaten verwerkt. Theoretisch kader: De aantrekkelijkheid van de stad In 2002 heeft de Amerikaanse wetenschapper Richard Florida een boek gepubliceerd genaamd „The rise of the creative class‟ dat tot veel discussie heeft geleid bij academici en in de beleidskringen. In zijn boek geeft Florida naast zijn theorie over de opkomende creatieve economie ook een beschrijving van de levensstijl en woonvoorkeuren van zijn creatieve klasse. Deze creatieve klasse bestaat uit wetenschappers, ingenieurs, artiesten, muzikanten, ontwerpers en kenniswerkers. Een groep die raakvlak heeft met de „te behouden elite‟ in Rotterdam. Volgens Florida let deze groep bij het kiezen van de woonlocatie vooral op de kwaliteit van de locatie. Vroeger vestigden de meeste mensen zich nabij hun werk. Tegenwoordig heeft het werk haar dominante rol verloren in de vestigingskeuze en is de kwaliteit van de locatie bepalend. Deze kwaliteit wordt beschreven als een breed begrip die naast fysieke elementen als de woning en Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

vii

woonomgeving ook een aantal andere vestigingselementen bevat. Florida noemt ook sociale interactie met anderen, het opdoen van nieuwe ervaringen en belevingen en de identiteit als belangrijke elementen. Zijn creatieve klasse bestaat uit mensen met een actieve levensstijl die er vaak op uit trekken in hun vrije tijd. Een gevarieerd aanbod van leisure voorzieningen en activiteiten is van belang. Er zijn naast de thesis van Florida uit de USA nog een tweetal andere Nederlandse literatuurbronnen gebruikt, die beide een beschrijving geven van „wat een woonlocatie aantrekkelijk maakt‟. De studies Van den Berg et al. (1999) en van Lia Karsten (2007). Opvallend is dat voorzieningen bij beide bronnen een belangrijke rol hebben. Van den Berg et al. noemen met name de bereikbaarheid van stedelijke voorzieningen van doorslaggevend belang. Lia Karsten, die specifiek onderzoek heeft uitgevoerd in Rotterdam, noemt dat directe nabijheid van voorzieningen gewaardeerd wordt door de inwoners in Rotterdam. Daarnaast noemen Van den Berg et al. net als Florida dat de kwaliteit van een locatie bepalend is voor de vestigingskeuze. Ook geven beide bronnen nog een aantal andere vestigingselementen die van belang zijn voor de aantrekkelijkheid van een stad. Deze vestigingselementen zijn samengevoegd en gebruikt als input voor de enquête. De volgende vestigingselementen (variabelen) zijn naar voren gekomen uit de literatuur: De bereikbaarheid, de woning kwaliteit, de kwaliteit van de omgeving, voorzieningen (leisure, winkels, zorg en educatief), sociale relaties, de bevolking, de veiligheid, het imago, werkgelegenheid. Historische ontwikkeling van de stad Rotterdam De geschiedenis van Rotterdam wordt gekenmerkt door een aantal belangrijke ontwikkelingen. De stad heeft al sinds de middeleeuwen een sterke relatie met scheepvaart, de grootste groei maakte de stad door met de opkomst van de industrialisatie en na de aanleg van de nieuwe waterweg. Vanwege zijn geografische liggen werd Rotterdam al vroeg in de 20ste eeuw een van de belangrijkste doorvoerhavens van Europa. Echter, tijdens de tweede wereldoorlog is een groot gedeelte van de stad verwoest en zijn veel mensen hun woning kwijt geraakt. De hoge woningnood en de functionele bouwprincipes na de oorlog hebben geleid tot een woningvoorraad die door de huidige woonconsument als kwalitatief matig wordt beschouwd, gebouwd in monotone wijken. De stad werd al snel als grauw en ongezellig ervaren, veel mensen hebben de stad verlaten en zich in de omliggende gemeenten gevestigd. Daarnaast is sinds deze periode ook een toename zichtbaar van het aantal immigranten dat zich in Nederland heeft gevestigd. In de jaren zeventig en tachtig heeft de gemeente diverse acties ondernomen om de kwaliteit van de stad te verbeteren. Diverse voorzieningen zijn aangebracht en ook de buitenruimte is verbeterd in deze periode. De nadruk op de kwaliteit van de stad is groter geworden met opkomst van de ICT, internationalisering en kenniseconomie. Voor deze economische sectoren is een hoog opgeleide beroepsbevolking van groot belang. Veel gemeenten hebben daarom hun beleid gericht op het aantrekken en behouden van deze bevolkingsgroep.


viii

Huidige prestaties van Rotterdam Zoals eerder beschreven is er discussie over welke elementen belangrijk zijn en prioriteit dienen te krijgen in Rotterdam. Om hier uitspraak over te kunnen doen is het van belang informatie te hebben over de huidige situatie van deze verschillende elementen. De belangrijkste factoren zijn hieronder beschreven. Economie In economisch opzicht hebben de industrie en haven gerelateerde bedrijvigheid altijd een sterke positie gehad in Rotterdam. Ook tegenwoordig heeft de industrie en haven in Rotterdam (als drukste havenstad van Europa) nog steeds een sterke positie. Statistieken laten echter al enkele jaren zien dat de haven verhoudingsgewijs geen nieuwe banen genereert. De sterkst groeiende sector qua werkgelegenheid is het medische cluster, die ondanks de huidige economische crisis is blijven groeien. Bevolking In vergelijking met andere steden heeft Rotterdam een relatief jonge bevolking. Prognoses laten zien dat waar de Nederlandse bevolking gemiddeld genomen vergrijst, de Rotterdamse bevolking juist vergroent. Net als Amsterdam en Den Haag heeft Rotterdam een hoog percentage aan allochtonen, ongeveer 48% in 2010. Daarnaast is de Rotterdamse bevolking in verhouding laag opgeleid, slechts 33% van de bevolking heeft een HBO of Universitair diploma. Ter vergelijking, in Amsterdam is dit percentage 52% en in Utrecht zelfs 59%. In omvang is de populatie hoger opgeleiden vrijwel gelijk aan die van Utrecht en Den Haag. Veiligheid Rotterdam gebruikt een eigen veiligheidsindex die is gebaseerd op misdaadcijfers en op het veiligheidsgevoel van haar inwoners. De index laat zien dat de veiligheid in de afgelopen decennia aanzienlijk is verbeterd. In het centrum stedelijke gebied en in Rotterdam Zuid zijn nog wel enkele veiligheidsproblemen terug te vinden. Voorzieningen Van de vier groten steden in Nederland heeft Amsterdam het hoogste aantal voorzieningen. Rotterdam is qua voorzieningen meer vergelijkbaar met Utrecht en Den Haag. Alleen het aantal theaters per 10.000 inwoners blijft verhoudingsgewijs aan de lage kant. Daarnaast laten studies van de gemeente nog enkele verbeterpunten zien op het gebied van voorzieningen. Het huidige aanbod is verspreid over de binnenstad en er zijn geen duidelijke looproutes. Voor mensen die niet bekend zijn in deze stad kan het lastig zijn om de voorzieningen terug te vinden. De woningvoorraad Zoals eerder beschreven zijn er na de oorlog veel woningen gebouwd, waarbij een industriële aanpak werd gebruikt om de woningnood zo snel mogelijk te verlichten. De nadruk lag op middelhoge portiek- en galerijflats, die niet meer aan de wensen van de huidige woonconsument voldoen. Daarnaast werd er veel sociale woningbouw gerealiseerd. In de jaren negentig bedroeg het percentage sociale woningbouw in Rotterdam zelfs bijna 60% van de woningvoorraad. Dit percentage Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

ix

is momenteel teruggebracht tot onder de 50% procent, echter in 2009 waren er nog steeds 42 wijken met 50% of meer aan sociale woningbouw. Om de woningmarkt in balans te brengen zijn er de laatste jaren vooral duurdere en middeldure woningen gebouwd. Daarnaast is een samenwerkingsverband opgestart tussen Rotterdam en de omliggende gemeenten om de woningmarkt op regionaal niveau te inventariseren en aan te sturen. Kwaliteit van de omgeving Van de vier grote steden zijn Rotterdammers het minst tevreden over hun woonomgeving. Indexcijfers laten zien dat Rotterdam in vergelijking met Amsterdam, Den Haag en Utrecht het hoogst scoort op fysieke achteruitgang. Daarnaast blijkt uit onderzoek van de gemeente dat de kwaliteit van de omgeving het op één na grootste probleem is volgens de bewoners in Rotterdam (na criminaliteit). Bereikbaarheid De reistijd van woon-werkverkeer verschilt in Rotterdam niet veel van de andere vier grote steden. Wel wordt het parkeren door veel mensen als een probleem benoemd in de stad. Vrije tijd en vrijetijdsbestedingen De vrijetijdssector is de laatste jaren snel gegroeid en bevatte in 2008 ongeveer 3% van het bruto binnenlandse product. In stedelijk gebied groeit deze sector aanzienlijk. Tussen 2003 en 2005 is deze economische sector in Rotterdam met 6% gegroeid in vergelijking met 2,6% op nationaal niveau. Hoewel de vrijetijdssector groeit, laten statistieken zien dat gemiddeld genomen de hoeveelheid beschikbare uren aan vrije tijd juist afneemt. Vooral binnen de werkzame bevolking is een duidelijke afname zichtbaar in vergelijking met 30 jaar geleden. De beschikbare vrije tijd is voor diverse groepen afgenomen, maar men overbrugt wel steeds meer afstand voor vrijetijdsvoorzieningen. Ook wordt er gemiddeld genomen meer vrije tijd besteed aan elektronische en digitale media. Vrijetijdsbesteding aan sociale contacten en gedrukte media (bijv. kranten) blijkt juist te zijn afgenomen in de laatste 30 jaar. Van de vrijetijdsactiviteiten buitenshuis zijn funshoppen en buitenrecreatie de belangrijkste activiteiten geworden. Daarnaast laten statistieken zien dat er veel combinatiebezoeken plaatsvinden. Veel mensen combineren bijvoorbeeld winkelen met een lunch of een bezoek aan een terras. Of bijvoorbeeld een bezoek aan een bioscoop gecombineerd met een avondje uit. De meeste bezoeken worden gebracht aan de bioscoop en dans / houseparty‟s (gemiddeld 7 maal per jaar), gevolgd door bezoeken aan concerten en theater (gemiddeld 3 maal per jaar). Resultaten van het onderzoek Gebaseerd op de variabelen van het theoretische kader is een vragenlijst opgesteld (zie bijlage B) en een internetenquête geconstrueerd. Naast inhoudelijke vragen zijn ook een aantal achtergrondvragen gesteld hoofdzakelijk bestaande uit persoonskenmerken. In totaal hebben er (n=) 482 respondenten deel genomen aan de internetenquête, waarvan er (n=) 372 binnen de doelgroep elite (hoger opgeleiden) vallen. Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

x

Vervolgens zijn een aantal statistische analyses uitgevoerd met behulp van SPSS (zie hoofdstuk 7). De respons uit de verschillende stadszones; centrumstedelijk, rustingstedelijk, groenstedelijk is met elkaar vergeleken. Onderstaande tabel geeft de resultaten weer van de eerste enquêtevraag, gericht op het belang van de verschillende vestigingselementen. In de tabel is het percentage zichtbaar van het aantal mensen dat belang hecht aan een vestigingselement. Hieruit blijkt dat de vestigingselementen: de woonomgeving, het woningtype, de veiligheid en de bereikbaarheid, door meer dan 90% van de respondenten als belangrijk beschouwd worden. Ook de woningprijs en het imago van het gebied zijn voor vrijwel alle respondenten van belang. De bevolking en winkel voorzieningen scoren iets lager en lijken aan de randen van de stad voor iets meer mensen van belang te zijn dan in het centrale gedeelte. Dit verschil is echter niet significant. Voor de vestigingselementen; leisure voorzieningen, zorg voorzieningen en onderwijs voorzieningen zijn significante verschillen gevonden tussen de drie leefgebieden. Leisure voorzieningen zijn in het centrumstedelijke en rustigstedelijk gebied voor meer mensen van belang dan aan de randen van de stad. Zorgvoorzieningen en onderwijs voorzieningen zijn juist aan de randen van de stad belangrijker dan in het centrale gedeelte. Nabijheid van vrienden, familie en kennissen en het aanbod van werkgelegenheid scoren het laagst, niet alle elite vinden dit een belangrijk vestigingselement. Tabel S1: Het belang van de verschillende vestigingselementen. Onderzoeksgebied Groenstedelijk

Rustigstedelijk Centrumstedelijk

aantal

%

aantal

%

Aantal

%

De woonomgeving

65

100%

83

100%

77

99%

Het woning type

63

97%

82

99%

74

95%

De veiligheid van het gebied

65

100%

76

92%

73

94%

De bereikbaarheid

64

98%

76

92%

72

92%

De woningprijs

60

92%

74

89%

75

96%

Het imago van het gebied

60

92%

73

88%

68

87%

57

88%

64

77%

59

76%

56

86%

66

80%

57

73%

De bevolking (sociale klasse of culturele achtergrond) Winkel voorzieningen Leisure voorzieningen (horeca, restaurants, theaters, sport, cultuur, etc.) Zorg voorzieningen

*

43

66%

66

80%

65

83%

**

41

63%

30

36%

31

40%

Onderwijs voorzieningen

*

33

51%

38

46%

23

29%

32

49%

30

36%

24

31%

24

37%

23

28%

32

41%

65

100%

83

100%

78

100%

Nabijheid vrienden familie en kennissen De werkgelegenheid Totaal * P<0.05, **P<0.01(Kruskal Wallis)


xi

Vervolgens is aan de respondent gevraagd om een prioriteitenlijst op te stellen voor de elementen die van belang zijn. Uit deze prioriteitenstelling is een TOP5 samengesteld. Hieruit blijkt dat gemiddeld genomen de elementen woonomgeving en het woningtype de meeste prioriteit krijgt van de respondent. De veiligheid en de woningprijs worden gemiddeld genomen op de derde en vierde plek gezet door de respondent en de bereikbaarheid staat op de vijfde plaats. Leisure komt niet in de TOP5 voor. Hierna is doorgevraagd welke type leisure voorzieningen gewenst zijn in de directe omgeving (op 10 minuten loop of fietsafstand). Voor iedere categorie zijn de 3 belangrijkste weergegeven in onderstaande tabel. Entertainment voorzieningen hebben uiteenlopende percentages. Uit de analyses blijkt dat vooral in het centrumstedelijke gebied en het aangrenzende rustigstedelijk gebied deze voorzieningen door veel mensen gewenst zijn in hun directe omgeving. De genoemde winkelvoorzieningen hebben in vrijwel alle gebieden een vergelijkbaar percentage. Van deze faciliteiten scoort de supermarkt het hoogst. Van de sport voorzieningen heeft het fitness centrum de hoogste percentages. De faciliteit speelplek is het vaakst genoemd in het gebied met de meeste huishoudens met kinderen, en het minst in het gebied met de minste huishoudens met kinderen. Bij de natuur en recreatieve voorzieningen wordt een park door 80% tot 87% van de respondenten benoemd als een gewenste voorziening in de directe omgeving. Ook publiekelijk groen en een recreatieve fietsroute wordt door een grote groep genoemd. Van de kunst en cultuur voorzieningen wordt door 54% tot 58% een bibliotheek benoemd als gewenste voorziening in de directe omgeving. De faciliteiten museum of kunstgalerie en monument of monumentaal gebouw heeft uiteenlopende percentages. Deze zijn in het centrale gedeelte van de stad (centrum en rustigstedelijk) door meer mensen benoemd dan aan de randen van de stad (groenstedelijk). Tabel S2: De drie belangrijkste leisure faciliteiten per categorie. Leisure type Belangrijkste 2e Entertainment voorzieningen Winkel voorzieningen

3e

restaurants (46% - 87%) Supermarkt (94% - 99%) Fitness centrum (37% - 50%)

cafés (25% - 55%) Apotheek en drogist (78% - 85%) Speelplek (26% - 46%)

theaters (11% - 47%) Ambachtswinkels (71% - 72%). zwembad (20% - 43%)

Natuur en recreatieve voorzieningen

Een park (80% - 87%)

Publiekelijk groen (58% - 73%)

Recreatieve fietsroute (47% - 57%)

Kunst en cultuur voorzieningen

Een bibliotheek (54% - 58%)

museum of kunstgalerie (17% - 47%)

Monument of monumentaal gebouw (12% - 41%)

Evenementen

Muziek evenementen (68% - 82%)

Cultuur evenementen (66% -76%)

De wereldhavendagen (59% - 66%)

Sport voorzieningen


xii

Bij evenementen is een andere vraagstelling gebruikt. Er is gevraagd of men vindt dat evenementen de woonaantrekkelijkheid van Rotterdam vergroten. De Rotterdamse muziek evenementen hebben het hoogste percentage, zij maken voor veel respondenten de stad als woonplaats aantrekkelijker. Ook cultuur evenementen en de wereldhavendagen worden door een groot gedeelte van de respondenten genoemd. Met behulp van logistische regressie analyses is vervolgens gezocht naar variabelen die het belang van leisure kunnen verklaren. Eerst is met behulp van cronbach‟s alpha gezocht naar variabelen met een sterke samenhang. Vervolgens zijn de samenhangende variabelen samengevoegd tot een nieuwe samengestelde variabele. De samengestelde variabelen zijn samen met enkele persoonskarakteristieken gebruikt in een model om het belang van leisure te verklaren. Zoals zichtbaar in het model zijn er drie variabelen die een significante relatie hebben met het belang van leisure. Deze variabelen kunnen dus (gedeeltelijk) verklaren of leisure belangrijk gevonden wordt of niet. De variabele type werk heeft een significant positieve relatie met leisure. Ook het woongebied en de samengestelde variabele van consumptie gerelateerde faciliteiten1 hebben een significante positieve relatie met leisure. Tabel S3: Output van het logistische regressie model. Variabelen in de vergelijking

95% C.I.for Exp(B) Lower Upper

Sig.

Exp(B)

Geslacht

,086

2,802

,865

9,074

Verhuis [...] jaar geleden

,287

,957

,882

1,038

Type werk

,049

2,961*

1,006

8,712

Huishoudsamenstelling

,312

1,940

,536

7,018

Leeftijd

,710

1,013

,946

1,084

Inkomen

,372

,493

,104

2,330

Woongebied

,076

Rustigstedelijk (1)

,039

3,895*

1,068

14,210

Centrumstedelijk (2)

,064

3,651

,928

14,367

SOM_overige variabelen

,102

1,393

,937

2,072

SOM_bereikbaarheid

,132

1,574

,872

2,839

SOM_natuurvoorzieningen

,348

,780

,465

1,310

SOM_jeugdvoorzieningen

,654

,885

,519

1,510

SOM_consumptie gerelateerde faciliteiten

,001

1,509**

1,186

1,919

* P<0.05, ** P<0.001 (Nagelkerke = 0.439)

Gelet op de gebruikte codering van de variabelen (zie hoofdstuk 7, tabel 7.23) kunnen we hieruit het volgende opmaken: - Er is een positief significant verband gevonden tussen kennisintensieve werkzaamheden en het belangrijk vinden van leisure voorzieningen. 1

Samengestelde variabele van consumptie gerelateerde faciliteiten bestaat uit: bioscopen, theaters, restaurants, luxe winkels, mode winkels, museums, een plein en de evenementen.


xiii

-

-

-

Er is een positief significant verband gevonden tussen het woongebied rustigstedelijk en het belangrijk vinden van leisure. Het centrumstedelijk gebied heeft geen significante relatie in dit model, echter wanneer de samengestelde variabelen uit de vergelijking worden gehaald (zie hoofdstuk 7, tabel 7.26) blijkt dat ook het centrumstedelijk gebied een positief significante relatie heeft met het belangrijk vinden van leisure. De consumptie gerelateerde voorzieningen hebben een significant positieve relatie met het belangrijk vinden van leisure. Respondenten die deze voorzieningen als gewenst aangaven vinden leisure belangrijk. Het model hieronder is in staat om voor ongeveer 44% te verklaren of leisure belangrijk wordt gevonden of niet.

Er zijn tijdens de analyses nog een aantal logische relaties naar voren gekomen. Zo is er een relatie gevonden tussen leeftijd en zorgvoorzieningen. Naar mate de leeftijd stijgt worden zorgvoorzieningen vaker belangrijk gevonden. Dit kan een verklaring geven voor het significante verschil uit tabel S1. In het centrum wonen namelijk minder ouderen dan aan de rand van de stad. Daarnaast hechten huishoudens met kinderen meer belang aan educatieve voorzieningen, crèches, speelplaatsen voor kinderen en sportvoorzieningen als hockey of tennis dan huishoudens zonder kinderen. Het is opmerkelijk dat onderwijs voorzieningen in het rustigstedelijk gebied lager scoren dan in het groenstedelijke gebied (tabel S1). In het rustigstedelijk gebied wonen namelijk meer huishoudens met kinderen en minder ouderen (56+). Mensen op oudere leeftijd vinden de werkgelegenheid van minder belang dan jongeren en mensen van middelbare leeftijd. De respondent is ook een aantal stellingen voorgelegd, hieruit komt het volgende naar voren. Men is gevraagd te kiezen tussen „de nabijheid van het werk‟ en „de kwaliteit van de omgeving‟, de „nabijheid van voorzieningen‟, de nabijheid van vrienden familie en kennissen. Hierbij geeft 86% tot 96% van de respondenten aan de kwaliteit van de omgeving belangrijker te vinden dan nabijheid van het werk. Tweederde van de respondenten vind ook de nabijheid van voorzieningen belangrijker dan nabijheid van het werk. Nabijheid van vrienden, familie en kennissen tegenover nabijheid van werk is ongeveer gelijk verdeeld. Tabel S4: Tegenstellingen. Als u moet kiezen wat kiest u dan?

Onderzoeksgebied Groenstedelijk

Rustigstedelijk

Centrumstedelijk

Aantal

%

Aantal

%

Aantal

%

A. Kwaliteit van de omgeving

57

88%

80

96%

67

86%

B. Nabijheid van mijn werk

8

12%

3

4%

11

14%

A. Nabijheid familie, vrienden, kennissen

35

54%

45

54%

33

42%


30

46%

38

46%

45

58%

A. Nabijheid van voorzieningen

41

63%

53

64%

52

67%


24

37%

30

36%

26

33%


xiv

Respondenten aan de randen van de stad (groenstedelijk gebied) geven vaker dan respondenten in het centrumstedelijke gebied en het aangrenzende rustigstedelijk gebied aan dat zij het belangrijker vinden om in een wijk te wonen met soortgelijke huishoudens. Conclusies De gestelde onderzoeksvraag richt zich op de verschillende vestigingselementen en de rol die leisure hierbinnen heeft. Uit de resultaten van de enquête blijkt dat er vijf vestigingselementen zijn die voor vrijwel alle respondenten van belang zijn. In alle drie de woongebieden van Rotterdam (centrumstedelijk, rustigstedelijk en groenstedelijk) hebben de volgende vestigingselementen de hoogste percentages: de woonomgeving, het woningtype, de veiligheid, de woningprijs en de bereikbaarheid. De percentages liggen rond de 90% of hoger, wat aanzienlijk hoger is dan bijvoorbeeld werkgelegenheid (28% tot 41%) of nabijheid van vrienden, familie en kennissen (31% tot 49%). Daarnaast staan deze vijf elementen in alle drie de woongebieden in de TOP5 prioriteiten lijst. De bevolkingssamenstelling (76% tot 88%) en winkelvoorzieningen (73% tot 86%) worden ook door veel respondenten als belangrijke vestigingselementen genoemd. Zorgvoorzieningen zijn met 63% in het groenstedelijke gebied, 36% in het rustigstedelijk gebied en 40% in het centrumstedelijke gebied voor minder mensen van belang. Analyses wijzen uit dat vooral mensen van oudere leeftijd zorgvoorzieningen vaker als belangrijk noemen. Ook is er een relatie gevonden tussen huishoudens met kinderen en het belang van onderwijsvoorzieningen. Huishoudens met kinderen hechten gemiddeld genomen meer waarde aan onderwijs voorzieningen. De nabijheid van vrienden, familie en kennissen en de werkgelegenheid zijn in verhouding tot de andere vestigingselementen het minst genoemd. Hierbij is het van belang te benadrukken dat deze elementen niet onbelangrijk zijn. De 31% tot 49% die bijvoorbeeld nabijheid van vrienden, familie en kennissen belangrijk vindt is nog steeds een derde tot de helft van de respondenten. Leisure voorzieningen worden het meest genoemd als belangrijk element in het centrumstedelijke gebied (83%) en het daaromheen gelegen rustigstedelijk gebied (80%). In het groenstedelijke gebied aan de rand van de stad noemt 66% leisure als belangrijk vestigingselement, een significant verschil (H(2)=6.351, P<0.05) met de overige gebieden. Het regressiemodel geeft extra informatie over leisure. Het bevestigt dat leisure verschillend gewaardeerd wordt in de verschillende woongebieden groenstedelijk, rustigstedelijk en centrumstedelijk. Het geeft aan dat er een relatie is tussen diverse consumptie gerelateerde voorzieningen en het belangrijk vinden van leisure. Daarnaast is een positief significante relatie gevonden tussen de categorie kennisintensieve werkzaamheden en leisure Exp(B)=2.961, P<0.05 (95%C.I= 1.006 – 8.212). Dit brengt ons terug bij Richard Florida en zijn theorie over de creatieve klasse. Florida schetst het beeld dat leisure voorzieningen belangrijk zijn voor zijn creatieve klasse, een groep die onder andere bestaat uit kenniswerkers. De resultaten van dit onderzoek laten zien dat het belang van leisure gedeeltelijk is te verklaren aan de Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

xv

hand van het type werk. Er is immers een positieve relatie gevonden tussen kennisintensief werk en het belang van leisure. Deze resultaten geven dus onderbouwing aan Florida zijn stelling. Alhoewel het regressiemodel bevestigt dat er een relatie is tussen mensen met kennisintensief werk en leisure, betekent dit niet dat leisure voor al deze mensen het belangrijkste is. Aangezien leisure voorzieningen niet in de TOP5 prioriteitstelling voorkomen kan geconcludeerd worden dat een groot gedeelte van de respondenten leisure als een secundair vestigingselement beschouwt. Florida geeft in zijn boek aan dat zijn creatieve klasse, die onder andere bestaat uit kenniswerkers, behoefte heeft aan kleinschalige leisure voorzieningen waar interactie plaatsvindt en waar nieuwe belevingen kunnen worden opgedaan. Als voorbeeld noemt hij cafés, boekwinkels, barretjes, etc. en ook culturele voorzieningen waar mensen hun creativiteit kwijt kunnen. In het centrumstedelijke gebied zijn er significant meer mensen met een behoefte aan entertainment en cultuurvoorzieningen in de directe omgeving. Zo worden in het centrum bijvoorbeeld restaurants door 87% van de elite genoemd als gewenste voorziening in de omgeving en vindt ongeveer 50% een bioscoop, een café of museum belangrijk. In het groenstedelijke gebied worden restaurants door 46% van de elite als gewenst genoemd, een bioscoop door 9%, een café door 25% en een museum door 17% van de elite. In het groenstedelijk gebied geeft zelfs 40% van de respondenten aan entertainment voorzieningen onbelangrijk te vinden in de directe omgeving. Daarnaast worden voorzieningen als landelijk groen en bossen aan de rand van de stad significant vaker genoemd dan in het centrum. De levensstijl die Florida schetst geldt klaarblijkelijk niet voor alle kenniswerkers of elite in Rotterdam. Vooral aan de randen van de stad, in het groenstedelijk gebied, is namelijk een minder grote behoefte aan entertainment en culturele voorzieningen. Daarnaast is er onderbouwing gevonden voor de stellingen van Florida en Van den Berg et al. over de rol die werk heeft binnen de samenleving. Zij beweren dat de kwaliteit van de locatie de dominante rol van het werk heeft overgenomen in de vestigingskeuze. De woning en woonomgeving zijn door de meeste respondenten als belangrijk genoemd en hebben de hoogste percentages (tabel S1). Werkgelegenheid heeft de laagste percentages en is voor een grote groep van de elite geen belangrijk vestigingselement. Ook de tegenstellingen tussen de „kwaliteit van de omgeving‟ en de „nabijheid van werk‟ (tabel S4) laten zien dat de locatie belangrijker is dan het werk. Tussen de 86% en 96% (afhankelijk van het woongebied) verkiest de kwaliteit van de omgeving boven de nabijheid van het werk. Met de resultaten van de enquête is duidelijker geworden welke vestigingselementen belangrijk zijn en welke rol leisure heeft. Ook is de ontwikkeling van Rotterdam beschreven en een overzicht gegeven van de huidige prestaties van de stad. Dit maakt het mogelijk om terug te komen op de discussie die gevoerd is naar aanleiding van de publicatie van Marcel Möring. Marcel Möring beweert dat leisure (met name cultuur voorzieningen) van groot belang is voor het behoud van de elite in Rotterdam. Anderen beweren juist dat de woningen en woonomgeving prioriteit dienen te krijgen en dat leisure voorzieningen minder belangrijk zijn. Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

xvi

Veel hoog opgeleiden noemen leisure voorzieningen als een belangrijk vestigingselement, vooral in het centrumstedelijke en aangrenzende rustigstedelijk gebied. Daarnaast blijkt uit onderzoek van het Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS) dat 15% van de midden en hoge inkomens die zich vestigden in Rotterdam de aanwezigheid van horeca, musea, theaters en bioscopen als vestigingsmotief noemt. Ongeveer 8% geeft aan naar de stad verhuisd te zijn, omdat de voorzieningen op deze plek aansluiten bij hun levensstijl. Van de mensen die de stad verlaten hebben geeft het grootste gedeelte aan vertrokken te zijn vanwege woninggerelateerde factoren. Zo noemt 20% van de vertrekkers dat zij niet de gewenste woning konden vinden, 12% geeft aan de woningen te duur te vinden en 11% geeft aan de wachttijden te lang te vinden. Er zijn ook mensen van midden of hoog inkomen die binnen Rotterdam verhuisd zijn. Van deze groep geeft 22% aan in de stad te blijven wonen vanwege de voorzieningen of de match met hun levensstijl.2 Dit wijst erop dat Marcel Möring en zijn tegenstanders beiden argumenten hebben voor hun stellingen. Om een reflectie te geven op deze discussie is het van belang de huidige prestaties van Rotterdam mee te nemen in de overweging. De statistieken, beschreven in hoofdstuk 5 over de prestaties van Rotterdam, laten zien dat Rotterdam een vergelijkbaar aanbod van voorzieningen heeft (kwantitatief en naar ratio) als de steden Den Haag en Utrecht. Alleen het toeristische Amsterdam heeft een hoger aanbod in voorzieningen. Wel laten analyses van de gemeente Rotterdam zien dat de voorzieningen verspreid zijn over de binnenstad, dat er onduidelijke looproutes zijn en de vormgeving verbeterd kan worden. De statistieken van de woningmarkt (§5.7) en kwaliteit van de omgeving (§5.8) geven een slechtere situatie weer. Vervuiling van de omgeving wordt door veel Rotterdammers als belangrijk probleem benoemd en daarnaast heeft de stad nog steeds veel wijken met een hoog percentage aan sociale woningbouw. Zo waren er in 2009 nog 42 wijken met meer dan 50% aan sociale woningbouw. Ook zijn er nog steeds gebieden in de stad met een lage score op de veiligheidsindex, vooral in het centrum en in Rotterdam Zuid. Aangezien deze elementen door ongeveer 90% van de elite als belangrijk genoemd worden, ze consequent zijn terug te vinden in de TOP5 prioriteitenstelling en nog veel ruimte voor verbetering hebben, dienen deze elementen prioriteit te krijgen. De beslissing van de gemeente Rotterdam om entertainment, cultuur en consumptie gerelateerde voorzieningen meer te clusteren in het centrum van de stad lijkt een goede strategie. De elite in het centrumstedelijke gebied noemt deze voorzieningen significant vaker als belangrijk in de directe omgeving van de woning. Het is de vraag in hoeverre de gemeente Rotterdam de bevolkingsstroom kan sturen of beïnvloeden. De beslissing om ergens te gaan wonen is immers afhankelijk van diverse factoren en verhuismotieven.

2

Zanden, W.v.d., Dujardin, M (2010) Komen en gaan, selectieve migratie in Rotterdam in 2009, Rotterdam, Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS),p.55


xvii

In 2009 is door het COS onderzoek gedaan naar de verschillende verhuismotieven onder Rotterdammers; die de stad verlaten hebben, die zich in de stad gevestigd hebben of binnen de gemeentegrenzen verhuisd zijn. Uit deze studie blijkt dat het meest genoemde verhuismotief onder midden en hoge inkomens huwelijk en samenwonen is (30%) of vanwege werk (30%). Ongeveer 25% gaf zonder verdere toelichting aan uit Rotterdam weg te willen en 20% gaf aan dichter bij familie en vrienden te willen wonen. Ook zijn er een aantal die vanwege studie verhuizen of terug willen naar hun geboortegrond. Allemaal aspecten waar de gemeente niet of nauwelijks invloed op heeft. Er zijn ook een aantal elementen waar de gemeente wel grip op heeft. Er zijn mensen die vanwege gezinsuitbreiding een groter huis zoeken, mensen die graag zelfstandig willen wonen, die verhuizen vanwege ontevredenheid met hun vorige woning of woonomgeving of die hun woning uit moesten. Allemaal elementen die over een fysieke component beschikken en dus beïnvloedbaar zijn. Gezinsuitbreiding (17%), de vorige buurt / omgeving (22%) en de vorige woning (18%) worden door ongeveer een vijfde van de vertrekkers genoemd, daarnaast worden deze verhuismotieven ook vaker genoemd door vertrekkers met midden en hoge inkomens dan door vertrekkers met een laag inkomen. Tabel S5: Totaal genoemde algemene verhuismotieven (Komen en gaan 2009, p.44).

Deze percentages laten zien dat er een behoorlijke groep elite is (+/- een vijfde), die Rotterdam verlaat vanwege ontevredenheid met hun woning of woonomgeving. Een groep elite die voor de stad behouden kan worden door het faciliteren van de juiste woningen en omgeving. Daarnaast heeft dit onderzoek aangetoond dat leisurevoorzieningen ook een rol van betekenis spelen, met name voor de hoger opgeleiden die in het centrum van de stad willen wonen.


xviii

1. Introduction 1.1

Background

When you visit a large city in the Netherlands, you will find an old (historical) town centre which refers back to its history. Rotterdam is a middle-aged city, however if you would visit this city right now, you would not call it a historical city. There are just a few old buildings left, that remind to its history, like for example the Laurenskerk. This makes the city of Rotterdam an exceptional city in comparison with other middle-aged cities like for example Amsterdam and Utrecht. Rotterdam has struggled with some large scale issues and events, that have had a major impact on its current form. Aspects like the international port function with its industry, the bombardment of the inner city during the second world war (WO2), the period of reconstruction after the WO2 and the rising service and knowledge economy (see also chapter 4). The municipality has played a central role in this process. She managed the city by providing reconstruction plans, making policy and providing a strategy for future developments. Recently, in the year 2007, the municipality of Rotterdam has published a general vision for 2030 called „Stadsvisie Rotterdam‟, which also contains a spatial development strategy. In this vision the following ambition is described by the alderman of housing and spatial planning H. Karakus. “Rotterdam mainport: een stad van grote betekenis. Toch is die betekenis niet vanzelfsprekend. Willen we de positie van Rotterdam als mainport behouden en versterken, dan moeten we blijven bouwen aan een sterke economie en een aantrekkelijke woonstad. Samen werken we eraan dat Rotterdam in 2030 op het gebied van kennis en innovatie de belangrijkste havenstad van Europa is. Een aantrekkelijke en geliefde stad, waar jong en oud, student, starter en gezin graag wonen”.3 [Rotterdam mainport: a city of importance. However this importance shouldn‟t be taken for granted. If we want to keep and strengthen the position of Rotterdam as mainport, than we must keep working on a strong economy and an attractive residential city. Together we can make Rotterdam the most important mainport of Europe in the field of service and innovation in 2030. An attractive residential city in which young and old, student, starter and family would like to settle].4 In this vision is explicitly mentioned that retaining the inhabitants is very important for the future of Rotterdam, especially the higher educated inhabitants. Karakus mentions “Een hoogopgeleide beroepsbevolking met veel „kenniswerkers‟ is essentieel. Kenniswerkers zijn nodig om de economie te versterken; de moderne

3

Gemeente Rotterdam (2007) Stadsvisie Rotterdam: ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam, p.28-29. 4 My own translation from Dutch to English, further translations will be shown between square brackets [.....]


1

economie is tenslotte een kenniseconomie”.5 [A highly educated workforce with a lot of knowledge workers is essential. Knowledge workers are needed to strengthen the economy; the modern economy is after all a knowledge economy]. It‟s clear that the municipality is focussing on retaining higher educated inhabitants, however recent statistics (CBS) show a disturbing trend concerning this aspect. Statistics (CBS, 1994–2007) are showing an outflow of native Dutch inhabitants from middle and high income. This outflow has mostly been compensated by inflow of foreigners from outside the Netherlands (figure 1.1), which have on average a low income. It becomes clear that the low-income households are moving into the city (mostly lower educated) and that the middle and high income households are moving out of the city6. This phenomenon is called “negative selective migration”. 8000 Total migration balance

6000 4000 2000

Native Dutch migration balance (CBS)

0 -2000 -4000

Migration balance of foreigners (CBS)

-6000 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Figure 1.1: Migration balance in Rotterdam (CBS-bevolkingsstatistiek)

Studies on negative selective migration show that the situation has improved in the last years. In comparison with 2006 the selective migration in 2009 of people moving into the city decreased from 3,9% to 3,6%. The selective migration of people leaving the city decreased from 9,7% in towards 7,0% in.7 Although the situation seems to be improving slowly, there is still a negative selective migration to be expected for the coming years. This phenomenon has also been recognized by the municipality of Rotterdam and been incorporated in the municipal plans. In the future vision the municipality describes as main objective: “Samenvattend stellen we dat Rotterdam als onderdeel van de Randstad een strategie moet volgen die zich enerzijds richt op de ontwikkeling van de kennis- en diensteneconomie en anderzijds op een aantrekkelijk woon- en leefklimaat voor hoogopgeleide, creatieve werkers en de midden en hoge inkomens. Deze strategie is nodig om een rol van betekenis te

5

Gemeente Rotterdam (2007) Stadsvisie Rotterdam: ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam, p.28-29 6 Zanden, W.v.d., Dujardin, M (2008) Komen en gaan, selectieve migratie in Rotterdam in 2006, Rotterdam, Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS),p.22 7 Zanden, W.v.d., Dujardin, M (2010) Komen en gaan, selectieve migratie in Rotterdam in 2009, Rotterdam, Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS),p.10


2

blijven spelen in de internationale concurrentiestrijd tussen de stedelijke regio‟s”8. [Summarizing we state that Rotterdam as part of the Randstad must follow a strategy that focus on knowledge and services but also on providing a living- and social climate for highly educated-, creative workers and for middle and high incomes. This strategy is necessary to remain a role in the international competition of urban agglomerations] Rotterdam has the ambition to take part in the new (global) economy, and is shifting from a labour/industry focused city towards a cultural city with a strong knowledge, creative and services based economy. To do so, it needs an educated workforce, however as mentioned privileged inhabitants with a higher education or income are leaving the city. The municipality has anticipated on these developments and has made a vision for the future of Rotterdam. A vision with the objective to strengthen the economy and become an attractive residential city. To retain the current (elite) inhabitants.

1.2

Discussion and criticism

In their vision for 2030 the municipality mentions several aspects which are important to become an attractive residential city. Not only qualitative houses are needed but also; a pleasant environment, educational facilities, accessibility and a modern inner city with cultural and leisure facilities. These kinds of elements should create an attractive residential city according to the municipality. However there is much discussion and criticism about the implementation of this vision. The municipality has a certain budget to spend on improvements and has to set priorities, especially with the current economic crisis. Which aspects are important to retain the (educated) inhabitants of Rotterdam and which priorities should be set. A difficult question which brings up a lot of discussion. Discussion of Möring At the 19th of September of 2009 the Dutch author Marcel Möring published an article in the newspaper NRC-Handelsblad, concerning Rotterdam and its qualities. His article pronounced: “Veel festivals, maar cultuur komt op de tweede plaats” 9. [A lot of festivals, but culture comes secondly]. Möring explains that the „elite class‟ inhabitants are leaving the city and the current municipal strategy is not solving this issue. The current cultural and entertaining facilities are too superficial, more quality and content is needed. The current culture and entertainment are focussed on attracting visitors and not adding much value for the inhabitants of Rotterdam. In a debate based on his article Möring argued his statement with professionals and politicians. During this debate became clear that there are different opinions about „how to retain the educated and middle/high-income class to Rotterdam‟. Some gave priority to the housing problems, others argued about the importance of cultural facilities which would be of importance to retain the educated inhabitants. A politician, from a large Rotterdam party called „Leefbaar Rotterdam‟ stated that the 8

Gemeente Rotterdam (2007) Stadsvisie Rotterdam: ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam, p.43 9

Möring, M. (2009) Veel festivals maar cultuur komt op de tweede plaats. NRC-Handelsblad. 19 Sept. opinie & debat p.2-3


3

main priority lies in the imbalanced housing supply and that culture has less priority10. Discussion of Oosterling et. al. Oosterling has done some public research about Rotterdam and its developments and published a book about Rotterdam and its future, entitled „Rotterdam Vakmanstad (English) Rotterdam Skill city‟. Oosterling describes that based on publications like „The Creative City‟ of Charles Landry and „The rise of the creative class‟ of Richard Florida the focus in Rotterdam has shifted toward knowledge and creative industries and on attracting people with high education and income. A large part of the current population of Rotterdam is however not part of that group. In the last decades Rotterdam has „jumped‟ from a labour/industrial city towards a cultural city and a gap has come into being between the old industrial and new cultural city. According to Oosterling this gap can be closed by the concept of „skill city‟, which stimulates lower educated people to enterprise and use their skills. Concretely speaking Rotterdam Vakmanstad tries to set up locations where local business, youth and artists/designers can come together to exchange knowledge, experience and ideas. This exchange will lead to a form of cultural production that can strengthen the economic position of those involved and make the cultural process of thought creation and realization visible. The discussion of Möring and Oosterling et. al. shows that there is a lot of discussion about the implementation of the vision and also priorities are not always that clear. Does a qualitative supply of cultural facilities indeed have importance for elite class inhabitants as Möring states, or are other aspects like the housing supply more important. Also social oriented aspects mentioned by Oosterling seems to play an important role. The question raises which aspects are important in the choice to settle somewhere and if decisions have to be made, which aspects should get priority within the context of Rotterdam.

10

www.leefbaarrotterdam.nl/index.php/new/comments/het_kunstcircuit_is_verwend_met_subsidies/ [accessed 04-02-2010]


4

2. Theoretical framework This chapter contains a theoretical framework. First a description is given of literature about the attractiveness of a city and the important settlement elements for the inhabitants of a city. The theoretical framework is the foundation of the chosen variables for this research and gives input for the conceptual model and empirical part of the thesis.

2.1

An attractive city

The objective of the municipality of Rotterdam, to create an attractive residential city and retain the highly educated and creative people, shows similarities with the thesis of Richard Florida. In his thesis Florida explains that the economy is transforming, creativity will be a dominant sector in the economy of the 21st century. According to Florida a new class, „the creative class‟ is becoming the main means of production. A creative class build up out of; scientists, engineers, artists, musicians, designers and knowledge-based professionals11. Their creativity is the important resource for economic growth and this group of people will be of great importance for cities. Florida states that „jobs‟ are not a dominant aspect anymore (as previous was the case), the choice for a place to live has become more complex and is more based on the qualities of the location itself than on carrier opportunities. “Ten years ago, people were likely to ask, “Where do you work?” Today it‟s “Where do you live?” With the demise of the company-dominated life, a new kind of pecking order has developed around places. Place is becoming an important source of status.”12 According to Florida people are not following jobs, but jobs follows the people, he says: “Places have replaced companies as the key organizing units in our economy.”13 Therefore the focus should be on attracting and retaining the creative class rather than businesses. This creative class wants to „live the life‟ and have qualitative experiences in multiple ways. They have several jobs over time, attribute value to so called „third places‟ which are neither home nor work but some kind of leisure (venues like coffee shops, bookstores, cafés, etc.). They attribute value to a diverse social climate, with interaction between different kinds of people. Aspects which are summarized by Florida as „quality of place‟, which refers to the unique set of characteristics that define a place and make it attractive. A good quality of place will attract creative people to the area, which on their part will lead to creative and productive activities. Three dimensions are mentioned in relation to quality of space:  What‟s there: the combination of the build environment and the natural environment; a proper setting for pursuit of creative lives.  Who‟s there: the diverse kinds of people, interacting and providing cues that anyone can plug into and make a life in that community.

11

Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creative class : and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life, New York, NY, Basic Books, p.xiii 12 Idem, p.230 13 Idem, p.30


5



What‟s going on: the vibrancy of street life, café culture, arts, music and people engaging in outdoor activities – altogether a lot of active, exciting, creative endeavours.14

According to Florida a cities need the 3T‟s of economic development: Technology, Talent and Tolerance. These aspects are crucial to the economic performance of a city. “To attract creative people, generate innovation and stimulate economic growth, a place must have all three.”15 Florida uses several indicators to measure these 3T‟s, like for example the gay-index, the bohemian-index and high-tech index. As Kooijman and Romein (2007) describe, Florida has provoked a very lively debate on the „creative city‟ in the Netherlands, as in other countries. A debate that not only takes place among academics, but also among a much broader range of actors, including policy-makers, politicians, private business associations, educational institutes, local artists, and protest groups. In their study about the creative city concept in municipal policies, they describe that Rotterdam focuses on creative production. The vision of Rotterdam has clear economical roots and the consumption-oriented policy clearly reflects an entrepreneurial approach. A strategy that focuses largely on the leisure industry. The Rotterdam Development Corporation (OBR) has made a vision for the leisure and entertainment sector in the city. This vision pronounced „De stad als belevenis‟ (English) „experiencing the city‟, and contains different locations with leisure themes (like shopping, architecture, sports, port, culture, etc.). With this vision the OBR tried to persuade entrepreneurs to invest in the city (Gemeente Rotterdam, OBR, 2004). As Kooijman and Romein describe; “Like Utrecht, Rotterdam, explicitly aspires to strengthen its leisure economy, and acknowledges the importance of large consumption projects in area development programmes. Indeed, the building, extension, and renovation of sports facilities, multiplex cinemas, theatres and museums have been features of urban policy since the 1970s. Furthermore, Rotterdam places significant emphasis on large-scale, outdoor summer festivals. In 2005, Rotterdam won the „National Festival City of the Year‟ award for the second time. More explicitly than Amsterdam, and in a more elaborate manner than Utrecht, Rotterdam has developed a policy that focuses directly on encouraging creative production”.......”Like Utrecht, Rotterdam, explicitly aspires to strengthen its leisure economy, and acknowledges the importance of large consumption projects in area development programmes. Indeed, the building, extension, and renovation of sports facilities, multiplex cinemas, theatres and museums have been features of urban policy since the 1970s. Furthermore, Rotterdam places significant emphasis on large-scale, outdoor summer festivals. In 2005, Rotterdam won the „National Festival City of the Year‟ award for the second time.”16

14

Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creative class : and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life, New York, NY, Basic Books, p.232 15 Idem, p.249 16

Kooijman, D., Romein, A. (2007) The limited potential of the creative city concept: policy practices in four Dutch cities, Delft, TUDelft, p.22, [online] Available at: www.repository.tudelft.nl


6

As Florida describes there are three dimensions of quality of space; what‟s there, who‟s there and what‟s going on. Although some examples are given, it‟s not so clear which specific elements are needed to strengthen a cities attractiveness. Therefore also the studies of van den Berg et. al. (1999) and Karsten (2007) are used to give more insight in this area. Like Florida, Van den Berg et al. (1999) describe that work has become less important in the settlement motives of residents, he states: “As in earlier days the workers moved to the factories, things are now reversed. Now, high-grade activities preferably settle in zones that satisfy the high requirements of employees as to the level of services and a pleasant living environment”.17 He also describes that „soft‟ location factors are becoming more important than traditional „hard‟ ones. Soft qualities like for example the quality of life, the diversity and quality of cultural and leisure services and the status of a given location. In his thesis about „the attractive city‟ accessibility is important, van den Berg et. al. explains: “The city is in fact a collection of locations.......Not the quality of one given location (a house, a business building or an hotel) is decisive so much as the quality and accessibility of (urban) provisions”.18 He mentions that the attraction of a certain location depends on several aspects which differ per target group (residents, companies or tourists). For residents the following aspects are mentioned: affordable dwellings, a clean and safe environment, employment, educative-, health-, relaxation-, religion-, shopping and cultural facilities and social security.19 According to Van den Berg et al. the decision for a place to live would also be based on services in the direct environment. He states “the increased prosperity allows people to make ever higher demands on their dwellings, but also on the services in the immediate environment”.20 Where Florida and Van den Berg et al. have done studies on a large scale, Lia Karsten has studied on a detailed scale level. Karsten has interviewed middleincome families that were living in Rotterdam and asked why they stayed in the city while many other middle-income families have left. Her study showed that closeness to facilities and work, and the social relations they had build up in the neighbourhood are important aspect that made those people stay in the city. She describes; “Although proximity to work was the primary reason that families mentioned for not moving out of the city, work-related issues were not the only reasons mentioned. Many respondents made it clear that they enjoyed living close to a broad range of urban cultural facilities. They perceived the possibility to visit these facilities by cycle as a luxury ........ Families also stressed the advantages of

17

Van den Berg, L., Van der Meer, J., Otgaar, A. (1999) The attractive city: catalyst of sustainable urban development, Rotterdam, European Institute for Comparative Urban Research (EURICUR), p. 9 18 Idem, p.9 19 20

Idem, p.8 Idem, p.8


7

living close to children‟s facilities such as schools, children‟s leisure clubs, the swimming pool, the library and so forth”.21 Karsten concludes that the scarcity of time in the lives of this families makes them vulnerable to problems of distance and accessibility, therefore space and time restrictions are placed high on the agenda. Proximity of work and facilities for themselves and their children is important.22 Rotterdam seems to make work of their ambition to create a strong economy and an attractive residential city. As mentioned above the city tries to strengthen their creative production and uses leisure facilities to increase the attractiveness of the city. However does this emphasis on leisure improve the attractiveness for residents? The described literature mentions several elements which are important for the attractiveness of the city. Leisure is one of these elements, but how important is leisure in relation to the other elements?

2.2

Overview of elements

Based upon the theses of Florida (2002) van den Berg et. al. (1999) and Karsten (2007) an overview has been made of elements that play a role in the attractiveness of a city. These elements are used as foundation to investigate the aspects that are important in the settlement choices of educated inhabitants in Rotterdam. Florida (2002)

Van den Berg et. al. (1999)

Karsten (2007)

1. diversity (of people) 2. amenities, liveness and culture 3. identity (image)

1. affordable houses 2. living environment / natural surroundings 3. Services related to education, culture, health, relaxation, shopping, religion 4. social security

1. house type 2. current population and ethnicity groups 3. facilities (education, leisure, retail)

5. accessibility

5. spatial quality

6. employment

6. safety (Child friendly) 7. accessibility (closeness) 8. identity / Solidarity (feeling connected to city)

4. „third places‟ (for social interaction) 5. authenticity and uniqueness

4. social networks

Table 2.1: Overview of elements

21

Karsten, L (2007) „Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middle-class families‟ Preference for an urban residential location, Housing Studies, 22:1, p.89 22 Karsten, L (2007) „Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middle-class families‟ Preference for an urban residential location, Housing Studies, 22:1, p.95


8

In the table on the right the elements mentioned by the municipality of Rotterdam are shown. There are some differences with those from the three theses above. - Florida mentions diversity of people and also Karsten mentions the population as element. - All mentions leisure facilities, however Florida focuses on a specific kind of leisure. On „third places‟ where interaction takes place. These third places are smallscale facilities like coffee shops, bookstores, cafés, etc. - Van den Berg et. al. adds employment. - Florida mentions authenticity and uniqueness, an element that refers to the history of a place. This could be historical buildings, established neighbourhoods and specific cultural attributes.

Municapality of Rotterdam (2007)23 1. type and size of the houses 2. surroundings / Environment 3. precense and quality of educational, sport and play facilities 4. nearby shops 5. spatial quality 6. social safety 7. accessibility 8. image of the neighbourhood Table 2.2: Overview of elements

23

Gemeente Rotterdam (2007) Stadsvisie Rotterdam: ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam, p. 60-61


9

3. Research framework The research framework consists out of the problem description, the research questions which has to be answered, the research methodology and reading instructions for this report.

3.1

Problem description

Florida (2002) has revived the discussion about the importance of creative and educated people in the society. The municipality of Rotterdam has recognized that an educated and creative workforce is important for the city and tries to attract and retain this target group. However as mentioned in the introduction the city still suffers from a negative selective migration, there is an outflow of educated and privileged inhabitants. The municipality has created a vision that focuses on strengthening the economy and attractiveness of the city. By increasing the attractiveness the educated and privileged inhabitants should be retained. Several actions are taken to increase the attractiveness of the city. As Kooijman and Romein (2007) describe, Rotterdam has put emphasis on leisure facilities. This leisure seems to be an important aspect of Rotterdam‟s strategy. But does it indeed increase the attractiveness for the inhabitants they want to retain? From the theoretical framework becomes clear that leisure is one of the elements that plays role in the attractiveness of a city. But it isn‟t clear how important it is in relation to the other elements. Florida gives some examples of desired leisure types (cafés, culture, arts, etc.) and mentions aspects like vibrancy of street life and facilities that facilitate experiences and interaction. However no specific information is given. Must these facilities be located in the direct surroundings or is presence somewhere in the city sufficient. Rotterdam is part of the Randstad-region, an agglomeration of different cities. Within an hour you can travel from Rotterdam towards one of the other main cities. This makes a huge difference with the American cities of Florida‟s thesis, which are far off each other. In the introduction is described that the importance of the current leisure facilities for the inhabitants of Rotterdam is being criticized (see discussion of Möring). Because of the large amount of social houses (49% in 2009)24, which is a legacy of the postwar reconstruction, some argue that emphasis should be on creating decent houses. Others mention that although decent houses are still an important aspect, other aspects like culture should get priority. The question rises which elements are important to retain the „elite‟ inhabitants and which role leisure has within this.

24

COS Rotterdam, Woningvoorraad in Rotterdam naar eigendomsverhouding [online] available at: http://cos.rotterdam.nl [accessed 05 august 2010]


10

Conceptual model To create a clear view, the elements from the theoretical framework have been put into one scheme, the conceptual model. This model gives a schematic overview of the expected relations and connections, and is used to investigate the importance of the settlement factors. In the middle of the scheme the different elements from the theory are shown.25 The preferences of elements together with the possibilities on the current market will be determined for the settlement choice.

Elite class

Characteristics (cultural background, age, education, work / income, household)

Functional

Physical

Social

Accessibility (of work, social relations and facilities)

House quality

Social relationships

Quality of the environment / surroundings Facilities (leisure, health, educational, retail)

Economical Employment

Current population of district Social safety

Image of neighborhood

Elements

Supply and conditions market

Settlement choice Figure 3.1: Conceptual model

25

Only the aspect of „authenticity and uniqueness‟ has been left out of the scheme, because this element is aimed at the city as an whole.


11

3.2

Problem statement

As described by Florida (2002), van den Berg et. al. (1999) and Karsten (2007) there are several aspects that are important to create an attractive residential place where people wants to settle. The municipality of Rotterdam seems to puts emphasis on leisure, to increase the attractiveness of the city, and also literature gives importance to leisure as element of attractiveness. Is leisure indeed an important element in the settlement choice of people or has other elements more priority? And which kind of leisure is desired in the direct surroundings? Therefore the objective is to: to gain insight in the different elements that plays a role as settlement motive under high educated inhabitants (elites) in or near the city of Rotterdam and find out which role leisure has within these aspects. Also to find out which kind of leisure is desired in the direct surroundings. Research questions The main question which has to be answered. Which role has leisure within the different settlement elements for elites in Rotterdam, and which leisure is desired in the direct surroundings of their homes? General hypothesis There are several sources suggesting that leisure is an important settlement factor this elite class. Therefore the general hypothesis in this research is: Leisure is an important element to retain the elites of Rotterdam.

3.3

Research questions

To answer the main question and the general hypothesis the following questions have to be answered. 1. What important developments took place in the history of Rotterdam, that have led to the current city of today? To understand the current decisions that are made in Rotterdam, it‟s important to know the history of the city. Especially because this thesis is written in English en could be read by someone who‟s not familiar with Rotterdam and its context. 2. What are the current characteristics of Rotterdam and how is it performing in comparison to the other main cities in the Netherlands? This question will give insight in the current performance of the city on the aspects: the economy, the population, the labour force, the safety, the facilities, the housing market, the environment and accessibility. 3. What is the participation, consumption behaviour and appreciation of the elites in relation with the current leisure of Rotterdam? Based on statistics of the municipality a description is given of these aspects.


12

*The first two aspects will be worked out by explorative research. The questions are related to literature and statistics. 4. Which elements are important as settlement factor for elites? And which role has leisure within these aspects? The elements represented in the conceptual model are questioned on the elite class inhabitants. This will give insight about the importance of all elements. **The third question will be answered by both explorative research (literature) and surveys. The gained information from the literature is used for the conceptual model and problem statement, and can be found back in the theoretical framework. Later this theoretical knowledge is tested by a survey on the elite class in the Rotterdam region. This will give information about the importance of elements to the inhabitants of Rotterdam. More specific questions about different kinds of leisure in relation to the environment will give more detailed insight. 5. Are there priorities between the different elements? The elite class inhabitants will be asked to set priorities between the elements that are important to them. 6. Are there any differences in use between elite class inhabitants with different characteristics? Comparison between different characteristics of the elites from the surveys. Can the importance of leisure be explained by different characteristics? *** The last research questions will be answered by analysis of the surveys

3.4

Demarcations

Some definitions are needed before continuing this thesis, below a definition is given of both „leisure‟ and „the elite class of Rotterdam‟. Leisure There are different definitions of leisure, for this thesis the definition of Mommaas (2000) will be used. Mommaas has divided leisure in the following categories:26  Horeca (bars, restaurants, discothèques, etc)  Art and culture  Sport  Amusement and recreation  Leisure combined with retail; The elite class of Rotterdam Florida describes his creative class, which includes; scientists, engineers, artists, musicians, designers and knowledge-based professionals.27 However as Kooijman 26

Mommaas, J.T., Heuvel, M.C.M. van den, & Knulst, W.P. (2000). De vrijetijdsindustrie in Stad en Land; een Studie naar de Markt van Belevenissen. Den Haag: SdU Uitgevers. P.183-190


13

and Romein describe It is extremely difficult to define who belongs to the „creative class‟ and who does not28. Although the municipality has also mentioned the creative class, there is no definition given of this class. Also the municipality of Rotterdam is aiming at a broader target group. Not only on creative‟s but all higher educated people and people with a higher income. Therefore the following definition will be used for the „elite class‟. The elite class: People with at least a bachelor degree (people who finished a Dutch HBOschool or a bachelor at an university).

3.5

Research methodology

To answer the research questions and test the general hypothesis two methods are used. Firstly explorative research based on literature and statistics. Secondly, empirical research by a survey under elites class inhabitants in Rotterdam: - Literature research; the first three research questions will be answered with literature and can be found back in the chapters 4, 5 and 6. - Empirical research; the elements from the theoretical framework will be tested by a survey under elite class inhabitants in Rotterdam. Empirical research As described before, some questions will be answered by surveys on the elite class inhabitants of Rotterdam. The choice of the samples is based on the desired living environments of the vision from the municipality of Rotterdam (figure 3.2). These living environments have different characteristics. - The red zone or so called „centrum stedelijk woonmilieu‟ (English) „central urban area‟ is characterized by high density of houses, high concentration of facilities, and vibrant street scene. The main target groups are dynamic 1- or 2- person households, students, starters and seniors. - The orange zone or so called „rustig stedelijk woonmilieu‟ (English) „serene urban area‟ also has a high concentration of facilities, but is less crowded and has more ground bounded houses. The area is meant for all types of households - The green zone or so called „groen stedelijk woonmilieu‟ (English) „green urban area‟ only supplies the basic facilities and is meant as more quiet living location with a lot of owner occupied houses and gardens. This type of living area has similar characteristics with suburban places.

27

Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creative class : and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life, New York, NY, Basic Books, p.xiii 28 Kooijman, D., Romein, A. (2007) The limited potential of the creative city concept: policy practices in four Dutch cities, Delft, TUDelft, p.35, [online] Available at: www.repository.tudelft.nl


14

2

3 1

Figure 3.2: Overview of desired living environments of the municipality and of survey locations (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2007, p.66).

A stratified sample is drawn from inhabitants of this 3 different zones, drawn from the „gemeentelijke basis administratie‟ [municipal basic administration]. From each area some neighbourhoods are chosen and from each neighbourhood 750 households are invited to participate in this investigation. The selection of the 750 households is based on the real estate value. All respondents are living in a house with a value above € 250.000. This is done to increase the chance to reach elite class inhabitants.29 The survey is drawn by means of an internet survey. All participants have received a letter with a brief explanation and a personal password for the survey. In consideration with the research department of the municipality of Rotterdam the following areas are selected (see stars in figure above): (1) Central urban area: the Kop van Zuid area. (2) Serene urban area: Hillegersberg-Zuid and Blijdorp area (3) Green urban area: the Prinsenland and s‟Gravenland area Besides the surveys in the 3 zones, also people from some organisations in Rotterdam are approached to participate.30 People from the following organisations are approached to participate: - Ortec-Finance (about 100 people) 29

There is no information available about the educational level of the inhabitants of Rotterdam, the assumption is made that „most elites will live in prosperous houses‟. 30 The selection of these companies is based on personal connections, via personal connections it became possible to hold the surveys.


15

-

Eneco Rotterdam (about 30 people) Heijmans Rotterdam (about 30 people) Hogeschool Rotterdam Academieplein, department of architecture (about 20 people). A link with the internet address of the survey has been spread by the secretariat of the organisations. No personal passwords have been added to this survey. A third method is used to reach elite class inhabitants in Rotterdam. An invitation is placed on the group „Rotterdam is top‟ on the (professional) social network of LinkedIn. By this method its unclear how many people will be approached, a response analysis isn‟t possible. The second and especially the third method could give a diverse response. Therefore the three different methods have been used separately, so that separation is easily if any issues occur. Statistical analysis The results of the surveys will be analyses with the program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). This program contains several kinds of analysis, with all their own terms and restrictions. To avoid confusion, in the part below the analyses which are used (with their way of describing) are briefly explained. (Pearson) Chi-square test: The chi-square test is used to determine whether there is a significant difference between the frequencies in one or more categories. This test needs adequate sample sizes (at least 10). The results of this test will be described as: Chi-square, measure of freedom, significance  X² (df)=.....,P< 0.05 Fisher's exact test This test will be used if sample sizes are small (instead of chi-square). The results of this test will be described as: Chi-square, measure of freedom, significance  X² (df)=.....,P< 0.05 Kruskal-Wallis-test: This is a non-parametric method for testing equality of population medians among groups. It is identical to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the data replaced by their ranks. The results of this test will be described as: Chi-square, measure of freedom, significance  H(df)=....., P< 0.05 Logistic regression: Is used for prediction of the probability of occurrence of an event by fitting data. It is a regression with an outcome variable that is a categorical dichotomy and predictor variables that are continuous or categorical. The results of this test will be described with a table of the model. The following parameter will be shown: - Nagelkerke R² of the model - The ODDS Ratio (Exp (B)) and 95% CI - The significance: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.


16

3.6

Read instructions

Below a brief description is given of the framework of this report. The first three chapters contain information about the problem, the research questions and the used methods to answer these questions. Chapter 4 contains a brief description of main development in the history of Rotterdam. Chapter 5 describes some important characteristics and shows the performance of Rotterdam in comparison to other Dutch cities. These chapters could clarify a lot of the current problems and context of Rotterdam. Especially people who are not familiar with Rotterdam or its history should read these chapters. Chapter 6 focuses on the developments in leisure time and consumption behaviour. It describes the available leisure time, leisure activities and consumption. Chapter 7 describes the results from the surveys. In this chapter is shown which elements are important to the elite class inhabitants of Rotterdam and which priorities they have. Also an overview is given of the desired leisure in the direct surroundings. Chapter 8 shows the conclusions and recommendations. The research questions are answered and reflections are made.

Research framework

Introduction

Literature

Practical research

Development Rotterdam

Settlement and leisure preferences

Theoretical framework

Status Quo

Research framework

Leisure and consumption behaviour

Conclusions

Conclusions

(results of the survey)

Figure 3.3: Overview of the structure of this thesis.


17

4. Development of Rotterdam This chapter describes the history and main developments of Rotterdam in the previous centuries. Rotterdam is a exceptional city in the Dutch history of urban development and has struggled with some large scale issues and events, which have had a major impact on its current form. The development from a middle-aged city toward a modern international seaport will be described briefly in this chapter. Also a brief overview is given of the current municipal plans.

4.1

History of Rotterdam

About the year 1270 the first protective dikes and dams were built along the stream the Rotte. This is where the city gains it‟s name, a dam on the Rotte or „Rotterdam‟. Some years later, at 7 June 1340, the city granted city rights given by Count Willem IV. At this time Rotterdam was just a little city with a low amount of inhabitants. In 1350 the shipping canal „Rotterdamse Schie‟ was completed, which resulted in shipping traffic between the (larger) cities Delft and Dordrecht31. The city grows slowly in the 15th and 16th century, fishing (herring) and trade becomes more important. New harbours have to be build to support the increasing harbour activities. Rotterdam becomes a transhipment centre between Holland, England, Germany and France. In 1572 the city becomes a strategic point in the revolt of Willem van Oranje (later; Prince of Orange) against the Spanish domination. The threat of a Spanish assault on the city has led to the decision to fortify the city. New canals and city walls are build to defend the harbours and strengthen the military position32.

Figure 4.1: City expansion in 1575 – 1593 (left) and expansion in 1593 – 1595 (right). (Laar & Jaarsfeld, 2004, p.21).

In the 17th century around the year 1600 the first (large) harbour expansions take place (figure 4.2). The amount of inhabitants increases towards about 30.000 in

31

Laar, P. van de, Jaarsveld, M. van, (2004). Historische atlas van Rotterdam: De groei van de stad in beeld. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij SUN, p.10-15. 32 Idem, p.16- 21


18

1650 and Rotterdam becomes larger than its neighbours Delft, Dordrecht and Gouda. The port of Rotterdam becomes one of the six port cities of the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC), the Dutch East India Company. Around 1700 the city has grown and become the second largest city of the Netherlands with about 50.000 inhabitants.

th

Figure 4.2: City expansion in the 17 century (Laar & Jaarsfeld, 2004, p.22).

In the 17th century, the military defence was important because of the war with Spain, and therefore walls and canals were needed. In the 18th century the military defence became less important and because of the growth the city had to expand. The growth of inhabitants had let to a dense city and expansion inside this city walls was not possible anymore. Industrial (shipbuilding) functions were relocated to areas outside the city to create more space for living. During the 18th century the appearance of Rotterdam improves. The Boompjes area becomes a central meeting place in Rotterdam and the elite class inhabitants moves from the crowded inner city towards this Boompjes area. A lot of houses and public space is being beautified. A lot of manor houses and merchant‟s houses are build, like you will see nowadays in the city of Amsterdam.

th

Figure 4.3: Example of houses in 18 century (Laar & Jaarsfeld, 2004, p.27)


19

4.2

Rotterdam in the 19th century

Halfway the 19th century there are some large scale changes in the Dutch society. The industrial and demographic revolution begins to affect the cities in the Netherlands. “De industriële revoluties brachten het stoomgemaal, het stoomschip en de ijzeren spoorweg, gevolgd door de elektriciteit, de telegraaf, de telefoon en de chemische industrie. De demograﬁsche revolutie werd veroorzaakt door de verbetering van de hygiëne”. 33 [The industrial revolution brought the steam(-driven) pumping station and the railway, followed by electricity, the telegraph, the phone and the chemical industry. The demographic revolution was caused by improvements in hygiene.] This was also the case in Rotterdam. In the year 1850 the amount of population has increased to 90.000 inhabitants, Rotterdam has become a dense and unhealthy city. Most of the people didn‟t have fresh water and had to use the water from the city canals, which were also used as open sewer and garbage dump. Because of a cholera epidemic in 1854, the municipality decided to improve the quality of life inside the city. Extra canals were made to improve the water system in the city, the so called „Waterproject‟. In the same period a new railway has been build, to connect Rotterdam with Amsterdam and Antwerp (Belgium). The municipality was forced by the local government to locate the railways straight through the city, an intervention that changed the appearance of the inner city (see figure below). The inner city has changed, with the growth and expansion, to a centre for the whole city. Some large retail functions settle themselves in the inner city area.

Figure 4.4: The new Railway in the city centre of Rotterdam, about 1880 (Laar & Jaarsfeld, 2004, p.33).

33

Cammen, H. van der, Klerk, L. de (2003). Ruimtelijke ordening: Van grachtengordel tot vinex-wijk. Utrecht, Uitgeverij Het Spectrum, p.125


20

New legislation The unhealthy situation and the cholera epidemics together with the growth of inhabitants have led to more attention for the quality of the general housing accommodation. In 1896 the publication „Het vraagstuk der volkshuisvesting‟ [the problems of public housing] is published in which Drucker, Greven and Kruseman assigns the amount of slums and shortage of houses as the main problem. In 1901 the Housing act comes into force, which provides constrains for houses and leads to some improvement. The Housing act forces municipalities to take measures in the housing supply and by that has consequences for the whole city. However this legislation makes it only possible to regulate the squares, roads and canals. Other areas cannot be regulated by this act. Some years later in 1908 the law is extended by minister Heemskerk with extra regulation, which makes it possible to put constrains on every kind of land34.

4.3

The World Sea Port Rotterdam

The greatest spurt of growth, both in port activity and population, followed the completion of the Nieuwe Waterweg (English) New Water Canal, in 1872. This new canal reduced the distance towards sea to with 30 km, and should made the Rotterdam harbours accessible for large ocean-going vessels. However the first decades this intervention wasn‟t successful. The new water cannel wasn‟t deep enough for large vessels and the cannel was flooded with mud. In 1889 orders were given to dredge out the cannel, and the new water cannel became accessible for vessels with draught of 7 meter.

Figure 4.5: Overview of Rotterdam in 1850 before the new water canal (above) and in 1890 with the new water canal (under) (www.mapsplusmotion.nl, accessed 08-09-2010)

34

Cammen, H. van der, Klerk, L. de (2003). Ruimtelijke ordening: Van grachtengordel tot vinex-wijk. Utrecht, Uitgeverij Het Spectrum, p.87- 92


21

The new harbours and industry attract a lot of workers and bourgeois, trading and exchange of goods with other (sea) ports starts to increase. Because of an agricultural-crisis and the growing importance of the industrial sector, county areas in the Netherlands depopulated. Farmers and other rural inhabitants moved to the city looking for a job and the amount of inhabitants of Rotterdam increases drastically. The municipality decides to expand the city, new industries and harbours must be build to fulfil the increasing demands. This expansion should be located at the south side of the River, in the so called Feijenoord area. Soon it became clear that the new harbours in Feijenoord were insufficient, more harbours had to be build. In 1879 the director from the department of public works (G.J. de Jongh) decided to use a different design for the new to build harbours. The harbours should be larger and be free accessible for ocean vessels. Old villages and polders are being replaced by three new harbours; the Rijnhaven (1887 – 1893), the Maashaven (1898 - 1905) and the Waalhaven (1906 – 1931).

Figure 4.6: Overview of Rotterdam in 1910 (above) and in 1935 (under), (www.mapsplusmotion.nl, accessed 08-09-2010).

In the figure above, the new harbours are clearly visible. The port function starts to gain a dominant role in the layout of the city of Rotterdam. Because of the new industries and harbours the employment increases and a lot of new residents settle themselves in Rotterdam. The trade of goods and passenger travel between Rotterdam and other international cities increases. The municipality continues the annexation of the surrounding villages, and increased the amount of houses to satisfy the housing needs of its new inhabitants. The increasing population and improved economic situation led to a higher demand for traffic and transportation, which leaves its mark on the infrastructure of the city. Also the southern area, below the river, has become a large residential district with a lot of houses.


22

Influence of CIAM on urban town planning. Between 1920 and 1945 urban town planning developed from an intuitive design process to a more scientific based process. “De opkomst van het praktisch sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek vormde een stimulans tot wetenschappelijke onderbouwing van plannen. Toepassing van economische, geograﬁsche en sociologische inzichten vond in de jaren dertig zijn weg in streekplannen en stedelijke uitbreidingsplannen. Het hoogtepunt daarvan was het Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan voor de gemeente Amsterdam van 1934”35 [The emerging practical social-scientific research stimulated to scientific based planning. In the thirties the use of economic, geographic and sociologic views settled down in regional planning and urban development planning. With as highlight the general development plan of Amsterdam in 1934.] The AUP was based on the fundamentals of the „functional city‟ of CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d‟Architecture Moderne)36. An important principle in this concept is the separation of functions. The CIAM has a large impact on the urban development and is the basis of Figure 4.7: Dutch poster of the 1933 Athens modern town planning. Charter (Cammen et.al, 2003, p139).

4.4

Consequences of the WOII

In 1940, just before the war with Germany there lived about 600.000 inhabitants in the city of Rotterdam, twice as much as in 1900. The Second World War (WOII) had begun and Adolf Hitler had hoped to conquer the Netherlands in just one day. However his forces met unexpectedly fierce resistance. This led to the plan to bombard the city of Rotterdam and threatening to bomb other Dutch cities if capitulation was refused. On the 14th of May in 1940 the Germans hold an aerial bombardment on Rotterdam. The objective was to break the Dutch resistance, and force the Dutch to surrender. In about 10 minutes the German air force demolished the city centre of Rotterdam. About 850 people were killed and 25.000 houses and 11.000 other buildings were demolished. A huge fire burned about 258 hectare of the city, buildings that survived the bombardment still got demolished by this fire.37

35

Cammen, H. van der, Klerk, L. de (2003). Ruimtelijke ordening: Van grachtengordel tot vinex-wijk. Utrecht, Uitgeverij Het Spectrum, p.125 36 The CIAM was founded in 1928 by the architects LE Corbusier and Siegfried Giedion in La Sarraz. 37 Laar, P. van de, Jaarsveld, M. van, (2004). Historische atlas van Rotterdam: De groei van de stad in beeld. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij SUN, p.55-57.


23

Figure 4.8: Rotterdam after the bombardment of 1940 (wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz, accessed 13-07-2010).

About 80.000 people lost their homes and about 5 million cubic metre of rubbish had to be cleaned. The municipality decided to expropriate the demolished land and make a new reconstruction plan. On 18 may 1940 the municipality of Rotterdam assigned the city developer W.G. Witteveen with the task to make a reconstruction plan. His reconstruction plan was based on the pre-war ideas and studies, however received a lot of criticism from modern architects. In 1944 he went on sick leave and his assistant Cornelis van Traa took his position. Inspired by modernistic views of the CIAM Traa adapted the plans and made a clear distinctions between function and architecture. He made a land-use-plan that was based on the functions of traffic, work, houses and recreation. No specific constrains were given for the architectural appearance of the buildings. In his plans Traa used the (historical) city canals as dump for the rubbish of demolished buildings38. The city centre was used as central point for most of the urban economic facilities and the shortage of houses had to be solved fast; “Wil men de achterstand in tien jaar inhalen (...) dan zullen er jaarlijks 65.000 tot 70.000 stuks moeten verrijzen” 39 [If we want to catch up about 65.000 to 70.000 houses has to be build yearly] premier Schermerhorn said in a radiobroadcast after the liberation. A period of reconstruction had begun in which a lot of houses had to be build for all the people who lost their houses during WOII. 38

Laar, P. van de, Jaarsveld, M. van, (2004). Historische atlas van Rotterdam: De groei van de stad in beeld. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij SUN, p.61 39



24

4.5

Reconstruction after WOII

During the bombardment of the WOII a lot of historical buildings have been destroyed. The buildings that survived the bombardment were hardly damaged, and almost all of them have been demolished, only the Sint-Laurenskerk en the Schielandshuis has been restored. Because of the housing shortage a mass production of houses takes place, with a focus on quantity and speed. The reconstructions are characterized by the following aspects: - Based on the functional and modern ideas (of CIAM) a distinction is made between functions - A restricted amount of houses in the city centre, the destroyed houses had to be rebuilt in new neighbourhoods (with a lot of apartment blocks). - Replacement of the city centre to the west, the Coolsingel had to become the heart of the city centre. - More space for traffic. Besides the reconstruction of the city also the destroyed harbours are repaired and expanded. The so called Botlek area is build, an industrial area with a lot of chemical industry. As visual in the figure below the industrial area (grey) and the city of Rotterdam (red) expands again.

Figure 4.9: Overview of Rotterdam in 1955 (www.mapsplusmotion.nl).

In the fifties the reconstruction is well under way and Rotterdam gains the image of „work-city‟ and the city develops as example of modernity. The architectural elaboration of the reconstruction plan has been done by architects like Van den Broek & Bakema, Maskant & Tijen, Kraaijvanger, Elffers and others. The traditional architecture transforms to more functional architecture.40 In 1953 the Lijnbaan is opened, Europe‟s first purpose-built pedestrian (shopping) street. At the same time the Euromast was build, which became a symbol for the city for some decades. Also the port related industry starts to increase, in 1962 Rotterdam becomes the world‟s busiest port. A position which is retained until 1986 (for shipping tonnage and containers) and until 2004 (for cargo tonnage). Looking at the figures below it

40

http://www.rotterdam.nl/tekst:thema_wederopbouw [accessed 14-07-2010]


25

becomes clear that industry dominates a large part of the landscape. The industry (grey area) occupies half of Rotterdam.

Figure 4.10: Overview of Rotterdam in 1965 (above) and in 1980 (under), (www.mapsplusmotion.nl).

Suburbanisation Between 1940 and 1970 the amount of inhabitants in the Netherlands increased drastically from 8,8 million to 12,9 million and also the economic situation became better. The increased prosperity, the shortage of houses and the growth of population required coherent plans on a larger scale. In 1958 the plan Randstad Holland has been made to arrange urban planning on a larger scale. Followed by the „Eerste Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Nederland (1960), a notation of the ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment in the Netherlands, and the „Tweede Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Nederland (1966). With these plans a new period of urban planning had began.41 In the sixties the growth changed from a concentrated towards a not-concentrated growth. The settlement choice of households was determined to an increasing extent by consumption elements instead of production elements. The supply of houses and the employment grow from one other. A lot of people moved from Rotterdam to the surrounding suburbs. The amount of people that commute between home and work growth from 747.000

41



26

in 1960 towards 1.616.000 in 1971, about one third of the working population.42 The city centre becomes a bad accessible place with a lot of traffic jams. In the sixties a subway is placed in Rotterdam to improve the accessibility of the city centre. Also four and six lanes wide freeways are places to open up the area. In the next years new problems emerge; the economic situation in the seventies becomes worse, a lot of companies left the (main) cities, the unemployment increases. A lot of (pre-war) city districts run down and people are leaving the cities. The CIAM (ceased to exist in 1959) devoted the last meeting to city centre and the design of public space. This leads to the rejection of the Charter of Athens (1933). Architecture and urbanism should have to integrate and give identity to the build environment. “Aldus kreeg vormgeving in dienst van de menselijke ontplooiing voorrang boven de ordening van functies op grond van statistische analyse en onderzoek…….Vanaf 1970 vond dit nieuwe gedachtegoed brede ingang. Urbaniteit werd niet langer in verband gebracht met de stad als commercieel brandpunt, maar met het stadscentrum als forum, ontmoetingsplaats”.43 [Designing in service of human development gained priority above the designing of functions based on statistical analysis and research…… From 1970 this new way of thinking established. Urbanity wasn‟t connected to the city as commercial centre anymore, but was connected to the city centre as forum, as meeting place] The city centre gains a lot of attention during this period, a lot of the people in Rotterdam aren‟t satisfied with the city. The city has modern, functional architecture which is experienced as cold and comfortless. A lot of citizens don‟t like the appearance of the city. A social psychologist named Wentholt, starts an investigation and concludes that the city lacks cosiness. The city of Rotterdam would need a better city centre, he makes the following statement: “Een stadshart gaat pas kloppen – en in die zin bestaat het pas – als het centrum zo aantrekkelijk wordt gevonden dat de bevolking, of aanzienlijke categorieën van de bevolking, er vaker komt dan functioneel strikt noodzakelijk is”. 44 [A city centre starts working – and in that way only exists – as the centre is found so attractive that the population, or major categories of the population, will visit it more often than is functionally strictly necessary] The municipality decides to improve the quality of life, and increase the cosiness of the city. Living-, cultural- and recreational functions should be strengthened. The new plans „compacte stad‟ and „Structuurplan Rotterdam binnen de Ruit‟ leads to; an impulse of facilities, housing- and neighbourhood improvements and improved accessibility.45

42

Cammen, H. van der, Klerk, L. de (2003). Ruimtelijke ordening: Van grachtengordel tot vinex-wijk. Utrecht, Uitgeverij Het Spectrum, p.173 43 Idem, p.258 44 Idem, p.261-262 45 Laar, P. van de, Jaarsveld, M. van, (2004). Historische atlas van Rotterdam: De groei van de stad in beeld. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij SUN, p.72-73.


27

Internationalization and competition During the economic downfall from 1979 and 1984 the question arises which role urban planning can play in the economical recovery. The economy has become a worldwide system that‟s connected with each other, a process explained by the sociologist Manuel Castells. Castells explains: “The ICT revolution has resulted in a worldwide network of interconnecting decision and knowledge centres, work areas, financial service providers and leisure, entertainment and cultural areas. In effect, this creates a new reality domain: a sort of new World with its own laws, no longer having anything to do with our old and safe world of places and geography (the space of places). This new world is mainly organised around flows (of goods, people and money) and relation networks. A space arises that is determined not so much by places, but by its position and function in unlimited networks This is what Castells calls the space of flows; a world-covering space of networks, characterised by immediateness, foot looseness, limitlessness, openness, anonymity, market-orientation and uncontrollability”46. This development has also consequences for the Dutch society. The international competition between regions has become a dominant theme. In the „Vierde nota over de ruimtelijke ordening (1988)47 aspects like internationalisation, economic perspectives, opportunities and strengthening of the qualities gain a central role. Which was called „pre-sort for the 21th century‟. Trust was put upon the market forces for the construction of the city. Opportunities and strengths were being enlarged; marketing for settlement motives, strategic project planning and cooperation with business for investments take place48. Because of the worldwide interconnected economy companies begin to settle in different economic zones over the world and cities began to promote themselves. Also Rotterdam with its highrise projects, the Erasmus-bridge and the representation of Rotterdam as „Manhattan at the Maas‟ starts to promote itself.49 Figure 4.11: The Erasmusbrug of Ben van Berkel, icon of the new Rotterdam, symbolizes the rediscovery of the city (Cammen et.al, 2003, p295).

46

Castells in WIGMANS, G. (2007) Cities and their social context: a problem outline, TU Delft, Delft, p.1-2, 47 A notation of the ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment in the Netherlands. 48 Cammen, H. van der, Klerk, L. de (2003). Ruimtelijke ordening: Van grachtengordel tot vinex-wijk. Utrecht, Uitgeverij Het Spectrum, p.295 49 Laar, P. van de, Jaarsveld, M. van, (2004). Historische atlas van Rotterdam: De groei van de stad in beeld. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij SUN, p.7


28

Consequences of economic restructuring Rotterdam has lost his position as world‟s busiest port to Shanghai and Singapore, but still remains the largest port of Europe. Although industry is still an important element it‟s not generating much employment anymore.

Figure 4.12: Overview of transhipment and employment in the port of Rotterdam (Laar & Jaarsfeld, 2004, p.67).

The transhipment of goods between 1945 and 1998 has increased fast, however the number of jobs in related industry has decreased. Because of automation less workers are needed to do the work, the employment in the industrial sector is shrinking. On the other hand the amount of work in the service and knowledge sector is increasing. As the table below shows the service sector in the Netherlands has increased from 43% in 1947 to 74% in 2000. Year

Agriculture & fishing

Industry

1947 1960 1971 1980 1990 2000

21% 12% 6% 5% 2% 4%

36% 40% 37% 33% 27% 23%

Services Cs*

Unemployed

3.610.000 4.073.000 4.735.100 4.782.000 5.753.000 6.469.000

100.000 49.000 69.000 217.000 358.000 221.000

N-cs* 43% 48% 57%

35% 46% 46%

Total

27% 25% 28%

* Cs = commercial services, N-cs = non-commercial services. Table 4.1: Overview of employment by economic sector in the Netherlands between 1947-2000 (Cammen et.al, 2003, p367)

With the shift from an industrial to a service and knowledge oriented economy, some new problems emerged. Especially in Rotterdam, with its industry and port functions, a mismatch arises between the employment opportunities and labour supply. As Burgers describes: “While the growth in employment was concentrated at the upper end of the employment structure – as Hamnett‟s data also show – requiring high educational levels, the unemployed in the cities are poorly schooled”.50

50

Burgers, J. (1996) No Polarization in Dutch cities? Inequality in a Corporatist Country. Urban Studies1996; 33; 99


29

Primary education or less

Higher education

Amsterdam Rotterdam The Hague Utrecht

14% 19% 18% 15%

34% 21% 26% 35%

The Netherlands

12%

20%

Table 4.2: Educational level of the population aged between 15 - 65 year, 1991 (Burgers, 1996, p101.)

All four cities have both a higher proportion poorly educated people and a higher proportion of people trained professionally and scientifically. However Rotterdam seems to have the worst statistics, in 1991 Rotterdam had 21% of higher educated inhabitants which is almost the same as the 20% nationwide. Rotterdam also has a higher percentage of people with primary education or less (19%) in comparison with Amsterdam (14%) and the percentage nationwide (12%). Burgers mentions that when unemployment is included, the educational levels in cities becomes polarised. Not only a polarization in terms of the incidence of high-quality jobs and poorly educated unemployment, but also in terms of ethnicity. The amount of unemployed in Rotterdam under ethnic groups is about 15% higher than unemployment of indigenous Dutch. The long term unemployed under ethnic groups were even three times more than unemployed under indigenous Dutch, in 1993. A lot of the low educated (ethnic) groups live in the same area with a high amount of social houses. These neighbourhoods have become underprivileged areas, with a lot of social problems.

4.6

Changed role of the (inner) city

For centuries, the majority of the Dutch population didn‟t came far beyond their own village or city. With the introduction of the steam train (1839), cycling (1868) and the automobile (1896) this changed. It became possible to travel over a larger distance. However leisure time was still an exceptional concept which was only available to the elite because the average worker didn‟t have much holidays. After the Second World War leisure time became available to the total population. The prosperity increased and the household income rose rapidly, more and more households gained access to a car. Remarkable is that the first traffic jam in 1955 wasn‟t because of commuter traffic but because of leisure movements on Whit Sunday. The available leisure time and the increased prosperity had large consequences for the city. Cities have become touristic places with a lot of entertainment and consumption oriented facilities. Statistics show that nowadays (on average) about 20% of the household income is spent on leisure.51 Leisure activities have developed to an important element of life. The development of leisure activities and the consequences of this for the city is an event which is clearly described by the Danish architects Gehl et. al. They describe the gradual development of an industrial society‟s with an essential city life to the 51

NVM (2009) Het economisch belang van leisure en de rol van leisure in gebeidsontwikkeling, Nieuwegein, NVM, p.6


30

current society with an elective city life. As Gehl et. al. describes in the first chapter about New city life: “Where city life was once a necessity and taken for granted, today it is an option”.52 A century ago, in the beginning of the 20th century, the quality of city space didn‟t play much of a role. Necessary work related activities dominated the city space, the streets were crowded with workers and work-related traffic. Nowadays in the 21th century this picture has changed, necessary activities play a limited role. Aspects like trade of goods, news and transport has moved indoors, and optional or recreational activities have taken over the public space. Today leisure- and consumer related activities dominate the city life instead of work related daily life activities (figure 4.13).

Optional activities (Urban recreation)

Necessary activities

will happen regardless of quality

will happen only when good quality city space exists

Figure 4.13: Development of city life from 1880 until 2005 (Gehl, J. Et. Al., 2006, p. 9)

Many changes in society with varying impact on city life have taken place: households have shrunk, people study longer and start their family later, women have become more independent and work more often, people have more room than they used to, due to technology more things are privatised and functions are more often handled privately and individually. Although we have more resources and time available, direct meetings with other people can still be few. Meeting other people is often not anymore an automatic part of daily life.53 Gehl et. al. mentions that although the city life has changed much, the most important function still remains the same. Meeting other people is the most important function and attraction of the city, and city space has always had a central role as meeting place. As Gehl et al mentions: “In a changed society, new city life can be considered to fulfil the traditional meeting function in a new guise due to changed circumstances. Now as before city space is the framework for people‟s meetings with society and each other”. 54 This new situation sets new constrains to the appearance and functional layout of the city, the city has to facilitate optional activities. Activities which Gehl categorises 52 53 54

Gehl, J. et al. (2006) New city life, Copenhagen, Danish Architectural Press, p.8 Idem, p.14-15 Idem, p.15


31

in „passive activities‟ (like for example staying at a terrace) and „active activities‟ (like for example jogging and skating). In just a few decades the city has transformed from a work oriented city to a city that includes a lot of leisure and enjoyment. In her book „Pret! leisure en landschap‟ („Fun! Leisure and landscape‟) Tracy Metz (2002) describes the impact of leisure and recreation on the living and working environments in the Netherlands. Metz mentions that leisure was once a valuable but limited element in the society, which has become an overpowering factor. Several kinds of new places and buildings emerge and existing locations change in character. Several inner city areas have undergone a metamorphosis and are tuned to the regional and national market of recreation and tourism. The functioning of the city is increasingly dependent on the visitors which is attracted and less of its 'own inhabitants'. The way we spend our free time, have become just as crucial to our social identity as the work we do or the things we possess. There has been a large growth of companies to fill or quality time and also the competition in the leisure market has grown. The high demands for memorable experiences have led to multifunctional places with a lot of leisure. Functions which were separated in the past are nowadays mixed and should flow into one another. Shopping has become a pleasure trip to a lot of people, and a day of shopping is often combined with other activities like a theatre show or a diner at a restaurant. Even the experience has often become more important than the product itself. Mommaas has studied this phenomena and comments that a large amount of the population is confronted with the paradox of a growing supply of leisure facilities but also with a decreased amount of available free time. Mommaas mentions that the consumer is becoming harder to please and has become goal-oriented: “nowadays people want a „guarantee‟ for experience on forehand”. The consumers also seem to be willing to travel a larger distance for their leisure activities.55

4.7

Rotterdam in the 21th century

Rotterdam wants to expand its economy, the service and knowledge economy have become an important element for the municipality. For a strong service and knowledge economy, a professionally and scientifically trained population is necessary. This seems to be an issue, as described in the previous paragraph, Rotterdam has a high amount of low skilled labours and a low amount of highly educated inhabitants. An aspect which has not yet been improved in the 21th century. As described in the first chapter Rotterdam suffers from negative selective migration. On average there is an outflow of native Dutch inhabitants with a higher education level of income level. This outflow has been compensated by inflow of foreigners from outside the Netherlands, which have on average a low income and 55

Mommaas, H (2000) De vrijetijdsindustrie in stad en land: Een studie naar de markt van belevenissen, Den Haag, Sdu uitgevers, p.10


32

educational level. Fortunately, this phenomenon has also been recognized by the municipality of Rotterdam, therefore already in the nineties plans are made to improve the situation. Old neighbourhoods are improved and also new developments take place, which are aimed at the service- and knowledge workers. The idea is to present the inner-city as settlement location again, to attract residents to this area. One of these improvements is the developments of Kop van Zuid. This old harbour area has to become part of the central city area, with a lot of high-rise projects and a mix of functions. The Erasmus-bridge connects this new part with the historical centre on the north-side of the river. At the end of the 20th century a master plan is made and a lot of developments are started.

Figure 4.14: (left) an impression of the final design of Kop van Zuid (right) picture of September 2007 (http://www.top010.nl/html/kop_van_zuid.htm)

After the elections in 2002, in which the new party „Leefbaar Rotterdam‟ under lead of Pim Fortuyn won the elections, the urban renew changed. Emphasis was put on social mix by building more expensive houses and also safety and maintenance became more important.56 Future plans for Rotterdam In 2006 the municipality of Rotterdam published the document „Rotterdam Gateway to Europe, the course to 2030‟, a strategic report with interventions for the spatial and economical development of Rotterdam. In this report the municipality explicitly mentions that the service and knowledge sectors are important for the economy of Rotterdam. As the mayor of Rotterdam (Opstelten) said about the visionary document: “Het is de strategische richting waarin Rotterdam zich wil ontwikkelen. Daarbij moeten we keuzes maken. Om zelf sterker te worden, maar ook om binnen de Randstad een krachtige speler te kunnen zijn. Want op internationaal niveau is de Randstad dé economische regio in Nederland die de concurrentiestrijd met de grote stedelijke agglomeraties in Europa en de rest van de wereld aankan. Een strijd die de komende jaren naar verwachting vooral gevoerd zal worden op het terrein van de kennis- en dienstengeoriënteerde economie. 57 [It‟s the strategic course in which Rotterdam wants to develop and therefore choices have to be made. To become stronger itself, but also to become a powerful participant in the Randstad area. Because on international level the Randstad is the economic region in Netherland 56 57

http://www.rotterdam.nl/tekst:thema_stadsvernieuwing, [accessed 28-09-2010] Gemeente Rotterdam (2006) Gateway to Europe: De koers naar 2030, Gemeente Rotterdam


33

that can compete with other urban agglomerations in Europe and in the World. A competition expected to take place in the knowledge- and service economy] As figure 4.15 shows, (2) Rotterdam is presented as a (geographical) strategic middle point of the (1) Randstad area and the (3) Rhine-ScheldtDelta. The report also shows an ambitious investment program from 2006 until the year 2030, with a total investment of 12,9 billion euro (based on investments of marked parties, the municipality and the government). The summary of this report shows 5 priorities, which are: - A second „Maasvlakte‟ (an industrial area at sea) - Transformation of „old‟ port areas. - „Science port Holland‟, a first class business park to the north of Rotterdam - Intensifying and improving the accessibility of the inner city. Figure 4.15: Strategic position of - Creation of an attractive residential city. Rotterdam.

After the report was published the municipality decided that further elaboration and foundation was needed. For a period of one and a half year the municipality worked on this document. During the elaboration about 80 market parties were interviewed and a lot of research has been done until the report was finished. In November of 2007 the municipality published the final version of the „vision for 2030‟. This document doesn‟t only contain a strategic vision but also contains a spatial development strategy. The five priorities of the „Gateway‟ document have been summarized to a main objective, which is: “Bouw aan een sterke economie en een aantrekkelijke woonstad” [Work at a strong economy and an attractive residential city].58 This is a two-folded mission about creating (1) a strong economy with more employment and (2) an attractive city to live in with a balanced population. For the second part of this mission “creating an attractive residential city”, the municipality mentions that high-educated and creative people should be attracted and retained to the city, also people with a middle- or high income have priority (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2007). Looking at the strategies and implementations it becomes clear that there is a large focus on the housing sector. Building new houses, transforming or improving old houses is an important strategy. Even a development program has been made which shows a target of 56.000 houses for the period 2005-2020 (about 4.000 each

58

Gemeente Rotterdam (2007) Stadsvisie Rotterdam: ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam, p. 43


34

year)59. Also gentrification is an important aspect which has to be accomplished by privatising houses, by increasing spatial quality, locating catering industry and by stimulating creative economy. To create an attractive residential city for the named target groups, they mention that it is insufficient only to create a supply of good houses. Also quality of public space, accessibility by both car and public transport, safety and facilities (like: education, child care, medical/social, sports and games, retail, et cetera) are important create an attractive residential city.

4.8

Conclusion

The development of Rotterdam has been subjected to several issues and events. The city has transformed from a fishing village to an international sea port with a lot of industrial and port related functions. A development which is caused by the industrialisation, the (strategic) geographic position of the city and by the development of the Nieuwe Waterweg [New waterway]. On the 14th of May in 1940 the city faces one of its most tragic happenings, the inner city is demolished during an aerial bombardment and 80.000 people lose their homes. An occurrence with large consequences for the city of Rotterdam. The reconstruction plan of the municipality was based on functional and modernistic views, one of the main elements was separation of functions for work, living and recreation. This has determined for a large part the layout of the city, with industry zones, living areas and an inner city with a lot of consuming, entertainment and recreational facilities. After the war a lot people were homeless and therefore houses had to be built fast. The new build neighbourhoods contained a lot of the same house types with a often a low quality level. The welfare increases and a lot of people leave the polluted and obsolete city and move to the suburbs, an outflow which for a large part has been compensated by an inflow of immigrants. In this time a lot of people value the city as cold and comfortless, the city of Rotterdam seemed to lacks cosiness. Therefore the municipality started to invest in elements that should improve the „quality of life‟. Several living-, culture- and recreational facilities were built and the inner city becomes a place of consumption, recreation and entertainment. The internationalization and rise of the network society resulted in a larger aim on the quality of the city. Employment in industry and port related activities decreases, on the other hand the employment in other sectors like the service and knowledge economy starts to increase and have become important economical sectors. These sectors need a professionally and scientifically trained labour force, however Rotterdam has some issues concerning this topic. Rotterdam suffers from a negative selective migration. On yearly basis a lot of educated and privileged inhabitants leave the city to settle somewhere else (mostly in the region). This is a bad development for a city who tries to strengthen its service and knowledge economy. Rotterdam tries to turn the tide and have formulated the objective to become an „attractive residential city‟ where all kinds of people would want to live. Attracting and retaining privileged inhabitants have become important. 59

Gemeente Rotterdam (2007) Stadsvisie Rotterdam: ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam, p. 62


35

5. Current performance of Rotterdam The previous chapter describes the history of Rotterdam, it gives an overview of the events and strategies that occurred in the last centuries. This chapter focuses on the current performance of the city. Based on (secondary) research and statistics, several elements of the city of Rotterdam are described. Besides descriptive information, also two kinds of analysis are made to give insight in the performance of Rotterdam. (1) A comparison of the current performance of Rotterdam and the performance in the past. This to find out if the performance is improving. (2) A comparison with three other large cities in the Netherlands, the so called G4-cities. This G4-cities exists out of: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. The first paragraph gives a general overview of the economy and settlement climate of Rotterdam in comparison with the other G4-cities. The next paragraphs all describe and compare an individual element, these individual elements are: the economy-, the population-, the labour force-, the safety-, the facilities-, the housing stock-, the quality of the environment- and the accessibility of Rotterdam.

5.1

Overall performance of Rotterdam

The seventh edition of the „economical exploration of Rotterdam‟ (2009-2010) starts with a so called vitality-web of the economy and settlement climate in the G4 cities. This vitality-web compares the G4-cities on several aspects (see figure 5.1). economy

(social) facilities

labour market

knowledge and innovation

quality of life

space for entrepreneurs

Rotterdam Amsterdam The Hague Utrecht

Figure 5.1: Vitality-web of the economy and settlement climate in the G4 in 2008 (Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2009-2010, p.15).


36

From this vitality-web it becomes clear that, in comparison with the other three large cities of the Netherlands, Rotterdam performs well on the element „economy‟. Rotterdam has a large economy, which has shown a strong growth. Also in terms of productivity the city seems to perform well in comparison with the other three G4cities. On the elements knowledge & innovation and facilities the cities performs reasonable. Rotterdam has a low research and development ratio (R&D-graad) and also the knowledge intensive services score low. On the other hand Rotterdam scores relatively high on productivity and lifelong learning. In matter of facilities Rotterdam has a strong position in terms of education and healthcare. The elements labour market, space for entrepreneurs and quality of life show a bad performance in comparison to the other G4-cities. The participation on the labour market is low and has a lower amount of highly educated labours than in Amsterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. Rotterdam also has a high vacancy ratio in the office market and has few company grounds to give out. The quality of life scores low, because of an imbalanced housing stock, a low amount of cultural facilities per inhabitant and a limited size of the creative class. Another general performance indicator is the „woonaantrekkelijkheid – index‟ [live – attractiveness – index] which is published on yearly basis. This is an index with a weighted mix of several statistical indicators about: accessibility of jobs, supply of cultural facilities, safety, the housing market, closeness to natural beauty, supply of culinary delight, universities and the historical nature of the city. This indicator shows that Rotterdam is lacking performance in comparison to the other G4-cities; Amsterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. Of the 50st largest cities in the Netherlands Amsterdam seem to be the most attractive place to live. Utrecht is placed secondly and The Hague is placed on the fourth place. Rotterdam is placed on the 12th position in 2009, and has one place in this index in comparison to 2006.

Figure 5.2: Live – attractiveness – index in the G4-cities (Staat van Rotterdam 2010, p.64)


37

5.2

Economy of Rotterdam

Currently the economic crisis is almost three years old now, the problems on the housing market in the US in 2007 have become a global financial crisis. This crisis has also consequences for the current economy of the Netherlands and of Rotterdam. Like the national economy, the economy of Rotterdam shows a lower growth ratio (see figure below), however the economy in 2008 was still growing with about 2,4%. After 2008 the economic situation in the Netherlands has become worse. Statistics show that in Rotterdam about one out of twenty has lost their job during the financial crisis.60

Rotterdam area

Amsterdam

The Hague area

Utrecht

Netherlands

Figure 5.3: Economic growth in the G4-cities and the Netherlands 2000 - 2008 (Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2010, p.29).

This can be found back in the unemployment ratio which is increasing after 2008. As the figure below shows, the percentage of unemployed people is much higher in Rotterdam than in the other G4-cities.

Figure 5.4: Unemployment ratio 2002 – 2009 (Staat van Rotterdam 2010, p.76)

In contrast to the economic crisis the employment seems to be increasing in the Netherlands, however not in Rotterdam. The figure below show the development of employment in the G4-cities. In The Hague and Amsterdam the amount of jobs is increasing, however Rotterdam shows a different trend. The employment seems to stay at the same level and hasn‟t grown much in comparison to 2000. With the 60

Rhee, M. van, Roode, A.L. (2010). Staat van Rotterdam 2010, Rotterdam, Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS), p.19


38

large port, trade and industry clusters, the economy of Rotterdam depends for a large part on the global economy. This could reflect the de difference in employment.

Rotterdam

Amsterdam

The Hague

Utrecht

Netherlands

Figure 5.5: Employment growth in the G4-cities 2000 – 2009 (Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2009 – 2010, p.42)

Within the economy there are three clusters of companies who, according to the Economical Vision of Rotterdam, are important for the future economy of Rotterdam.61 These sectors are; the industrial and port complex, the creative cluster and the medical cluster, who are responsible for 20%, 3,3% and 9,4% of Rotterdam‟s economy. 62

(2009)

medical cluster 30270 jobs

creative cluster 10680 jobs

industrial and port complex 64070 jobs

Figure 5.6: Mutations in the three key sectors of Rotterdam (Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2009 – 2010, p.34).

The three sectors differ a lot, the industrial and port complex related employment isn‟t growing anymore, it has shrunk a little in comparison to the year 2000. The creative cluster differs over time and is cyclically sensitive. The medical cluster shows a constant growth over time, even during the economic crisis.

61

EDBR (2005), Economische Visie 2020; Rotterdam: stad van de toekomst, sterke stad in een welvarende regio, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam. 62 Gemeente Rotterdam (2009) Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2009- 2010, Rotterdam, OBR, p.34


39

5.3

Population of Rotterdam

In comparison to the total Netherlands the inhabitants of Rotterdam seems to be younger. The amount of younger people is and will be larger than nationwide. In 2010 there are about 4,5 people aged 20 to 64 for every pensioner (65+), in the year 2025 this number will decrease to about 4,2. Nationwide this number decreases much more, from 4,0 in 2010 towards 2,6 in 2025. This prognoses show a sharp rise in the ageing population on national level, however in Rotterdam the population will have the same proportions as nowadays.

Figure 5.7: Development of population 2010-2025 (Staat van Rotterdam 2010, p.27)

Looking more specific at the segmentation of the population it becomes clear that Rotterdam is has a large amount of foreigners (about 48% in 2010). Although the total amount of inhabitants in 2000 and 2010 are almost the same, the proportions in population have changed. The amount of foreigners increased with 7,7% in the last decade of which 6,4% came from non-Western countries. Ethnicity Surinamese, Antillean, Cape Verdean, Turkish, Moroccans Other non-Western Autochthon Other EU countries Other Western Total inhabitants

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

25,4%

26,9%

28,0%

28,6%

29,1%

29,5%

5,1% 60,0% 5,2% 4,3% 592.660

6,0% 57,3% 5,3% 4,5% 598.467

6,7% 55,4% 5,3% 4,6% 599.544

6,8% 54,6% 5,3% 4,6% 588.718

6,9% 53,8% 5,5% 4,7% 582.949

7,4% 52,3% 6,1% 4,7% 592.939

Table 5.1: Overview of ethnicity in Rotterdam in the last decade (COS)

The amount of foreigners show similar statistics as in the other G4 cities, only in Utrecht the amount of foreigners is lower. Also in Amsterdam and The Hague the amount of foreigners has grown to about half the population (see table 5.2).

Total percentage of foreigners

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

The Hague

Utrecht

49,5%

46,9%

47,3%

31,5%

Table 5.2: Percentage foreigners in the G4 cities in 2009 (G4dataline.nl).


40

5.4

The labour force of Rotterdam

Looking more specific at the working population in Rotterdam it becomes clear that there are some differences with the cities Amsterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. Rotterdam seems to have the lowest percentage of highly educated labours and the highest percentage of low educated labours. Although the educational level of the labour force in Rotterdam has increased in de last decade, it still remains the lowest educated of the G4-cities.

Educational level high average low

Figure 5.8: Educational level of the work force in the G4-cities in 1996 and 2006 (factsheet economie, grotevier.nl)

The percentages in the table above indicate a small population of highly educated labours in Rotterdam, however this is not the case. The exact numbers of the table below show that Rotterdam still has a lot of highly educated labours, almost the same amount of The Hague and more than the city of Utrecht. Only Amsterdam stands out above all other G4-cities. Amsterdam

Rotterdam

The Hague

Utrecht

Nederland

388.000

274.000

226.000

140.000

7.603.000

Percentage of highly educated

52%

33%

42%

59%

32%

highly educated work force

199.820

90.146

94.920

82.320

2.448.166

total labour force

Table 5.3: Percentage highly educated workers within the labour force of the G4-cities in 2007 (CBS).

Rotterdam has to lowest participation ratio of the G4-cities, in 2008 the total net participation ratio of people age 25 to 64 years old was about 70%. In 2009 this ratio decreased with about 2%.63

63



41

5.5

Safety of Rotterdam

Safety has key priority in Rotterdam. To know whether the safety policy is working and therefore if Rotterdam has become safer, the municipality measures the security annually. This is done with the safety index, a scientific instrument, which is based for one third on crime statistics and for two third on the views of inhabitants of Rotterdam itself. The figure below shows the safety index of 1999 to 2007.

safety-index

attention

threatening

problem

unsafe

Figure 5.9: Safety-index of Rotterdam 1999 – 2007 (Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2008, p.97).

It becomes clear that Rotterdam has become safer in the last decade. In 1999 the average score was about 5,5 while in 2007 the average score is above 7. Looking more specific at the map of Rotterdam (see figure below) it becomes clear that most unsafe neighbourhoods are situated in the central area of the city and on the south side of the river. It also becomes clear that in 2009 there are no unsafe neighbourhoods anymore, although there remain still six neighbourhoods were safety is a problem.64

Figure 5.10: Overview of safety index in the different neighbourhoods of Rotterdam (www.v-index.nl).

64



42

In comparison to the other G4 cities, Rotterdam seems to perform well. Utrecht and Amsterdam seems to be more dangerous, only The Hague is safer. In order of ranking of all Dutch cities with more than 250.000 inhabitants Utrecht is placed first (has most the delicts), Amsterdam is placed second and Rotterdam is placed on the fifth place (see figure below).

Figure 5.11: Total score on municipal safety index (GVI) and order of ranking nationwide (Staat van 65 Rotterdam 2010, p.39).

However when only the aspects; violence and vandalism are measured it becomes clear that there is still much space for improvement. Every year a document is published that compares the 50 largest cities (G50) in the Netherlands (Atlas voor Gemeenten) on several elements. This document shows that, on terms of violence and vandalism, the cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam are performing the worst.66

5.6

Facilities in Rotterdam

Facilities are an important element to the city, and are often used to promote the attractiveness of a city. Based on available statistics this paragraph gives an overview of several facilities in Rotterdam and the performance in comparison to the other G4-cities. Catering industry (horeca) The supply of catering industry seems to be largest in Amsterdam, which outshines all other G4-cities. Also the catering industry per inhabitant index is much higher in Amsterdam than in the other G4-cities. Rotterdam seems to have the most discotheques of all G4-cities, and also on terms of cafes and bars it seems to perform well in quantitative way. The amount of restaurants per inhabitant seems to be low in Rotterdam, with 7,6 restaurant per 10.000 inhabitants has the lowest average of al G4-cities.

65

The GVI is based on statistics of theft, housebreaking, violence and vandalism (www.politieenwetenschap.nl) 66 Marlet, G., Woerkens, C. van (2010) Atlas voor gemeenten 2010, Utrecht, VOC Uitgevers, p.237


43

year

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Den Haag

Utrecht

total amount of catering industry catering industry per 10.000 inhabitants cafe/bars

2009

3.688

1.775

1.676

755

2009

48,7

30,4

34,7

25,2

2009

943

521

343

145

cafes per 10.000 inhabitants

2009

12,4

8,9

7,1

4,8

discotheques

2009

14

19

8

6

restaurants

2009

1.147

443

489

232

restaurants per 10.000 inhabitants

2009

15,1

7,6

10,1

7,7

Table 5.4: Entertainment facilities in the G4-cities (g4.databank.nl)

Cultural facilities Also in terms of cultural facilities like cinema‟s, museums and theatres Amsterdam outshines all other G4-cities. Rotterdam and The Hague have just four cinemas in the city, but they both have a large amount of seats. The cinemas in Rotterdam and The Hague have to be of a larger scale than in Amsterdam and Utrecht. The amount of museums is Rotterdam (34) is more than in its neighbours The Hague (27) and Utrecht (18). The ratio of museums per inhabitant show similar performance with The Hague and Utrecht. Rotterdam seems to have less theatrical facilities and also the ratio of theatres per inhabitant is lower than in the other g4-cities. year

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

The Hague

Utrecht

total amount of cinema's

2010

12

4

4

8

cinema's, amount of seats

2010

9.907

7.135

6.231

4.705

cinema's, amount of screens

2010

58

34

28

26

total amount of museums

2010

72

34

27

18

2010

9,5

5,8

5,6

6

museums per 100.000 inhabitants total amount of theatres

2007

44

11

15

10

theatres, amount of halls

2007

60

15

19

17

theatres per 100.000 inhabitants

2007

5,9

1,9

3,2

3,6

Table 5.5: Overview of cinema‟s, museums and theatres in the G4-cities (g4.databank.nl)

Hotels Amsterdam is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe, receiving about 4,5 million international visitors in 2008.67 This strong tourist industry can be found back in the amount of hotels, which is much more in Amsterdam than in the other G4-cities. With just one 5-star hotel in 2009 and in total about 3,5 thousand rooms Rotterdam hasn‟t a strong tourist industry. 67

Gemeente Amsterdam (2009) Fact sheet toerisme, dienst onderzoek en statistiek [online] available at: http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/pdf/2010_ob_toerisme_2.pdf [accessed 13-10-2010]


44

year

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Den Haag

Utrecht

amount of hotel rooms

2009

20.463

3.568

3.557

1.333

5 star hotels

2009

11

1

3

1

4 star hotels

2009

46

16

15

7

3 star hotels

2009

90

14

21

4

Table 5.6: Hotel industry in the G4-cities (g4.databank.nl)

Retail facilities Amsterdam has the largest retail supply of 990.000 m², followed by Rotterdam with 920.000 m². However in relation to the amount of inhabitants the retail supply is the largest in the city of Rotterdam on terms of retail for; daily needs, fashion and luxury and leisure (see figure below). Only Utrecht has in ratio per inhabitant a comparable amount of retail for fashion and luxury and a higher amount of retail for „in and around the house‟.

Rotterdam

Amsterdam

The Hague

Utrecht

Netherlands

Figure 5.12: Number of m2 retail per 10.000 inhabitants in 2006 (grotevier.nl, factsheet economie 2008)

Sport facilities On terms of sport facilities Rotterdam performs well in comparison to the other G4cities. Rotterdam has the most of the listed facilities in the table above, only the amount of tennis clubs is more in Amsterdam.

hockey clubs sports halls tennis clubs soccer clubs swimming pools

year

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Den Haag

Utrecht

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

3 13 30 64 11

6 16 28 70 18

6 9 25 49 7

3 8 20 35 4

Table 5.7: Sport facilities in the G4-cities (g4.databank.nl)


45

Educational facilities The table below shows the amount of educational facilities and students in the G4cities. It becomes clear that Rotterdam has a lot of students who are being trained vocationally. The schools for vocational education (mbo) and higher vocational education (hbo) in Rotterdam have twice as much students as in the city of Amsterdam. The table below doesn‟t show the amount of scientific schooled students. Statistics show that Rotterdam‟s university (Erasmus University) contain yearly about 19 thousand students. With all these students Rotterdam contains a large potential workforce.

primary schools primary schools per 10.000 inhabitants primary schools, total amount of students secondary schools secondary schools per 10.000 inhabitants secondary schools, total amount of students school for vocational training vocational training students schools for Higher Vocational Education (HBO) higher vocational education students

year

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Den Haag

Utrecht

2008

207

189

138

90

2008

2,8

3,2

2,9

3,1

2008

56.928

49.955

41.771

23.662

2008

59

57

40

22

2007

0,8

1

0,8

0,8

2007

35.017

34.480

22.294

10.998

2006

2

5

1

3

2006

26.807

49.192

17.504

22.397

2006

5

3

3

4

2006

36.617

60.424

20.772

37.971

Table 5.8: Education in the G4-cities (g4.databank.nl)

Facilities in the inner city The municipality has made an inventory about the cultural and entertainment facilities in the inner city of Rotterdam. They conclude that Rotterdam has sufficient cultural and entertainment facilities in qualitative and quantitative way and in comparison with the other G4-cities the municipality of Rotterdam provides an equal amount of subsidy for culture. However the supply is spread out over the city and there are no clear walking routes between the facilities. A lot of leisure facilities aren‟t located near walking routes and will therefore not be found easily by a lot of people (especially people who are unfamiliar with the inner city). The map of figure 5.13 gives an overview of the facilities in the inner city of Rotterdam and show the walking routes (red lines) and issues (red crosses). At some points the walking route is interrupted by for example a busy traffic road or a zone with no facilities. Also at some points the walking route just stop and flow over in a neighbourhood, which might be confusing. Because of this the municipality has decided to focus on improving the visibility of the facilities and on creating better connections between the facilities. In their policy the municipality mentions four strategic interventions for improvement. Concentrating (1): the facilities should be clustered, which would result in relocating some facilities. Consolidation (2): the walking routes should merge smoothly and the facilities have to become more visual (opening up facades on street level). Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

46

Presentation (3): marketing of the facilities so that it becomes clear to the visitors what the inner city has to offer. Generating (4): stimulation of the demand side by retaining higher education and students and by stimulating the talent development of Rotterdam‟s young inhabitants.68

A) Central station / Schouwburgplein area B) Museumpark / Witte de Withstraat area C) Wilhelminapier (Kop van Zuid area) Creative facilities activity, training, knowledge facility

Culture cinema, museum, theatre

Entertainment discotheque, cafe

Food restaurant, fastfood, lunchroom

buildings existing, planned buildings

Figure 5.13: Overview of leisure facilities in the city centre of Rotterdam by category (Cultuurprogramma binnenstad 2020, 2009, p29) 68

Gemeente Rotterdam (2009) Cultuurprogramma binnenstad 2020, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam, p23


47

5.7

The housing market of Rotterdam

For a long time the city of Rotterdam has been characterized by a high amount of social housing. As Priemus describes, the housing associations grew steadily after WO1 and expanded enormously after the WOII. In the 1990s the housing associations reached a market share of 42% in the Netherlands.69 However the figure below shows a different situation for the cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam. In the 90s the amount of social houses in Rotterdam became almost 60%, after this period the amount has been decreased to about 50% in 2009 (see figure below). 70 % Amsterdam 60 %

Rotterdam

50 %

Den Haag

40 %

Utrecht

30 %

G27

20 %

Overig Nederland

10 %

2009

2006

2003

2000

1997

1994

1991

1988

1985

1982

1979

1976

1973

0%

Figure 5.14: Social houses in the G4-cities 1973 – 2009 (Grotevier.nl)

Looking in detail at the social housing in Rotterdam it becomes clear that most of the social houses are concentrated in old neighbourhoods. In 2009 there were 42 neighbourhoods with 50% or more social housing, seven of them even contain above 80% of social houses. However this is much less than in 1997. Comparing the statistics of 2009 and 1997 it becomes clear that the amount of social houses has been reduced in the last decade. That the municipality tries to obtain a more balanced situation. Percentage of social housing <80 % 70-80 % 60-70 % 50-60 %

1997

2001

2005

2009

15 13 11 8

14 8 16 8

11 9 12 13

7 5 12 18

Table 5.9: Social housing and neighbourhoods in 2009 (buurtmonitor.nl) 69

Ouwehand, A. and Daalen, G. van (2002) Dutch housing associations: A model for social housing, Delft, Delft University Press, p.1


48

A lot of old poorly houses have been demolished and new houses have been build to improve the housing situation. In the last years a lot of expensive houses have been build, in 2009 about 80% of the newly build houses were expensive owner occupied houses (see figure below). However the mean real estate value of houses (WOZ-waarde) is still much lower than in the other G4-cities.70

Owner occupied expensive mid-high low prices Rental high rent mid-high rent low rent

Figure 5.15: Newly build houses by price range and sector (Staat van Rotterdam 2010, p.65)

Urbanization agreements have been made with the surrounding municipalities about the production of houses, with the objective to manage the production on regional level. Also a new law was introduced in 2006, the so called „Rotterdamwet‟. This law makes it possible to refuse „new inhabitants‟ with a low income level in some neighbourhoods in Rotterdam.71 The objective of this law is to prevent further decline of underprivileged areas. The cooperative plans for 2010-2020 go further than the plans of 2005-2010, besides production agreements it contains strategic plans about quality and living climates. In cooperation between Rotterdam, the 18 municipalities of region Rotterdam and market parties an urbanization scenario is made with a strong focus on the region. As described in the document: “De woningmarkt is het niveau van de gemeente definitief ontstegen. Een enkele gemeente zal nooit het complete scala aan woonvormen binnen de eigen grenzen kunnen aanbieden………Op regionaal niveau kan dat wel. Het is belangrijk dat dit ook gebeurt, dat meer mensen de woonsituatie van hun voorkeur binnen de stadsregio Rotterdam kunnen vinden”.72 [The housing market has transcended the local level. A single municipality will never be able to offer the full range of housing types within its own borders.....On the contrary, on regional level this supply can be offered. It‟s important that this happens so that more people will find their preferred living climate with the region of Rotterdam]

70

Rhee, M. van, Roode, A.L. (2010). Staat van Rotterdam 2010, Rotterdam, Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS), p.65 71 www.woonstadrotterdam.nl, accessed 04-01-2011 72 Stadsregio Rotterdam (2010) Op weg naar een gezonde woningmarkt; verstedelijkingsscenario 2020 regio Rotterdam, Rotterdam, StadsregioRotterdam, p.12


49

Living environment Developments

This quote reflects that the municipalities of Rotterdam and its region are looking over their own fences and try to solve the housing problems together. The current supply and developments of the whole region have been investigated and is summarized in the figure below. The open spots reflect the current living environments in the region and the filled spots show the planned developments. In total nine living climates are used to characterize the housing supply. This division of living climates is called „Rosetta‟ and should improve the communication between the different municipalities in the region.

metropolitan urban - lively urban - serene urban - exclusive suburban - compact suburban - groundbounded suburban exclusive rural (dorps) country (landelijk)

Figure 5.16: Living environments and developments in the Rotterdam region (Stadsregio Rotterdam, 2010, p.19)

Also a global overview is given of the desired developments (see figure below), which should be used as guideline for future developments in the region. It becomes clear that the living climates; metropolitan, exclusive, rural and country are underrepresented in the region. Although the living environments „urban-serene‟ (15%) and „suburban-ground bounded‟ (25%) both occupy a large part of the supply, there is still a demand for these types. The „urban-lively‟ and „suburbancompact‟ living environments should be reduced in the coming decade. Current

Current supply

desired development

5% 19% 15% 28% 25% 4% 4% 100%

+ + -+ ++ ++

metropolitan urban - lively urban – serene suburban - compact suburban – ground bounded exclusive (urban or suburban) Rural and country Total

Table 5.10: (translated overview of the) Division of current- and desired living environments (Stadsregio Rotterdam, 2010, p.18).


50

5.8

The quality of the environment in Rotterdam

The quality of the environment is hard to measure, there are no indicators available about (for example) the esthetical appearance and it could differ a lot per location or neighbourhood. To give insight in this element the following indicators are used: scores about inconvenience and physical deterioration and satisfaction about the environment. The figure below shows a ratio for inconvenience and physical deterioration in the G4-cities. Inconvenience is measure using questions about: drunk people walking down the street, harassment of people and drug-related problems. Physical deterioration is measured with questions about: graffiti on walls and buildings, trash on the street, dogshit and vandalism of street furniture. The highest possible score is 7 on both scales. On average the Dutch score inconvenience in their municipality at 1.8 and physical deterioration at 2.9. Figure 5.17 shows that in 2008, the G4cities have more inconvenience and physical deterioration than nationwide. Of the G4, Utrecht has the lowest ratio on deterioration and Rotterdam the highest ratio.

Inconvenience

physical deterioration

Figure 5.17: Inconvenience and physical deterioration in the G4-cities in 2008 (Factsheet leefbaarheid en veiligheid, www.grotevier.nl).

The next figure shows the amount of people who are satisfied about their environment. On average, the inhabitants of the G4-cities are less satisfied about their environment than nationwide. The inhabitants of Rotterdam seem to be the least satisfied about their environment.


51

Figure 5.18: Percentage of satisfied households about their environment (Staat van Rotterdam 2010, p.67)

More specific research about the milieu shows the importance of this topic. After „crime- and drugs related problems‟ (53%) environmental issues (31%) are mentioned as second largest problems by the inhabitants of Rotterdam (together with traffic issues). most important problem

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Crime, social insecurity, drugs related problems

68%

63%

53%

52%

53%

pollution, maintenance and vandalism public space

33%

30%

34%

29%

31%

traffic issues (parking, accessibility, etc.)

29%

25%

31%

32%

31%

Table 5.11: Most important problems according to the inhabitants of Rotterdam (Rotterdammers over het milieu 2009, p.15)

About 33% of the inhabitants sometimes consider moving because of the environment. When choosing a new settlement location, these people would give priority to safety, noise- and air pollution (which is more important to them than the type or quality of the house).73 „Clean air‟ is mentioned as most important, followed by „clean streets‟ and a „green environment‟. These elements are also mentioned as the three most important issues in Rotterdam. Younger people, highly educated people and people with a high income level mention environmental issues (like air pollution) more often as problem which should get priority. There are also some local differences, in the north-west side of Rotterdam the most important issues are noise-, air pollution and industry. In the central area rubbish streets and a lack of green are mentioned the most. In the south area of Rotterdam more people worry about harmful (chemical) substances than in the rest of the city.74 73

Gemeente Rotterdam (2009) Rotterdammers over het milieu 2009: resultaten uit de omnibusenquête 2009, Rotterdam, COS, p9 74 Idem, p.10


52

5.9

The accessibility of Rotterdam

Every week a lot of people travel from their home towards their work, and the other way around. The commuting time between home and work is an important element, remarkable is that the travel distance seems to differ for the educational- or job level. Statistics show that low-educated people often live closer to their work than high educated people. On average low educated people travel 7,6 kilometres per day, average educated people travel 12 kilometres per day and high educated people travel about 17 kilometres per day towards their work.75 The average commuting time also differs on educational level, highly educated people have to travel longer. On average the commuting time of Rotterdam seems to be longer than in The Hague and Utrecht. Only in Amsterdam the people have to travel longer towards their work. The average commuting time of higher educated people is above 40 minutes in all of the G4-cities, in Amsterdam and Utrecht even above 45 minutes. from rotterdam

towards rotterdam

Education level

low

average

high

Figure 5.19: Mean travel time of commuter traffic (Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2008, p.140)

As table 5.11 (see previous paragraph) shows, traffic issues (like parking and accessibility) are mentioned as third problem by inhabitants of Rotterdam, so still should be improved.

75

Gemeente Rotterdam (2008) Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2008, Rotterdam, OBR, p.139


53

5.10 Conclusion Generally speaking Rotterdam has to acknowledge superiority to the city of Amsterdam, who has a stronger economy, more (educated) inhabitants and more facilities. The other two G4-cities of The Hague and Utrecht also show differences on some elements. Below the most important performances and differences are described per category. Economy The current economic crisis makes it hard to interpret the economical performance. In general, the unemployment ratio in Rotterdam is higher than in the other G4cities and the economy shows the least growth of all G4-cities (even less than the average of the Netherlands). The economy of the industry and port sector seems to stay at a continuous level, the medical sector has increased in the last decade (even increases during the economic crisis) and the creative sector shows strong ups and downs. Population and labour force On average the population of Rotterdam is younger than in the rest of the Netherlands. While the population nationwide will become older (vergrijzing), the population in Rotterdam will become younger (vergroening). About half of the population of Rotterdam (46,9%) has a non-Dutch background, which is a similar performance as in the other G4-cities. Rotterdam has a lower percentage of highly educated people (33%) in comparison to Amsterdam (52%), The Hague (42%) and Utrecht (59%). In exact numbers the amount of highly educated people (elites) seems to be comparable with that of the smaller cities: The Hague and Utrecht. Safety Rotterdam uses an own safety index which is based on crime-rates and views of inhabitants. This safety index shows that the overall safety in the city has become much better in the last decade. In 1999 the index had a score of approximately 5.5, in 2007 a score above 7 has been obtained. However there are still some areas, mostly in the centre of the city, that have safety problems. Facilities Amsterdam has much more facilities as the other G4-cities. Rotterdam shows similar performance with the cities The Hague and Utrecht in terms of facilities, only the amount of theatres is much lower. Rotterdam has a large amount of educational facilities and students. Analysis of the facilities in the inner city shows that there is a lot of space for improvement. The (leisure) facilities are not well connected, they are spread out over the city. There are no clear walking routes, the facilities could be hard to find for people who aren‟t familiar with the city. Relocating, connecting and opening up the facilities have main priority to the municipality.


54

Housing supply In the nineties the amount of social housing became about 60% of the total housing stock. The last years the amount of social housing has been reduced to about 50% in 2009. Looking in detail at the social housing in Rotterdam it becomes clear that a lot of the social houses are located in the same neighbourhoods. Although the amount of social houses have been reduced, in 2009 still 42 neighbourhoods contained an amount of social houses of 50% or more. Numbers about newly build houses how that most of the new build houses are expensive owner occupied houses and some mid-high houses. A remarkable development is the cooperation with the surrounding municipalities. Together, the municipality of Rotterdam and the other municipalities from the region have made an overview of the current housing supply and also the demand has been investigated. This study shows that the Rotterdam region has a high demand for houses of the categories: rural and country, exclusive (urban of suburban), serene urban, and metropolitan. There is an oversupply of the categories: compact (suburban) and lively urban. Quality of the environment Of the G4-cities Rotterdam has the highest score on physical deterioration (a parameter based on numbers of: graffiti, trash, dogshit and vandalism). Other statistics show that, of the G4-cities, the inhabitants of Rotterdam are the least satisfied about their environment. More specific research about the most important problems according inhabitants of Rotterdam shows that after „crime and drugs related problems (53%), environmental issues (31%) are mentioned as second largest problem. Clean air, clean streets and a green environment are most often mentioned as desired, so this element contains still much room for improvement. Accessibility The education- or job level is related to the commuting distance. Numbers show that on average low educated people travel much less distance towards their work than high educated people. The average commuting time is comparable to that of the other G4-cities. Traffic issues (like parking and accessibility) are mentioned as third problem by inhabitants of Rotterdam and should therefore also get priority.


55

6. Leisure time and consumption behaviour The previous chapter shows that the city of Rotterdam has a lot of leisure facilities. Also the municipality has made use of leisure to increase the attractiveness of the city of Rotterdam. However it is still unclear which role leisure has in the lives of people. Therefore this chapter is focussed on the role of leisure in the lives of people. First a brief description is given of the economic importance of leisure, this to give an indication of the size of this branch. The second paragraph is about time division and shows how much leisure time people have in general. The third paragraph focuses on the content of leisure time and describes which kinds of activities are being done.

6.1

The economical importance of leisure

The economical contribution of leisure (without retail functions) to the gross domestic product (GDP) in the Netherlands was € 36,9 billion in 2008, which is about 3% of the total GDP. In comparison to 2001 the leisure contribution has grown with about 24%, only the building industry shows a higher growth ratio for this period.76 In 2008 leisure generated about 397.000 jobs, which is about 4,3% of the total job supply in the Netherlands. These jobs were divided over 48.825 companies, on average there are 8,1 employees per companies. However the amount of full time equivalent jobs is much lower, on overage 5,1 employee per company. This shows that this sector contains a lot of part-time jobs.

leisure sector Number of companies

total

share in the Netherlands

48.825

7,1%

number of jobs

397.000

4,3%

full time equivalents (fte)

248.000

3,6%

€ 36,9

3,0%

turnover (in billions)

Table 6.1: Base figures economical performance of leisure in 2008 (NVM 2009, p.18)

The table below compares the leisure sector with other cyclically sensitive markets like the car branch, building industry and retail sector. This comparison shows that the turnover per full time equivalent is low in the leisure sector. Leisure sector

Car branch

Building industry

Retail industry

Number of companies

48.825

24.485

96.660

79.520

full time equivalents (fte)

248.000

132.800

434.900

477.800

5,1

5,4

4,5

6,0

€ 36,9

€ 68,3

€ 77,7

€ 84,8

€ 148.790

€ 514.307

€ 178.662

€ 177.480

Fte / company turnover (in billions) turnover / Fte

Table 6.2: Leisure with other comparable sectors in (NVM 2009, p.18) 76

NVM (2009) Het economisch belang van leisure en de rol van leisure in gebeidsontwikkeling, Nieuwegein, NVM, p.7


56

The catering industry had the most companies in 2008 and is the largest leisure sector. The catering industry generated a turnover of €7,3 billion in 2008. The category sport is placed second in terms of amount of companies, and generated a turnover of 840 million in 2008. Hotels were good for 3.3 billion euro of turnover in 2008 and have a market share of 11%. With 2.770 organizations, culture had a market share of about 6%. The wellness sector was good for about 549 million euro and the entertainment sector for 1,77 billion euro in 2008.77 Leisure economy in Rotterdam The municipality describes that the turnover in the leisure sector in 2005 has grown with about 6% in comparison to 2003. This is a lot higher than the 2,6% growth nationwide. In 2005 the leisure market in Rotterdam was about 1,5 billion euro in, which is about 5% of the total national leisure turnover. Although with the current economic crisis the prospect has changed and the leisure economy seems to be shrinking a little78 it still remains an important sector.

6.2

Available leisure time

The time that people spend can be divided in three categories; obligatory-, personal- and free time. Obligatory time is the time spend on work and work related activities. Personal time is time spend on aspects like for example; housekeeping, hygiene and sleeping. Free time (or leisure time) is the remaining time for recreational activities. Available leisure time nationwide. As the table below shows, the amount of obligatory rime has grown in the last decades and the amount of „free time‟ has shrunk (see table below). The amount of personal time hasn‟t changed much over time.

Table 6.3: Obligatory, personal and free time (population aged 12 and over) 1975-2000 (Trends in time, p.12)

The next table (table 6.4) shows that the increase of obligatory time comes due to the increase in employment time, which has grown with 4,6 hours between 1975 and 2000. Time spend on housekeeping hasn‟t changes much, while the time spend on education had fallen slightly.

77

NVM (2009) Het economisch belang van leisure en de rol van leisure in gebeidsontwikkeling, Nieuwegein, NVM, p.21-23 78 Ontwikkelbedrijf Rotterdam (2009) Economische verkenning Rotterdam 2009-2010, Rotterdam, OBR, p.25


57

Table 6.4: Obligatory time by type of commitment (population aged 12 and over) 1975-2000 (Trends in time , p.12).

Looking more specific at various population groups it becomes clear that the decline of leisure time differs. The decline has been more among men than among women, although in 2005 men still have more leisure time. The three youngest age categories saw their leisure time decrease with about 6 hours, which is more than among the people aged 50-64 (-1 hour). The amount of leisure time of people aged 65 has increased and is larger in 2005 than in 1975. The working population has lost about seven hours of free time in a period of 30 years. 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Sex Age

Labour market position

Male Female 12-19 years 20-34 years 35-49 years 50-64 years 65 and over employed unemployed student

49,6 46,2 44,2 44,8 46,9 50,5 57 45,1 52,8 42,6

48,8 45,2 41,6 43,8 44,8 51,8 57,4 43,3 52,6 42,4

50,5 47,6 42,6 45,1 46,3 54,5 61,6 43,7 56,7 43

48,2 46,2 39,6 43,1 44,3 55,3 59,2 42,5 55 41

47,9 46,8 40,9 42,5 44,2 53,9 60,7 41,1 56,9 42,1

45,5 44,1 36,8 39,4 41 49,6 58,7 39,9 54,8 38,5

46,1 43,4 41,8 40 38,1 49,3 58,5 38,4 54,8 42,8

Table 6.5: Leisure time by background characteristics, population aged 12 and over (SCP/TBO 19752005, via www.scp.nl).

Mobility The table below shows that the time spent on mobility has become larger, travel time for obligatory-, personal and leisure activities has increased since 1975. On average, most of the travel time is spent on leisure. 1975

1985

1995

2005

towards/from work

1,4

1,3

1,6

1,9

housekeeping

1,8

2,1

2,8

2,8

education

0,7

0,9

0,9

0,9

leisure

2,6

2,9

3,2

3,5

Total travel time (hours)

6,6

7,2

8,5

9,1

Table 6.6: Average travel time categorized by motive in hours per person per week (people of 12 years and older) 1975 – 2005 (SCP/TBO 1975-2005, via www.scp.nl)


58

Also the distance seem to increase, as the figure below shows, the amount of travelled kilometres has grown between 1990 and 2001. In 1990 about 50% of the daytrips were in the direct surroundings (<5km) and about 10% were located on 30 km or more. In 2001 about 34% of the daytrips were in the direct surroundings (<5km) and 20% were located on 30 km or more.

Figure 6.1: Daytrips of 2 hours or longer categorized by distance (Op weg in de vrije tijd, p.88)

Available leisure time in Rotterdam Rotterdam has its own method of measuring the spent time of its inhabitants. Every two year a group of inhabitant is asked to participate in a survey and give insight in their time management. The table below shows some general results of research in 2007. Hours

work

study

care

obligatory time *

leisure time

1-19

10 %

18 %

53 %

13 %

44 %

20-39

28 %

9%

16 %

24 %

32 %

40-49

20 %

3%

3%

28 %

7%

5%

1%

4%

27 %

5%

spends time to [….]

64 %

31 %

75 %

93 %

89 %

doesn't spend time to [….]

31 %

64 %

19 %

2%

1%

unknown [….]

5%

5%

5%

5%

10 %

… 2007

32,7

17

15,7

40,5

21,4

… 2005

32,8

16,6

16,0

38,9

20,7

… 2003

33,5

16,0

18,3

39,4

22,2

… 2001

33,4

15,4

18,8

40,8

21,7

… 1999

34,0

12,7

19,7

40,7

24,0

… 1997

35,0

14,9

19,9

43,5

22,1

50 and over

average hours per week in..

* work + study + care = obligatory time Table 6.7: Percentage of inhabitants in Rotterdam that spends time on work, study, care and the amount of available leisure time (Rotterdammers in hun vrijetijd 2007, p.15)


59

About 64% of the inhabitants in Rotterdam spend time on (paid) work and about 31% doesn‟t. Also the average hours spend on work has decreased from 35 in 1997 to 32,7 hours in 2007. This is a different trend than the nationwide statistics show (see §6.1). About 31% of Rotterdam‟s inhabitants spends time on education related activities (study). The average hours spend on study has grown from 14,9 (1997) to 17 hours per week (2007), although the proportion of student hasn‟t increased in this period. A positive development for a city with a shortage on educated inhabitants. The hours spend on housekeeping and care of housemates (care) has also decreased, from about 20 hours per week in 1997 towards about 16 hours in 2007. Also a different trend than the nationwide trend (§ 6.1). Both the hours spend on obligatory and on leisure time are decreased in the last decade. It is remarkable that about 10% of the respondents didn‟t answer this question. The next figure shows the perception of the inhabitants of Rotterdam about the available leisure time in comparison to five years ago. In 2005 about 46% of Rotterdam‟s inhabitants mentions that they have less leisure time available then five years ago. Although the measured amount of leisure time (table 6.7) hasn‟t decreased much, a lot of inhabitants got the feeling to have less leisure time available.

more the same less

Figure 6.2: Personal view of inhabitants about the amount of available leisure time in comparison to five years ago (Rotterdammers in hun vrijetijd 2007, p.20).


60

6.3

Leisure activities

It has become clear how obligatory-, personal- and free time is divided, and that the amount of free time has shrunk in the last decades. However it‟s still unclear how the free time is spent, which activities are undertaken. Table 6.8 shows a division over several leisure activities. The amount of time spend on printed media has shrunk and the amount of electronic media has increased, printed media (like newspapers) are losing domain towards electronic media. With 14,8 hours electronic media has even become the largest leisure activity in 2000. Time spend on social contacts has also decreased but remains the second largest activity. Half an hour per week more than in 1975 was set aside for both sport/exercise and leisure mobility; going out and associational life also gained some popularity. Taking everything together people spent one and a half hours per week more in 1995 on these non-home-based forms of leisure activities than in 1975.

Table 6.8: Types of leisure activity, population aged 12 and over (in hours per week and as a percentage of the available leisure time, and index 2000, 1995 = 100) (Trends in time, p.55).

Other research shows a top-list of most common non-home-based leisure activities (see table 6.9) in 2007. With 24% the most popular activity was (outside) recreation, followed by fun shopping (18%) and personal sports (16%). A night out and hobby‟s or club activities have a score of 11% are placed on the fourth and fifth position. Visitation of attractions (7%) is placed on the sixth position, water and sport recreation seventh with 5%. Culture, events and attending a (sport)match occupy the last three places on this top list.


61

top10 leisure activities (outside)recreation

activities (x 1 million)

percentage

980

24 %

fun shopping

710

18 %

personal sport

631

16 %

a night out

451

11 %

hobby‟s and club activities

436

11 %

visit attractions

268

7%

water- and sport recreation

192

5%

culture

124

3%

events

108

3%

attend a (sport)match

76

2%

Table 6.9: Top10 leisure activities (presentatie ContinuVrijeTijdsOnderzoek 2007).

Leisure activities in Rotterdam These activities described above, are based on nationwide statistics. There is also information available about leisure activities in Rotterdam. The table below shows some important leisure facilities in Rotterdam which attract a lot of visitors. This statistics show that the Zoo of Rotterdam „Diergaarde Blijdorp‟ has the highest amount of visitors. The Spido (round trips by boat) and the Euromast also have a lot of visitors. Of the events the Marathon and Zomercarnaval have the most visitors. These statistics are based on visitors from Rotterdam and visitors from outside Rotterdam. 2005

2006

2007

2008

1.479

1.428

1.558

1.608

Spido

375

383

402

409

Euromast

250

225

249

251

Attractions* Diergaarde Blijdorp

Events* Marathon Rotterdam

X

X

X

X

825

850

900

900

Zomercarnaval

700

700

700

900

Wereldhaven Festival

400

350

450

325

Internationaal Filmfestival Rotterdam

367

FFWD Heineken Dance Parade

375

160

200

500

Dunya festival

180

220

220

220

Rotterdams Straatfestival

150

50

X

X

Metropolis

70

70

X

X

CHIO

42

41

X

X

Strand aan de Maas

270

220

200

200

Bavaria City Racing

X

X

600

600

* amount x 1000 Table 6.10: Amount of visitors by several important leisure facilities in Rotterdam (kerncijfers & trends Rotterdam 2009, p.66).


62

Table 6.11 shows the number visits of citizens in Rotterdam in cultural activities and if these visitations were in Rotterdam or in a different city. Dance or house parties and the cinema have the highest number of visits, on average the citizens of Rotterdam visited these facilities more than seven times in 2007. Classical- and pop concerts and theatrical performances have been visited 3 to 3,5 times on average. The rest has been visited 2 to 2,7 times, with exception of musicals and opera. The cinema (87%) and classical concerts (81%) have been visited the most in Rotterdam, pop concert (58%) and musicals (62%) have been visited more often outside the city of Rotterdam.

theatrical performance cabaret concert (classical music) opera concert (pop music) concert (jazz- or blues) concert (harmony or brass band) musical dance or house party ballet or dance performance chorus performance literary performance lecture about art (history) cinema

Number of visits

of which in Rotterdam

3,2 2,2 3,5 1,9 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,8 7,5 2,1 2,5 2,7 2,7 7,3

75% 68% 81% 68% 58% 74% 77% 62% 75% 74% 68% 79% 79% 87%

Table 6.11: Visits of citizens of Rotterdam in cultural activities in 2007 (kerncijfers & trends Rotterdam 2009, p.63).

Combined activities The OBR has done research to the different kind of leisure activities, an remarks that activities are often combined. Funshopping has the highest percentage of combinations with other activities. People who go to the city for funshopping will often combine this with a lunch or terrrace (above 70%) and also combinations with theatre or concert, cinema and a town walk (above 60%) will often occur. Lunch or dining is also often combined with other activities, most often with a visit to a museum, a terrace or a town walk. Other combinations that take places are, visits to a: - terrace with: going out (31%), lunch or dining (27%) and a town walk. - museum with: a theatre or concert (31%), and a town walk. - theatre or concert with a museum (28%). - cinema with gouing out (33%). - town walk with: a museum (29%) or theathre or concert (25%). People who visit attractions, events or go out will not often combine this with other activities. Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

63

Fun shopping

Lunch or dining

Terrace

Museum

Attraction

Theatre or concert

Events

Going out

Cinema

town walk

X

74%

70%

49%

39%

61%

40%

53%

66%

66%

Lunch or dining

32%

X

44%

55%

23%

49%

26%

38%

35%

50%

Terrace

19%

27%

X

15%

17%

11%

24%

31%

20%

25%

Museum

7%

18%

8%

X

7%

31%

9%

13%

10%

28%

Attraction

8%

10%

12%

10%

X

10%

13%

15%

16%

6%

Theatre or concert

8%

15%

5%

28%

7%

X

15%

6%

9%

21%

Events

6%

9%

13%

10%

10%

17%

X

11%

10%

9%

Going out

5%

7%

10%

7%

6%

4%

7%

X

15%

2%

Cinema

13%

15%

14%

13%

16%

13%

13%

33%

X

5%

town walk

10%

18%

14%

29%

4%

25%

10%

3%

4%

X

Fun shopping

Table 6.12: Combinations of activities per visit to Rotterdam in 2006 (Plezierige zaken in Rotterdam 2006, p.34).

There are also some activities with a very low percentage of combinations, like for example: a town walk with with going out or a visit to the cinema (and visa versa), going out and theatre or concert, a town walk and visiting an attrachtion, and so on.

6.4

Conclusion

With a growth of 24% from 2001 to 2008 the leisure market seem to be an growing market. In 2008 the leisure market was capable for € 36,9 billion, which is about 3% of the GDP. It is a sector with a relative high amount of parttimers. A lot of the leisure is concentrated in the large cities, which can be found back in the growth ratio. In Rotterdam the leisure sector has grown with about 6% between 2003 and 2005, which is a higher ratio than the 2,6% nationwide. Although the leisure market seem to be growing, the amount of available leisure time shows an opposite trend. On average the amount of leisure time has decreased and the amount of obligatory time has increased. Employed people seem to have the least available leisure time. Altough leisure time has decreased the time spent on traveling towards leisure has increased, and so has the distance. On average people are traveling longer and a larger distance towards leisure. Rotterdam has its own way of measuring time, statistics show that time spend on work has decreased, time spend on studying has increased and time spend on care has also decreased. People in Rotterdam seem to study more often, which could be a positive development for a city with a low ratio of high educated inhabitants. The numbers of obligatory time and leisure time show strange trends, which could be caused by the way of measuring. Other statistics show that the perception has changed, more often people have the feeling that they have less leisure time available.


64

Statistics about the leisure activities show the rise of electronic and digital media. During the last decades more time is spend on electronic media and less on printed media and their social contacts. Also in comparison to the past people spend more time on going out, sport & exercise and on leisure mobility. Of the non-home-based activities, outside recreation and funshopping have become the most important. Also sport, a night out and, hobby‟s or club activities are important non-home-based activities. Of this activities, in Rotterdam, funshopping is most often combined with other activities, followed by lunching or dining and terrace visits. Also visits to theatres are often combined with museums and concerts, cinema‟s with a night out and town walks with museums, theatres or concerts. Statistics of the facilities in Rotterdam show that the Zoo (Blijdorp), Euromast and Spido (round trips by boat) are the most visited facilities. Also events are often visited in the city of Rotterdam. Of the cultural facilities the cinema and dance or house parties are most often visited (about 7 times a year), followed concerts (pop or classical) and theatrical performances (about 3 times a year). Most of the visits toward cultural facilities by the inhabitants of Rotterdam are in cultural facilities inside the city of Rotterdam.


65

7. Settlement and leisure preferences of elites Surveys are used to gain insight in the settlement and leisure preferences of the elites of Rotterdam. This chapter contains the results of these surveys. In the first paragraph the response is described and a profile is given of the respondents. The second paragraph contains a description of the settlement elements which are important to the elite class inhabitants of Rotterdam. The next paragraph gives an overview of the priorities of those elements. The fourth paragraph focuses on the facilities and shows which facilities are wanted in the immediate surroundings. The last paragraph gives an overview of other remarkable aspects which came out of the analysis.

7.1

Response analyses

As described in paragraph 3.5 three different kinds of surveys are used. The first surveys are aimed at inhabitants from the three different living environments in Rotterdam (green-, serene and central urban). From the municipal basic administration a stratified random sample of 750 people was drawn and these people have been approached by a letter (see appendix A) with a personal password. The second survey is aimed at employees of organisations in Rotterdam, with in potency a high amount of knowledge workers. These people are not randomly selected but approached via the secretariat or a personal contact (opportunity sample). Because there is no random selection and just 4 organisations have been approached this sample could be disproportional and results should be interpreted carefully. In the third survey the social network community of LinkedIn has been used to approach elite class inhabitants in Rotterdam. Via a discussion group about Rotterdam people were invited to participate in the survey. This survey is a „voluntary response sample‟, the respondent has to decide if he wants to participate. Some groups could be more likely to take part in the research project than others and therefore could lead to biased samples. Survey 1

Survey 2

Survey 3

Inhabitants 3 zones stratified A-selective sample Random selection, respondents approached by a letter that contains a personal password.

Organizations opportunity sample No random selection, respondents approached via secretariat or personal contact.

Approached respondents: 2250 Total response of (N=) 285 (about 12,7%)

Approached respondents: 180 Total response of (N=) 52 (about 29%)

Amount of elite class (bachelor or master degree) (N=) 226 (about 79%)



Lower educated (N=) 59



LinkedIn voluntary response sample No random selection, respondents are invited to participate via a discussion group. Unknown Total response of (N=) 145 (ratio unknown)

Table 7.1: Overview of different survey types and their response.


66

Survey 1; under inhabitants of the three zones (green-, serene- and central urban) gives a total response of (N=) 285, a response ratio of 12,7%. This response includes 226 people with higher education (79%). The second survey under the four organizations gives a total response of (N=) 52, a response ratio of approximately 29%. This response includes (N=) 48 highly educated inhabitants (92%). The survey via LinkedIn gives a total response of (N=) 145 (total response ratio unknown) and includes (N=) 121 people with higher education (83%). Together the surveys result give a total response of (N=) 482 and contains (N=) 395 people with a high education level (82% of response are elites). In the next table shows categorizes the respondents by the research zones. It becomes clear that the second (organisations) and third type (LinkedIn) has some respondents that don‟t live in Rotterdam or its region. The amount of elite class inhabitants has shrunk to (n=) 29 for the second survey and (n=) 117 for the LinkedIn survey. There are 23 elite class respondents that live in a municipality outside the Rotterdam region, this gives a response of (N=) 372 elites in Rotterdam and its region. (1) Inhabitants 3 zones % N Rotterdam region Green urban area Serene urban area Central urban area

65 83 78

Total

226

(2) Organizations % N

(3) LinkedIn % N

29% 37% 35%

9 5 10 5

31% 17% 34% 17%

10 31 54 22

9% 26% 46% 19%

100%

29

100%

117

100%

Table 7.2: Overview of the number of elite class respondents per zone.

The amount of elite class respondents from survey type 2 (organizations) and survey type 3 (LinkedIn) have low sample sizes (cell counts). This could make the results indicative, when there is for example just a cell count of 10, one single respondent will determine about 10% of the results. To solve this issue data will have to be joined together. However the first survey has a random selection and the second and third surveys haven‟t (see table 7.1). Before joining anything, first should be tested if the respondents of the random and not-random surveys have similar characteristics. Differences When comparing the characteristics of the respondents from the first survey and the other two survey types, it becomes clear that there are a lot of differences (see table 7.3). The characteristics of the respondents are significant different on the aspects: type of real estate X²(2)=55.970, P<0.001, net income per month X²(2)=31.354, P<0.001, household type X²(2)=5.318, P<0.05, history of moving X²(4)=18.852, P<0.001 and age X²(4)=78.367, P<0.001. Only the characteristic „gender‟ and „kind of work‟ has similar proportions in the compared survey types.


67

Survey 1: Inhabitants 3 zones

Gender Type of real estate (house) ** Income level **

Household type *

Kind of work

Moved […] years ago **

Age **

Survey 2+3 Organizations + LinkedIn Count %

Count

%

female

83

37%

60

36%

male

143

63%

109

64%

rental

6

3%

49

29%

owner occupied

220

97%

120

71%

until 3.050 euro

36

19%

70

47%

above 3.050 euro

158

81%

80

53%

household with kid(s)

98

43%

54

32%

household without kid(s)

128

57%

115

68%

Knowledge intensive

112

60%

89

55%

creative of communicative

22

12%

28

17%

education, health care

27

15%

18

11%

other kinds of work

25

13%

26

16%

0 - 7 year

91

40%

105

62%

8 - 14 year

74

33%

32

19%

15 and over

61

27%

32

19%

18 - 35 year

18

8%

76

45%

36 - 55 year

136

60%

74

44%

56 and over

72

32%

19

11%

* P<0.05, ** P<0.001(chi-square) Table 7.3: Overview characteristics of survey 1 and survey 2+3.

Because survey 2 (organizations) and survey 3 (LinkedIn) doesn‟t have a random selection and seem to differ a lot from the first survey type, they should not be joined. The second and third surveys may be biased and should therefore be interpret carefully. Therefore the data of the survey will be used in the following way: - First, analysis will be made based on the first survey type. The first survey type has been selected randomly and therefore has the highest reliability. This survey will be used to make a comparison between the 3 zones green-, serene- and central urban. - Second, analysis will be made on the total response so including data of all three surveys. This analysis on the total response will be used as „trend seeker‟, and the results will be compared with the first survey type. These results may contribute to the conclusion of survey 1. However if different results occur the first survey type will be normative. Also the response from the „Rotterdam Region‟ has been added to the „Green urban area‟. This because the 19 respondents from the Rotterdam Region seems to live closely to the green urban areas of Rotterdam.79

79

This has been concluded after looking at all the responses from the Rotterdam Region individually.


68

Differences in characteristic within survey type 1 Comparing the survey under inhabitants of the 3 zones (survey type 1) it becomes clear that the characteristics have similar proportions. Significant differences are found for the characteristics: household type X²(2)=6.344, P<0.05 and history of moving X²(4)=26.505, P<0.001. The serene urban area has the most households with children (53%) followed by the green urban area (43%) and the central urban area (33%). The people in the central urban area have moved to this area more recently, which isn‟t strange because the „Kop van Zuid‟ area is a new development area and the neighbourhoods of the serene- and green urban areas aren‟t. Another remarkable fact is the amount of owner occupied houses, almost all respondents have owner occupied houses. This while both respondents with rental and owner occupied houses have been approached. Because there are almost no respondents with rental houses this variable could be left out of the analyses, however as table 7.3 showed the surveys 2 and 3 contain rental houses (29%). Therefore this variable has been preserved. Green urban

Gender Type of real estate (house) Income level

Household type *

Kind of work

Moved […] years ago **

Age

Serene urban

Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

female

27

42%

31

37%

25

32%

male

38

58%

52

63%

53

68%

rental

2

3%

0

0%

4

5%

owner occupied

63

97%

83

100%

74

95%

until 3.050 euro

11

19%

13

18%

12

18%

above 3.050 euro

47

81%

58

82%

53

82%

household with kid(s)

28

43%

44

53%

26

33%

household without kid(s)

37

57%

39

47%

52

67%

Knowledge intensive

27

56%

42

58%

43

66%

creative of communicative

6

13%

10

14%

6

9%

education, health care

8

17%

8

11%

11

17%

other kinds of work

7

15%

13

18%

5

8%

0 - 7 year

20

31%

33

40%

38

49%

8 - 14 year

23

35%

17

20%

34

44%

15 and over

22

34%

33

40%

6

8%

18 - 35 year

3

5%

7

8%

8

10%

36 - 55 year

35

54%

49

59%

52

67%

56 and over

27

42%

27

33%

18

23%

* P<0.05, ** P<0.001 (chi-square) Table 7.4: Overview characteristics between the three research zones in survey 1.


69

Profile of the respondent Below a brief description is given of the respondents which are used in the analysis. Respondents‟ green-, serene- and central urban area of survey type 1 Almost all respondents live in owner occupied houses (97%) and about 81% of the households have a monthly net income of 3.050 euro and over. In the serene urban area live the most households with kids (53%), the green urban area has about (43%) of households with kids and the central urban area has just 33% of households with kids. There are no significant differences between the three living zones at kind of work, most of the people have knowledge intensive work. The households from the central urban area have moved more recently (which is logical because this is a new build district). The amount of older people (56 and over) seem to be the least in the central urban area (23%), the serene urban area has a little bit more older people (33%), but the most older people are living at the borders of the city in the green urban area (42%). There are some differences in age, however this difference is not significant. Almost all respondents seem to work and live within the Rotterdam region. Other respondents (organizations & LinkedIn) The other respondents are relatively young in comparison with the respondents of the first survey type. As visual in table 7.3 the amount of people between 1 and 35 years is much more than in survey type 1 (45% in comparison with 8%). Also the proportion of older people (56 and over) is much less than in survey type 1 (11% in comparison to 32%). This could be to the way of approaching the respondents, the second survey is aimed at people who are still working which means that retired people can‟t participate. For the third survey a (professional) social network community on internet has been used, which is also more likely to contain younger and working people than older or retired ones. About 62% has moved to their current location within the last 7 years and also the income level seems to be lower than those of the first survey, only 53% earn more than 3.050 euro. The respondents of the „organizations and LinkedIn‟ surveys are living more often in rental houses (29%) and have a smaller proportion of households with kids (just 32% are households with kids). In comparison with the first survey the proportions of „gender‟ and „kind of work‟ are more or less the same. Almost all respondents seem to work and live within the Rotterdam region.

7.2

Settlement elements of the elite class

The first question of the questionnaire is about the settlement elements. The respondents were asked to notify which elements are important for their settlement choice. Based on the literature and conceptual model a list was given of elements. The respondent could answer in four categories, a four-point-scale from unimportant towards very-important (see appendix B for the questionnaire). The four-point-scale has been encoded to a two point scale of important and unimportant.80 The results of this question are shown in the following results: 80

Way of encoding the 4pointscale: Niet [not] and weinig [not much] have become „unimportant‟, redelijk [reasonably] and veel [much] have become „important‟.


70

Research area Green urban

Serene urban

Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

65

100%

83

100%

77

99%

63

97%

82

99%

74

95%

65

100%

76

92%

73

94%

Accessibility

64

98%

76

92%

72

92%

House price

60

92%

74

89%

75

96%

Image of the area

60

92%

73

88%

68

87%

57

88%

64

77%

59

76%

56

86%

66

80%

57

73%

Environment Housing type (size, number of rooms, style, etc) Safety of the area

Population (social class or cultural background) Retail facilities Leisure facilities (catering industry, restaurants, theatre, sport, culture, etc.) Healthcare facilities

*

43

66%

66

80%

65

83%

**

41

63%

30

36%

31

40%

Educational facilities

*

33

51%

38

46%

23

29%

32

49%

30

36%

24

31%

24

37%

23

28%

32

41%

65

100%

83

100%

78

100%

Closeness of family, friends and acquaintances Employment Total

* P<0.05, **P<0.01(Kruskal Wallis) Table 7.5: Overview of importance of settlement elements

As visual in the table above the elements: environment, housing type, safety and accessibility are important to more than 90% of the respondents in all areas. Housing price and image also have high scores, 87% or more mentions these elements as important for their settlement choice. The population (in terms of social class and cultural background) seems to be more important in the green urban area (88%) than in the serene (77%) or central urban area (76%). Also retail facilities are important to a large group of respondents, the lowest score is 73%. The importance of retail seems to increase if we go further away from the city centre. The significance is tested with the Kruskal-Wallis-test. Significant differences between the three areas can be found in the elements leisure facilities H(2)=6.351, P<0.05, healthcare facilities H(2)=12.021, P<0.001 and educational facilities H(2)=7.525, P<0.05. Leisure is mentioned more often as important aspect in the serene- and central urban area than in the green urban area. In the green urban area 66% of the respondents mentions leisure as important aspect for their settlement choice. This is much less than in the serene (80%) and central urban area (83%).


71

Healthcare seems to be more important in the green urban areas (63%) than in the serene (36%) and central urban area (40%). This might be caused be the amount of elderly people, which is larger in the green urban area. Educational facilities are mentioned as important element by; 51% in the green urban area, 46% in the serene urban area and 29% in the central urban area. These ratios are almost similar with the amount of households with children (green43%, serene- 53%, central urban 33%). The elements „closeness of family, friends and acquaintances‟ and „employment‟ score below 50%. Closeness of family, friends and acquaintances seems to get less important if we come closer to the city centre. Although still 28% until 41% mentions employment as an important settlement element, employment seems to be the least important of all elements. Comparison with other surveys (organizations + LinkedIn) In the next table the results are shown of the total response, including the results of survey 2 and 3. Besides the test on significance (with Kruskal-Wallis) the percentages have been compared with those of the first survey. All observed differences larger than 5% have been coloured. Research area Green urban

Serene urban

Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Environment

118

98%

146

99%

104

99%

Housing type (size, number of rooms, style, etc)

117

98%

143

97%

101

96%

116

97%

127

86%

94

90%

Accessibility

115

96%

136

93%

99

94%

House price

111

93%

134

91%

98

93%

Image of the area

106

88%

121

82%

89

85%

Population (social class or cultural background)

96

80%

109

74%

79

75%

Retail facilities

88

73%

119

81%

75

71%

*

Safety of the area

Leisure facilities (catering industry, restaurants, theatre, sport, culture, etc.)

**

78

65%

120

82%

87

83%

Healthcare facilities

**

65

54%

47

32%

40

38%

Educational facilities

**

64

53%

58

39%

33

31%

Closeness of family, friends and acquaintances

59

49%

65

44%

39

37%

Employment

51

43%

59

40%

50

48%

120

100%

147

100%

105

100%

Total

* P<0.05, **P<0.01(Kruskal Wallis) Table 7.6: Overview importance of settlement elements of survey 2 and 3, the observed difference with survey 1 has been coloured: 5% – 10%, 10% –15%.


72

Just like in the first survey significant differences have been found between the three areas in: leisure facilities H(2)=12.916, P<0.01, healthcare facilities H(2)=11.708, P<0.01 and educational facilities H(2)=12.679, P<0.01. Also the variable safety has become significant H(2)=6.270, P<0.05. The order of importance hasn‟t changed much. Safety seems to be less important to the respondents of the serene- and central urban area in survey 2 + 3, because the percentage has dropped a little. Also when the respondents of the organizations and LinkedIn are included, the table still has the same top 5. The elements: environment, housing type, accessibility, house price and safety still are the most important elements. Retail facilities, the population and healthcare facilities have become less important in the green urban area. Closeness of family, friends and acquaintances has become more important and so has employment. Other elements, which were not listed but were mentioned by the respondents are: parking facilities and public transport.

7.3

Priorities

The second question of the survey is about the priorities of the elements. The respondents were asked to set priorities for all „important elements‟ of the first question. This had to be done by listing the elements with numbers (1 as most important element, 2 as second most important, and so on). From every respondent the five most important elements have been selected to create a TOP5 per area. To get one final score for each settlement element a ranking model has been made, which will be explained with example below. TOP5 ‘Green urban area’ Frequency (N) Housing type Environment Safety

th

1

19 14 10

th

2

11 14 9

th

3

7 10 11

th

4

8 9 7

Place in priority list th 1

th

5

1

Value 5 points

th

4 points

th

3 points

th

2 points

th

1 point

2

4

3

9

4

Accessibility

5

4

4

5

16

Housing price

4

13

9

7

7

Score (points)

1

2

3

4

5

th

Total score

Final TOP5

Housing type

95 70 50 25 20

44 56 36 16 52

21 30 33 12 27

16 18 14 10 14

1 4 9 16 7

177

2

178

1

142

3

79

5

120

4

Environment Safety Accessibility Housing price

th

th

th

th

5

The ranking model generates one final score for all elements, which is based on the frequency of the first 5 priorities. The highest total score represents the most important element, the lowest score the least important element.


73

In figure 7.7 the TOP5 of each area are shown, the complete overview of the results can be found back in appendix C. Green urban Element Environment

Serene urban Score 178

Housing type (size, rooms, style, etc) Safety of the area

177

Element Environment

Central urban Score 277

Element Housing type (size, rooms, style, etc)

Score 241

242

142

Housing type (size, rooms, style, etc) Safety of the area

155

House price

141

House price

120

House price

139

Safety of the area

134

Accessibility

79

Accessibility

120

Accessibility

107

Environment

210

Table 7.7: Overview of TOP5 priorities in survey 1.

In all the three areas the elements; environment, housing type, safety, housing price and accessibility are on top of the priority list in. These elements have the highest score and get the most priority to the elite class inhabitants of Rotterdam. Environment and housing occupy the first two places in each area, they also have a much higher score than the other three elements. Safety and housing price occupy the third and fourth place in each area. Accessibility is placed fifth in each area. Comparison with other surveys (organizations + LinkedIn) The results of the total response (including the respondents of the organizations and LinkedIn) show similar results. Although the elements vary one or two positions, depending on the location, in general the same segmentation can be found. The TOP5 of each area still exists out of the same 5 elements. Green urban Element

Serene urban Score

Element

Central urban Score

Housing type (size, rooms, style, etc) Environment

338

Environment

435

317

House price

247

Housing type (size, rooms, style, etc) House price

Safety of the area

234

Accessibility

151

Element

Score 307

432

Housing type (size, rooms, style, etc) Environment

285

House price

183

Safety of the area

224

Safety of the area

171

Accessibility

214

Accessibility

148

281

Table 7.8: Overview of TOP5 priorities of the total response (including survey 2 + 3).

This means that the other elements would get less priority, other elements like for example leisure facilities. Leisure comes secondary in terms of priority housing and environment come first.


74

7.4

Importance of accessibility

Like in the first question, the respondents were asked to score accessibility of several elements. The results of this question are summarized in the table below. This table shows the numbers and percentages of respondents who notified these elements as important. Research area Green urban

Serene urban Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

39

60%

60

72%

62

79%

41 55

63% 85%

60 70

72% 84%

63 66

81% 85%

38

58%

40

48%

30

38%

27 65

42% 100%

41 83

49% 100%

25 78

32% 100%

*

Accessibility of work Accessibility of leisure facilities Accessibility of retail Accessibility of family, friends and acquaintances Accessibilities of educational facilities Total (N)

* P<0.05(Kruskal Wallis) Table 7.9: Importance of accessibility in survey 1.

Significant differences are found between the scores on „accessibility of work‟ H(2)=6.612, P<0.05. These differences could possibly be clarified by the amount of retired respondents in the survey. As table 7.4 shows, in the green urban area live more respondents aged above 56 years in comparison to the serene- and central urban area. The accessibility of leisure facilities and family, friends and acquaintances does also show some differences (not significant). About 81% of the respondents in the central urban area notified accessibility of leisure as important. This is more than the 72% in the serene urban area and the 63% in the green urban area. Accessibility of family, friends and acquaintances shows an opposite trend. This element has the lowest percentage in the central urban area (38%) and the highest percentage in the green urban area (58%). Comparison with other surveys (organizations + LinkedIn) Table 7.10 shows the total response (including the respondents of the organizations and LinkedIn). Accessibility of work shows similar difference between the living areas, the significance has even become stronger H(2)=9.478, P<0.01. Also the accessibility of leisure facilities shows significance H(2)=6.280, P<0.05. Like the accessibility of work the accessibility of leisure facilities is valued more often as important element in the central urban area (80%) and serene urban area (78%) as in the green urban area (67%). This strengthens the conclusions based on the first survey type, were accessibility of work was also significant different. The accessibility of leisure facilities wasn‟t significant in the first survey type, but did already show differences. After adding the responses from survey 2 + 3 it has become significant.


75

Research area Green urban

Serene urban Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Accessibility of work

**

82

68%

111

76%

86

82%

Accessibility of leisure facilities

*

80

67%

115

78%

84

80%

Accessibility of retail

97

81%

121

82%

90

86%

Accessibility of family, friends and acquaintances Accessibilities of educational facilities

68

57%

76

52%

47

45%

50

42%

60

41%

34

32%

Total (N)

120

100%

147

100%

105

100%

* P<0.05, ** P<0.01 (Kruskal Wallis) Table 7.10: Importance of accessibility in survey 1.

7.5

Facilities in the immediate environment

The second part of the survey goes more deeply into the desired leisure facilities. Van den Berg et. al. mentions that people nowadays have higher demands towards services in the immediate environment and also Karsten mentions closeness to facilities as an important aspect (see chapter 2). The analysis of the previous paragraphs shows that leisure facilities are important to a large amount of the respondents, especially in the serene- and central urban area of Rotterdam. However it remains unclear which kind of facilities are desired by the inhabitants. Therefore more detailed information has been collected. The respondents of the survey were asked which facilities are important to them on short distance. In the questionnaire this „short distance‟ has been defined as „desired [facility] on approximately 10 minutes cycling- or walking distance‟. The following categories have been placed in front of the respondents: entertainment-, retail-, sport-, nature and recreational-, art and cultural- and educational facilities. Also a question is added about the contribution of (large) events to the attractiveness of the city of Rotterdam. Because a low cell count has been achieved for some aspects the significance between the three living zones has been tested with the Fisher's exact test (see §3.5). Entertainment facilities Table 7.11 shows the desired entertainment facilities in the immediate surroundings. It becomes clear that the inhabitants in the central urban area have the highest demands towards entertainment facilities and green urban the lowest demand. Significant differences (Fisher‟s exact test) are found on the elements: cinema X²=34.008, P<0.001, café X²=14.452, P<0.001, theatre X²=27.861, P<0.001 and restaurant X²=29.143, P<0.001. A large amount of the respondents of the green urban area notify entertainment facilities as unimportant (40%), this is much more than in the serene urban area (16%) and central urban area (8%). This difference has a significance of X²=23.236, P<0.001


76

Research area

discotheque cinema cafe theatre casino restaurant other, such as…. entertainment facilities are unimportant to me

* * * * *

Green urban Count % 0 0% 6 9% 16 25% 7 11% 0 0% 30 46% 10 15% 26 40%

Serene urban Count % 2 2% 27 33% 39 47% 37 45% 2 2% 62 75% 15 18% 13 16%

Central urban Count % 1 1% 42 54% 43 55% 37 47% 1 1% 68 87% 16 21% 6 8%

* P<0.001(Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.11: Overview of desired entertainment facilities in the immediate surroundings.

A lot of respondents has marked the „other, to know‟ option. However no valid entertainment facilities were mentioned, almost all comments showed aspects from other leisure categories (like: libraries, museums, sport, greenery, etc.). This probably has to do with the structure of the survey, on forehand no explanation was given about the „leisure categories to be expected‟. About 5 respondents remarked that the distance is to short, they are willing to travel over a larger distance to reach these kinds of facilities. Entertainment facilities (total response) Table 7.12 shows the desired entertainment facilities in the immediate surroundings for the total response (including the respondents of the organizations and LinkedIn). The same differences are found, also the facility „discotheque‟ has become significant in the total response. Significant differences (Fisher‟s exact test) are found on the elements: discotheque X²=7.236, P<0.05, cinema X²=36.961, P<0.001, cafe X²=19.194, P<0.001, theatre X²=29.329, P<0.001, restaurant X²=31.007, P<0.001, unimportant X²=32.635, P<0.001.

Green urban

discotheque cinema cafe theatre casino restaurant other, such as…. entertainment facilities are unimportant to me

* ** ** ** ** **

Count 0 19 40 18 1 64 12 44

% 0% 16% 33% 15% 1% 53% 10% 37%

Research area Serene urban Count 5 56 85 59 2 117 20 19

% 3% 38% 58% 40% 1% 80% 14% 13%

Central urban Count 6 56 60 47 3 88 20 9

% 6% 53% 57% 45% 3% 84% 19% 9%

* P<0.05, ** P<0.001 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.12: Overview of desired entertainment facilities in the immediate surroundings (total response)


77

Retail facilities Table 7.13 shows the desired retail facilities in the immediate surroundings. No significant differences are found between the facilities in the three urban areas. Only the last category, about people who mention shops as unimportant has significance (X²=7.003, P<0.01). Shops for daily needs like; drugstores or pharmacies, supermarkets, and craft shops have the highest percentages. Luxuryand fashion shops both have a low percentage and don‟t seem to be needed in the immediate surroundings. Almost no one has notified retail facilities as unimportant, which makes this category of leisure an important element for the city of Rotterdam. Other retail functions mentioned by the respondents are a: bookstore, (family) doctor, shoemaker, post office, market, do-it-yourself or tools shop and pet store.

Green urban

luxury shops (jeweler, gift-shop, specialist shop, etc.) household goods fashion shops pharmacy / drugstore supermarket craftshop (greengrocery, baker, butcher, etc.) other, such as…. shops are unimportant to me *

Research area Serene urban

Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

4

6%

11

13%

7

9%

29 8 55 61 46

45% 12% 85% 94% 71%

34 12 65 82 69

41% 14% 78% 99% 83%

27 5 63 74 56

35% 6% 81% 95% 72%

7 4

11% 6%

12 0

14% 0%

8 0

10% 0%

* P<0.01 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.13: Overview of desired retail facilities in the immediate surroundings.

Retail facilities (total response) Table 7.14 shows the desired retail facilities in the immediate surroundings for the total response (including the respondents of the organizations and LinkedIn). Research area Green urban luxury shops (jeweler, gift-shop, specialist shop, etc.) household goods fashion shops pharmacy / drugstore supermarket * craftshop (greengrocery, baker, butcher, etc.) other, such as…. shops are unimportant to me *

Serene urban

Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

13

11%

16

11%

13

12%

47 19 91 113

39% 16% 76% 94%

59 26 107 146

40% 18% 73% 99%

39 10 76 99

37% 10% 72% 94%

84

70%

119

81%

74

70%

8 5

7% 4%

14 0

10% 0%

12 1

11% 1%

* P<0.05 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.14: Overview of desired retail facilities in the immediate surroundings (total response).


78

In the total response the facility „supermarket‟ has become significant different X²=7.302, P<0.05. Like in the first survey significance is found in the category of people who mention shops as unimportant (X²=6.446, P<0.05). Sport facilities Table 7.15 shows the desired sport facilities in the immediate surroundings. Significant differences are found on the elements: (indoor) swimming pool X²=10.051, P<0.01, playground or play area X²=7.167, P<0.05 and team sports X²=9.090, P<0.01. Swimming pools seems to be more important to the respondents of the serene (43%) and central urban area (40%) than in the green urban area (20%). The facilities of „playground or play area‟ and „team sports‟ are most important in the serene area, followed by the green urban area and central urban area. This could be related to the amount of households with children, which is highest in the serene urban area and green urban area. With 50% in the central urban area, the fitness centre‟s have the highest score of the sport facilities, all other sport facilities score lower. Other facilities mentioned by the respondents are: an athletics track, cycling routes (is placed in this survey under the category „recreation‟), a golf course and sailing water. Three respondents mentioned that the distance is to short, they are willing to travel over a larger distance to reach these kinds of facilities.

Green urban Count %

Research area Serene urban Count %

Central urban Count %

(indoor) swimming pool ** individual sports (martial arts, dressage, watersport, gymnastics, etc.)

13

20%

36

43%

31

40%

5

8%

7

8%

9

12%

fitness centre playground or play area soccer- , basketballfield or halfpipe team sports (tennis, soccer, hockey, korfball, etc.) ice skating rink other, such as…. sports are unimportant to me

*

28 22 16

43% 34% 25%

31 38 24

37% 46% 29%

39 20 14

50% 26% 18%

**

21

32%

34

41%

15

19%

2 3

3% 5%

2 7

2% 8%

4 6

5% 8%

12

18%

13

16%

12

15%

* P<0.05, ** P<0.01 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.15: Overview of desired sport facilities in the immediate surroundings.

Sport facilities (total response) Table 7.16 shows the desired sport facilities in the immediate surroundings for the total response (including the respondents of the organizations and LinkedIn). Like in the first survey the facilities: (indoor) swimming pool X²=13.219, P<0.001 and team sports X²=14.463, P<0.001 are significant, the difference has even become stronger (0.001 level). The facility playground or play area still shows some differences, but isn‟t significant anymore.


79

Research area Green urban Count % (indoor) swimming pool

*

individual sports (martial arts, dressage, watersport, gymnastics, etc.) fitness centre playground or play area soccer- , basketballfield or halfpipe team sports (tennis, soccer, hockey, korfball, etc.) ice skating rink other, such as…. sports are unimportant to me

*

Serene urban Count %


27

23%

64

44%

37

35%

12

10%

18

12%

10

10%

45 43 35

38% 36% 29%

54 57 34

37% 39% 23%

47 27 19

45% 26% 18%

32

27%

57

39%

18

17%

2 7 23

2% 6% 19%

4 10 27

3% 7% 18%

4 8 21

4% 8% 20%

* P<0.001 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.16: Overview of desired sport facilities in the immediate surroundings (total response).

Nature and recreational facilities Table 7.17 shows the desired sport facilities in the immediate surroundings. Significant differences are found on the elements: country green (like: grazing land) X²=8.557, P<0.05 and forests X²=7.915, P<0.05. Both these elements have a higher percentage in the green urban area than in the serene- and central urban area. The facility „park‟ has the highest score (above 80% in all areas) and is therefore an important facility for the whole city of Rotterdam. Also public gardens and recreational cycling routes seem to be important to a large amount of the respondents. Almost no one has notified nature and recreational facilities as unimportant which makes this category of leisure an important element for the city of Rotterdam.

Green urban Count % park square / plaza recreative cycling route public gardens country green (grazing land) * beach forests * other, such as…. nature and recreation are unimportant to me

52 12 37 44 31 4 32 1 1

80% 18% 57% 68% 48% 6% 49% 2% 2%

Research area Serene urban Count % 72 20 46 48 31 7 24 2 1


87% 24% 55% 58% 37% 8% 29% 2% 1%

63 28 37 57 19 12 23 4 3

81% 36% 47% 73% 24% 15% 29% 5% 4%

* P<0.05 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.17: Overview of desired nature and recreation in the immediate surroundings.

Nature and recreational facilities (total response) Table 7.18 shows the desired nature and recreational facilities in the immediate surroundings for the total response (including the respondents of the organizations


80

and LinkedIn). Only country green seem to be significant X²=11.671, P<0.01, the element forests isn‟t significant anymore in the total response. Research area Green urban Count % park square / plaza recreative cycling route public gardens country green (grazing land) * beach forests other, such as…. nature and recreation are unimportant to me

Serene urban Count %


93 29 61 69 52 13 52 1

78% 24% 51% 58% 43% 11% 43% 1%

126 44 71 89 49 17 46 2

86% 30% 48% 61% 33% 12% 31% 1%

88 41 40 74 23 15 31 6

84% 39% 38% 70% 22% 14% 30% 6%

6

5%

2

1%

3

3%

* P<0.01 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.18: Overview of desired nature and recreation in the immediate surroundings (total response).

Art and cultural facilities Table 7.19 shows the desired sport facilities in the immediate surroundings. Significant differences are found on the elements: museum and art galleries X²=15.700, P<0.001 and monuments or monumental buildings X²=16.585, P<0.001. Both these elements seem to be most important in the central urban area, followed by the serene- and the green urban area. A library seems to be most important, to all of the respondents.

Green urban Count % museum, art galleries dancing school school of music library community centre monuments or monumental buildings other, such as…. art and culture are unimportant to me

*

*

11 0 9 38 13 8 5 13

17% 0% 14% 58% 20% 12% 8% 20%

Research area Serene urban Count % 32 5 22 45 8 30 11 9

39% 6% 27% 54% 10% 36% 13% 11%

Central urban Count % 37 6 12 43 7 32 8 10

47% 8% 15% 55% 9% 41% 10% 13%

* P<0.001 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.19: Overview of desired art and cultural facilities in the immediate surroundings.

The answers given in the option „other, to know‟ show some remarkable comments. 16 respondents explicitly mentions that cultural facilities are important to them, however they are willing to travel over a larger distance to reach these kind of facilities. Art and cultural facilities (total response) Table 7.20 shows the desired art and cultural facilities in the immediate surroundings for the total response (including the respondents of the organizations


81

and LinkedIn). Museum and art galleries X²=24.170, P<0.001 and monuments or monumental buildings X²=15.494, P<0.001. The results of survey 1 and the total response are the same, which means that the respondents of the organizations and of LinkedIn have similar demands in terms of art and culture as those of the first survey. Research area

museum, art galleries dancing school school of music library community centre monuments or monumental buildings other, such as…. art and culture are unimportant to me

Green urban Count % * 24 20% 6 5% 16 13% 65 54% 20 17% * 21 18% 8 7% 29 24%

Serene urban Count % 61 41% 9 6% 33 22% 74 50% 14 10% 52 35% 14 10% 23 16%

Central urban Count % 52 50% 6 6% 13 12% 55 52% 10 10% 41 39% 12 11% 15 14%

* P<0.001 (Fisher‟s exact test) Table 7.20: Overview of desired art and cultural facilities in the immediate surroundings (total response).

Educational facilities Table 7.21 shows the desired sport facilities in the immediate surroundings, no significant differences are found. The facilities crèche and primary education show similarities with the division of households with children (table 7.4). About 43% to 56% mention educational facilities as unimportant. Another facility mentioned by the respondents (in the option „other, to know...) is „courses for elderly people‟.

Green urban Count % crèche primary educatrion secondary education vocational training higher education (school for higher vocational education or university) other, such as…. educational facilities are unimportant to me

Research area Serene urban Count %


19 27 15 1 7

29% 42% 23% 2% 11%

28 38 20 1 5

34% 46% 24% 1% 6%

22 24 10 2 8

28% 31% 13% 3% 10%

2 30

3% 46%

1 36

1% 43%

1 44

1% 56%

Table 7.21: Overview of desired educational facilities in the immediate surroundings.

The total response shows similar results, no significant differences are found between the three living zones of green-, serene- and central urban.


82

Events Table 7.22 shows different categories of events in Rotterdam. The respondents were asked to notify which events make the city more attractive to them (for living). Although no significant differences can be found, some conclusions can be made. Cultural and music events are most important to the respondents, also the worldport-days and sports events are important to a large amount of the inhabitants. Although a lot of comments were given on the sport events, a lot of respondents valuated sport events as important but noted that they doesn‟t like the Bavaria city racing (show with F1 races in the city centre). With a percentage of 26% in the green- and 41% in the serene urban area, dance events seem to be less important to the respondents. Research area Green urban

Serene urban

Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

sport events (like; Marathon van Rotterdam, Bavaria city racing, etc.) music events (like; North Sea Jazz festival, Dunya festival, Metropolis Popfestival, etc.) dance events (like; summer carnaval, danceparade, etc. ) cultural events (like; museum night, film festival, outdoor cinema, opera days, etc.) the worldportdays

36

55%

48

58%

39

50%

44

68%

68

82%

56

72%

17

26%

34

41%

23

29%

43

66%

63

76%

59

76%

41

63%

55

66%

46

59%

other, such as…. events don't make the city more attractive

6 10

9% 15%

3 9

4% 11%

7 7

9% 9%

Table 7.22: Overview contribution of events to the attractiveness of the city.

The total response shows similar results, no significant differences are found between the three living zones of green-, serene- and central urban.


83

7.6

Exploring leisure

In this paragraph leisure will be further explored, to find out if the importance of leisure can be explained by other variables. This will be done by using logistic regression, which makes it possible to find out if there is a relation between leisure and other variables. In this logistic regression analysis the importance of leisure is defined as dependent dichotomous variable (leisure is unimportant or leisure is important). Personal characteristics and some new composite variables are set as independent variables, and used to find out if there are any relations. The used (independent) variables in the analysis The following characteristics have been used for the logistic regression. Reference category

Personal characteristics gender

male

ref

female income

less than 3.050

ref

more than 3.050 household type

household with kid(s) household without kid(s)

kind of work living area

ref

knowledge intensive work other categories

ref

green urban

ref

serene urban central urban Age

..scale variable..

history of moving

..scale variable..

Table 7.23: Personal variables used for the regression with their reference category.

To make clear which category is used for prediction, a reference category has been set for each variable (see last column in table 7.23). The variable „living area‟ has three categories, the first one „green urban‟ has been set as reference. The variables „age‟ and „history of moving‟ hasn‟t been categorized, because these variables are measured at ratio level. Besides the personal characteristics some other composite variables have been used to explore the importance of leisure. These new composite variables measure more or less the same phenomena and are combined to one new variable. In table 7.24 the composite variables are shown with the corresponding score of cronbach´s alpha.81 The total overview of the composite variables with their cronbach‟s alpha score can be found back in appendix D.

81

The Cronbach´s Alpha measures the internal consistency, that is, how closely related a set of items are as a group. A score of 0,6 is valued as moderate, 0,7 as reasonable, 0,8 and over as good.


84

Composite variable 1: Consumption related facilities (cronbach’s alpha 0,762) Contains the facilities: cinema, cafe, theatre, restaurant, luxury shops, fashion shops, museums, a square and events (sport-, music-, dance-, cultural events and the world port days).

Composite variable 2: Settlement elements (cronbach’s alpha 0,693) Contains the variables: environment, healthcare-, retail facilities, closeness of family friends and acquaintances, safety of the area, image of the area, population (social class or cultural background). The settlement variables: housing type, housing price, educational facilities and employment have been left out of this composite variable because the weaken the cronbach‟s alpha.

Composite variable 3: Accessibility (cronbach’s alpha 0,547) Contains the variables: accessibility (general), accessibility of leisure, accessibility of retail and accessibility of familiy friends and acquaintances. The accessibility of work and educational facilities have been left out of this composite variable because the weaken the cronbach‟s alpha.

Composite variable 4: Nature facilities (cronbach’s alpha 0,555) Contains the facilities: public green, a beach, a forest.

Composite variable 5: Child facilities (cronbach’s alpha 0,865) Contains the facilities: crèches and primary education. Composite variable 6: Youth facilities (cronbach’s alpha 0,655) Contains the facilities: playground or play area, soccer and basketball area or half pipe, school of Music, secondary education. Table 7.24: Overview of the composite variables.

Multicollinearity Multicollinearity is a statistical phenomenon in which two or more predictor variables in a multiple regression model are highly correlated. In this situation the coefficient estimates may change erratically in response to small changes in the model or the data. Multicollinearity does not reduce the predictive power or reliability of the model as a whole; it only affects calculations regarding individual predictors. Before the logistic regression analysis is worked out, the correlation between the variables has been checked. The composite variables: Child facilities and Youth facilities have a strong correlation with each other (Pearson) R²=0.637, P<0.01. The composite variable „child facilities‟ shows also some other (weaker) correlations with the variables „age‟ R²=0.434, P<0.01 and history of moving R²=0.351, P<0.01. Therefore the model will be tested with and without the variable „child facilities‟.


85

The logistic regression analysis There are different methods for logistic regression. As Andy Field describes in his book about statistics the most appropriate method for theory testing is the „enter‟ method, because stepwise techniques are influenced by random variation in the data.82 Therefore the enter method is used, which shows all variables in one model. To see the influence of the composite variables two different blocks are used, first an analysis is worked out on the personal characteristics. Secondly, the composite variables are added to the personal characteristics in the second block. Because the composite variable „child facilities‟ has a high correlation with other variables, an extra block will be used with this variable. This makes it possible to see the influence of this specific variable on the model (see appendix E for total output). Block 1: Logistic regression with personal characteristics. Before analyzing the results of the logistic regression, it‟s important to take a look at the quality of the model. This can be done by looking at the X² of the model, the degrees of freedom (df), the significance (sig.) and the Nagelkerke R². The values of these indicators are shown in table 7.25. The chi-square of the model has a significant value by 8 degrees of freedom, which means that the variables will have a significant effect on the chance that leisure is valued important or unimportant. The Nagelkerke R² has a score of 0.169 which means that this model can explain about 17% whether leisure is valued important or not. Block1: Model summary Chi-square (model) df Sig. Nagelkerke R Square

18.010 8 0.021 0.169

Table 7.25: Model summary block 1.

The next table shows the variables in the equation, three kinds of parameters are shown: the Exp(B) which is the odds ratio, the significance (sig.) and the confidence interval (C.I. for ExpB). The Exp(B) tells us something about the strength and direction of the variable, a value above 1 means a positive relation, a value below 1 means a negative relation. The 95% c.i. for ExpB (confidence interval) gives information about the reliability of the Exp(B) value. It tells that when the analysis is worked out another 100 times, the parameter is likely (with 95% of confidence) to be between the lower and upper limit. For two variables significant difference are found. The variable „kind of work‟ (knowledge intensive) shows a positive relation with leisure Exp(B)=2.631, P<0.05 (95%C.I= 1.101 – 6.287). Also the Living area (green-, serene- and central urban area) has a positive relation with leisure, central urban area Exp(B)=4.120, P<0.01 (95%C.I= 1.420 – 11.955), serene urban area Exp(B)=4.058, P<0.01 (95%C.I= 1.479 – 11.140).

82

Field, A. (2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: second edition, London, Sage publications, p.226


86


Variables in the equation

Sig.

Exp(B)

Step 1

Gender

,125

2,122

,811

5,548

History of moving

,587

,980

,912

1,054

Kind of work

,030

2,631*

1,101

6,287

Household

,248

1,707

,689

4,234

Age

,538

1,018

,962

1,077

Income

,877

1,101

,323

3,752

Living area

,007

Living area (1)

,007

4,058**

1,479

11,140

Living area (2)

,009

4,120**

1,420

11,955

Constant

,371

,240

* P<0.05, ** P<0.01 Table 7.26: Variables in the equation in block 1 (personal characteristics).

Block 2: Logistic regression with personal characteristics and composite variables. When the composite variables are added to the model, the results change (table 7.27). The chi-square of the composite variables is X²(6)=34.093, P<0.000, the total chi-square changes to X²(14)=52.103, P<0.000. Also the Nagelkerke R² has changed, it has increased to 0.439, which would mean that this model is able to explain about 44% whether leisure is valued important or not. Block2: Model summary Chi-square (block) Chi-square (model) df (model) Sig. Nagelkerke R Square

34.093 52.103 14 0.000 0.439


For three variables significant difference are found. The variable „kind of work‟ (knowledge intensive) shows a positive relation with leisure of Exp(B)=2.961, P<0.05 (95%C.I= 1.006 – 8.212). From the variable Living area (green-, sereneand central urban area) only the serene urban area has a significant value Exp(B)=3.895, P<0.05 (95%C.I= 1.068 – 14.210). The last category of the variable living area (central urban) has lost its significance in block 2 (significance has become 0.064). Of the composite variables only „consumption related facilities‟ Exp(B)=1.509, P<0.001 (95%C.I= 1.186 – 1.919) has a significant relation. The other composite variables don‟t show a significant relation in this model.


87


Variables in the equation

Sig.

Exp(B)

Step 1

Gender

,086

2,802

,865

9,074

History of moving

,287

,957

,882

1,038

Kind of work

,049

2,961*

1,006

8,712

Household

,312

1,940

,536

7,018

Age

,710

1,013

,946

1,084

Income

,372

,493

,104

2,330

Living area

,076

Living area (1)

,039

3,895*

1,068

14,210

Living area (2)

,064

3,651

,928

14,367

MEAN_Settlement elements

,102

1,393

,937

2,072

MEAN_Accessibility

,132

1,574

,872

2,839

MEAN_Nature facilities

,348

,780

,465

1,310

MEAN_Youth facilities

,654

,885

,519

1,510

,001

1,509**

1,186

1,919

,027

,005

MEAN_Consumption related facilities Constant

* P<0.05, ** P<0.001 Table 7.28: Variables in the equation in block 2 (personal characteristics + composite variables).

Block 3: Logistic regression with personal characteristics and composite variables (including the composite variable: child facilities). In the next step of the regression the variable „child facilities‟ is added to the model. The chi-square of the variable child facilities is X²(1)=0.022, P>0.1 (0.886), which means that this variable doesn‟t contribute to the model. Also the Nagelkerke R² stays the same which also means no contribution of this variable. Therefore this variable has been left out of the analysis. Block3: Model summary Chi-square (block) df (block) Sig.(block)

0.022 1 0.883

Chi-square (model) df (model) Sig.(model) Nagelkerke R Square

52.125 14 0.000 0.439



88

7.7

Other analysis

Several other analyses have been done on the obtained data from the surveys. The results of these analyses are described in this paragraph. Suggested relations In the previous paragraphs some suggestions have been made about possible relationships. In paragraph 7.2 a relation is made between the amount of elderly and the importance of healthcare facilities. In paragraph 7.2 and 7.5 a relation is made between educational-, team-sport facilities, playgrounds and crèches with households with children. These „possible relations‟ are tested in the tables below. Table 7.30 show that healthcare facilities are more important to older people than to younger people. Of the respondents aged below 35 years old just 33% rated healthcare as important element. This percentage becomes 40% for people between 36 to 55 years old and 58% for people aged 56 and over. This difference has a significance of X²=7.696, P<0.05. unimportant Age

Important

Count

Row N %

Count

Row N %

18 - 35 year

12

67%

6

33%

36 - 55 year

82

60%

54

40%

56 and over

30

42%

42

58%

Table 7.30: Importance of healthcare facilities cross tabulated by age.

The next table shows that the suggested relations in the previous paragraph do exist. Households with children have mentioned educational facilities more often as important element. Especially the facilities; crèche, primary- and secondary education seems to be important to them. Also some sport facilities are more frequently mentioned as important facility in the immediate surroundings. Household with kid(s)

Household without kid(s)

Count

%

Count

%

(important)

123

81%

41

17%

playground or play area soccer- , basketballfield or halfpipe

(yes)

101

66%

33

14%

62

41%

30

12%

team sports (tennis, soccer, hockey, korfball, ..)

(yes)

71

47%

42

17%

crèche primary educatrion secondary education educational facilities are unimportant to me

(yes)

83

55%

32

13%

(yes)

113

74%

34

14%

(yes)

59

39%

13

5%

(yes)

21

14%

181

74%

educational facilities

(yes)

Table 7.31: Importance of several sport- and educational facilities cross tabulated by household type.


89

Role of „work‟ in the settlement choice of elites Florida and van der Berg et. al. both makes a statement about the role of work in the settlement choices of people. They mention that work is not a dominant element anymore and that the choice for a place to live relies nowadays more on the qualities of the location itself. Based on this statement some analyses have been made under the elite respondents of the surveys, about the role of work in their settlement choice. Looking at the results of the first two questions of the survey (table 7.5 and 7.6) it becomes clear that employment scores low on importance in comparison to the other settlement elements. Also the question about priorities shows that employment isn‟t one of the TOP5 priorities. This could mean that employment indeed is not a dominant element anymore. However this doesn‟t mean it‟s unimportant, still 28% (serene urban) to 41% (central urban) of the people mention employment as important. Also analyses based on age (see table below) show that younger people mention employment more often as an important element. Employment

Age

Unimportant Count

%

18 - 35 year

9

36 - 55 year

83

56 and over

55

Important Count

%

50%

9

50%

61%

53

39%

76%

17

24%

Table 7.32: Importance of employment cross tabulated by age.

Also some statements and contrast about work have been placed in front of the respondents. About 51% to 59% of the respondents mentioned that closeness of work is an important element. This means that a large amount of respondents (41% to 49%) don‟t see „closeness to work‟ as an important element. The statement about the willingness of the respondent to move to another place for their job, gave significant differences between the three urban areas. In the central urban area about 62% of the respondents were willing to move because of their job, which is more than in the serene (46%) and green urban area (38%). Research area Green urban closeness of my work is important to me I'm willing to move to another location for my work

Serene urban

Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

34

52%

42

51%

46

59%

25

38%

38

46%

48

62%

agreed agreed

Table 7.33: Statements about work (grey market = significant difference)

83

83

Significance tested with chi-square at 0.05 level.


90

In the contrasts the respondents had to choose between „the closeness of work‟ and other elements. From this contrast becomes clear that, for a large amount of the respondents, the quality of the environment is more important than the closeness of work. About 65% of the respondents have chosen closeness of facilities over closeness of work. The contrast of „closeness of family, friends, acquaintances‟ versus „closeness of work‟ is more equally divided. Research area

Questions: If you must choose one, which one would you choose?

Green urban

Serene urban

Central urban

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

A. Quality of environment

57

88%

80

96%

67

86%

B. Closeness of my work

8

12%

3

4%

11

14%

A. Closeness of family, friends, acquaintances

35

54%

45

54%

33

42%


30

46%

38

46%

45

58%

A. Closeness of facilities

41

63%

53

64%

52

67%


24

37%

30

36%

26

33%

Table 7.34: Contrasts about work.

The role of foreigner and underprivileged As mentioned in the fourth and fifth chapters, the city has a large amount of foreigners and underprivileged inhabitants. Someone may ask what the role of these groups is on the settlement choice of the elite class in habitants, does it have influence on their decision making. Although no clear answer can be given, some results could be found in the survey. In the green urban area 88% of the people mentioned population as an important element, in the serene urban area 77% and in the central urban area 76%. This population isn‟t significant so it may not be interpret as difference between the three areas, however it does indicate that population is an important element to a lot of the elite class respondents. The content of this variable still remains unclear, for example: do people want to live between different cultures or in an area with native Dutch people? More research is necessary. The respondents were also asked to answer the posing “I prefer living in an area with the same kind of households”. In the green urban area 68% agreed with this posing, in the serene urban area 58% and in the central urban area 47%. This with a significance of X²=5.942, P<0.05 between the three areas (table 7.35). Green urban I prefer living in an area with the same kind of households

44

68%

Serene urban 48

58%

Central urban 37

47%

Table 7.35: Posing about the population categorized by the living area.

This posing does give some extra information about population. How further away from the city centre, how more important value living between similar households as important.


91

8. Conclusions and recommendations As the title on the front-page describes, this thesis discusses the topic of „retaining the elites of Rotterdam‟. Elites who exist out of highly educated inhabitants, a group of people who are important to the city of Rotterdam. A group of people which the municipality of Rotterdam tries to retain by increasing the (residential) attractiveness of the city. However there is still a group of people who are leaving the city, which has not been successfully stopped in the last decade(s). Literature from the theoretical framework shows that there are several elements that play a role in the settlement choices of people, it describes that Rotterdam has put emphasis on leisure facilities to increase the attractiveness of the city. The settlement elements of the literature have been used as starting point for theoretical an empirical research, to obtain information on how to retain the elites of Rotterdam. To demarcate the research an objective has been formulated (see also §3.2), this objective is: to gain insight in the different elements that plays a role as settlement motive under high educated inhabitants (elites) in or near the city of Rotterdam and find out which role leisure has within these aspects. Also to find out which kind of leisure is desired in the direct surroundings. Based on this objective a research question has been formulated which pronounces: Which role has leisure within the different settlement elements for elites in or near Rotterdam, and which leisure is desired in the direct surroundings? This chapter will give an answer to this objective and to the research question. This chapter also contains recommendations for municipality of Rotterdam and recommendations for further research.

8.1

Conclusions

The results of the survey show that there are five settlement elements which are important to almost all respondents. In all the three living areas in Rotterdam (central urban, serene urban and green urban) the settlement elements which have the highest rates are: environment, type of housing, safety, accessibility and house prices. The percentages for these five elements are about 90% or higher, which is considerably higher than for example employment (28% to 41%) or closeness of family, friends or acquaintances (31% to 49%). In addition, these five elements seems to have priority, they are listed in the Top 5 priorities list. The population (76% to 88%) and retail facilities (73% to 86%) are also mentioned by many respondents as important settlement elements. Healthcare facilities got a rate of 63% in the green urban area, 36% in the serene urban area and 40% in the central urban area. They seem to be less important to a large amount of people.


92

Analyses show that older people care more for healthcare facilities than the younger generations. There is also a relationship between households with children and the importance of educational facilities, they were often mentioned together. The two variables: closeness of family, friends or acquaintances and employment have been mentioned the least of all. However, it‟s important to emphasize that those elements aren‟t unimportant. The range from 31% to 49% of people who have mentioned closeness to family, friends or acquaintances as important, seeing as they are about one third to about half of the respondents. Leisure facilities are most often mentioned as an important element in the central urban area (83%) and the serene urban area (80%). In the green urban area about 66% mentioned leisure as an important settlement element, which is a significant difference (H(2)=6.351, P<0.05) with the other areas. The regression model provides additional information about leisure. It confirms that leisure is valued differently in the living areas; green urban (Prinseland / s‟Gravenland), serene urban (Hillegersberg-Zuid / Blijdorp) and central urban (Kop van Zuid). It indicates that there is a relationship between various consumption-related facilities and the importance leisure. The regression model also shows a significant positive relationship between the work category of knowledge-intensive work and leisure Exp(B)=2.961, P<0.05 (95%C.I= 1.006 – 8.212). This brings us back to Richard Florida and his theory of the creative class. Florida states that leisure facilities are important to his creative class, which also includes knowledge workers. The results of this thesis show that a lot of respondents mention leisure as an important settlement element. The regression model shows a positive significant relationship between knowledge intensive work and the importance of leisure. This provides evidence for Florida‟s statement, that leisure is an important settlement element. However this doesn‟t mean that leisure is the most important element for all those people. Since leisure facilities aren‟t listed in the TOP5 priority list, it can be concluded that leisure is of minor importance for a lot of the respondents. In his book Florida also gives some details about the kind of leisure that would be important. He describes that his creative class contribute value to small-scale leisure facilities where they can interact with other people and where new experiences can be gained. He names for example cafes, bookstores, bars and cultural facilities where people can unleash their creativity. The results of the survey show that in the central urban area significantly more people have mentioned entertainment and cultural facilities as desired in the immediate surroundings. For example, in the central urban area 87% mentioned restaurants and about 50% mentioned a cinema, a café or a museum as desired in the immediate surroundings of their homes. In the green urban area restaurants are mentioned by 46% of the respondents, a cinema by 9%, a café by 25% and a museum by 17% of the respondents. In the green urban area also 40% of respondents mentioned entertainment facilities as unimportant. In the green urban area the facilities country green (i.e. grazing land) and forests are significantly more mentioned than in the other two areas. Not to mention that playgrounds, team sport facilities, and some educational facilities seem to be of more importance in the green urban area than in the other two areas. The lifestyle description of Florida is Retaining Rotterdam‟s Elites: A.Koster

93

perhaps not suitable for all the elites or knowledge workers in Rotterdam. Especially at the borders of the city, the green urban area, the demand for entertainment and cultural leisure facilities in the immediate surroundings seems to be less important. There are also results that contribute evidence for the statements of Florida and Van den Berg et al about the role of work in the society. Both authors state that „jobs‟ have lost their dominant position in the choice for a place to live. They mention that the choice for a place to live has become more complex and is more based on the qualities of the location itself than on carrier opportunities. The results of the thesis show that a lot of the respondents don‟t mention employment as an important settlement element. On the other hand, elements like the housing type and environment are mentioned as important by almost all respondents. This indicates that the statements of Florida and Van den Berg et al. are true, at least in the city of Rotterdam. The respondents were also asked to make a choice between contradictions (see §7.7), they were asked to choose for example between the closeness of work or the quality of the environment. About 86% to 96% (depending on the research area) of the respondents have chosen quality of the environment over the closeness of work. The importance of the different settlement elements has been clarified and the role of leisure has been evaluated. In this thesis the development of Rotterdam (chapter 4) and current performance of Rotterdam (chapter 5) has been described. This makes it possible to reflect on the discussion of Marcel Möring, about the importance of leisure and other elements like for example the housing market. Marcel Moring said that leisure (particularly the cultural facilities) is essential to retain the elites in Rotterdam, others claimed that the residential housing should be given priority and that leisure isn‟t that important. As mentioned earlier, a large amount of the elite respondents have mentioned leisure facilities as an important settlement element, especially in the central urban and serene urban area. The statistics bureau of Rotterdam (COS) have done research about the settlement motives of people that moved recently in or out Rotterdam. From the people with middle and high incomes, that moved into the city, about 15% mentions leisure as a reason of their establishment. About 8% mentions that they have moved to the city because this place supplies facilities that match with their lifestyle. Together this results in a percentage of 23% that have moved to Rotterdam because of the leisure related motives. From the people that moved out of Rotterdam the most important problem was the supply of houses. About 20% mentions that they couldn‟t find the house they wanted, about 12% mentions that the dwellings are too expensive and 11% mentions that the qualifying periods are too long. There is also a group of middle and high income who have moved to another neighbourhood, and have chosen to stay in Rotterdam. In this group about 22% mention that they stay in the city of Rotterdam because of the leisure facilities or the match with their lifestyle.84

84

Zanden, W.v.d., Dujardin, M (2010) Komen en gaan, selectieve migratie in Rotterdam in 2009, Rotterdam, Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS),p.55-57


94

Thus as Marcel Möring suggest, leisure facilities are indeed of importance to a group of people in Rotterdam. About 22% to 23% of the middle and high income households that have moved in 2009 mentions leisure related facilities as motive to stay or settle in Rotterdam. However there is also a large amount of people that moved out of the city because of a mismatch between their demands and the supply on the housing market. Both Marcel Möring and his opponents seem to have arguments for their statements, to reflect on their discussion the performance of Rotterdam should be taken into account. The statistics on leisure in Rotterdam (§5.6) have brought forward that Rotterdam indeed has a lot of leisure facilities. In exact numbers or ratio per inhabitant, Rotterdam shows comparable performances with the cities The Hague and Utrecht. Only the touristic city of Amsterdam has a lot more facilities. As the municipality concludes, the challenge lies mainly in clustering, linking and the design of the facilities and not in the supply. The statistics about the housing market (§5.7) and quality of the environment (§5.8) seems to be worse. Pollution of the environment is considered by many inhabitants as a problem and also the physical deterioration is in Rotterdam the worst in comparison to the other large cities of the Netherlands. Rotterdam contains still a lot of neighbourhoods with a high amount of social houses, in 2009 there were 42 neighbourhoods with 50% of social housing or more. And although the safety has improved in the last ten years, there are still safety issues in the city centre and some areas in the south of Rotterdam. Since these elements are mentioned by approximately 90% of the elite class inhabitants as important settlement motives, and these elements are also listed in the TOP5 priorities, they should be given priority. The idea of the municipality to cluster consumption oriented-, entertainment- and cultural facilities at the centre might be a good intervention. A lot of the elites in the central urban area have mentioned these facilities as important. The question is whether the municipality of Rotterdam has influence on this whole process. The decision to live somewhere is subjected to several motives. In 2009 the Rotterdam bureau of statistics (COS) has done research about the different motive of moving. The reasons which are mentioned the most, by people of middle and high income that moved in 2009, are marriage / living together (30%) and because of a new job (30%). About 25% have left Rotterdam without giving any details and about 20% mentioned they wanted to live closer to their family and friends. Also 3% left because of a study and 7% wanted to go back to their home ground. All elements on which the municipality hasn‟t got much influence. There are also elements on which the municipality has influence. Statistics show that, of the people from middle and high income that left the city, 22% did leave because of the previous neighbourhood or surroundings. Also 18% mentioned the previous dwelling as reason of moving and 17% has moved because of an addition to the family (need for a bigger house).85 All motives with a physical component, which can be influenced by the municipality. 85



95

Table 8.1:Motives of people who have moved in or out of Rotterdam (Komen en gaan 2009, p.44).

In 2009, about one fifth of the people from middle and high income that left Rotterdam did this because of environment or housing related problems. A group who can be retained by providing the right supply of dwellings or environment.


96

8.2

Recommendations for further research

The municipality has set the objective that the negative selective migration should be stopped in 2016.86 Although a lot of improvements have been made most interventions of the vision for 2030 still have to be worked out or are currently in progress. It would be wise to monitor these interventions and the amount of elites at the same time, to see the influence. Especially improvements in the TOP5 settlement elements; environment, housing type, housing price, safety and accessibility because these settlement elements seem to be most important. Currently, the selective migration has been measured for the whole city and the Kop van Zuid area. I would recommend measuring the selective migration on a smaller scale. The social structure of the whole city could become worse while on smaller scale some areas might improve. Measuring migration (amount of elites) on smaller scale would make it easier to evaluate the influence of interventions. It might than be easier to evaluate if interventions have led to a higher amount of elites. In this thesis I have focussed on (leisure) facilities in the immediate surroundings and the results showed facilities which are desired close to the living location and facilities that aren‟t. This doesn‟t mean that facilities that aren‟t mentioned are not of importance to the elite class inhabitants, people might be willing to travel for some kind of facilities. This is also explicitly mentioned by some of the respondents. Further research is needed to find out how far or how long people willing to travel for the different facilities.

86



97

Afterword In this afterword I would like to give a personal reflection on the graduation process. In 2009, after reading the book of Richard Florida and the article of Marcel Möring, I was convinced that leisure was one of the most important elements to retain Rotterdam‟s elites. That leisure would make the city of Rotterdam an attractive place to live and could be a solution for the negative selective migration. That the right supply of leisure facilities could retain the elite class inhabitants in Rotterdam. However the outcomes of this thesis show that although leisure is important to a lot of people, other elements (like the quality of the environment and dwelling, the safety and the accessibility) gets priority by most of the elites. The literature shows that these „other elements‟ have much room for improvement in the city of Rotterdam. They are also mentioned the most as reason for moving out of the city (COS, 2009). This have let to my conclusion that leisure is not the most important element in retaining Rotterdam‟s elites. Elements like the quality of the environment and the housing market should get the most priority. The future plans of the municipality (see “Stadvisie Rotterdam”) contain a lot of improvements in the housing sector. Most of these plans are currently in progress or still have to be worked out. I‟m curious if these plans will retain the elites in Rotterdam. The methodology An internet survey has been used to reach the higher educated in habitants of Rotterdam. Most of the data has been obtained by the first survey method, aimed at inhabitants in the three living areas (green, serene and central urban). Also employees of four organisations in Rotterdam have been approached and people of the social community network of LinkedIn. As table 7.3 shows there are a lot of (significant) differences in personal characteristics, between the three survey types. Also the second and third survey type have a lower reliability, because no random selection of respondents has been used. Next time, I‟ll pay more attention to the way of approaching the respondents. This because it has a lot of influence on the reliability of the data.


98

Bibliography Books and publications Berg, L van den, Meer, J van der, Otgaar, AHJ (1999) The attractive city: catalyst of sustainable urban development, Rotterdam, European Institute for Comparative Urban Research (EURICUR) Burgers, J. (1996) No Polarization in Dutch cities? Inequality in a Corporatist Country. Urban Stud 1996; 33; 99, Sage Cammen, H. van der, Klerk, L. de (2003). Ruimtelijke ordening: Van grachtengordel tot vinex-wijk, Utrecht, Uitgeverij Het Spectrum COS (2007) Rotterdammers in hun vrije tijd vrijetijdsomnibus enquête 2007. Rotterdam, COS

2007:

Resultaten

uit

de

COS (2009) Kerncijfers & trends Rotterdam 2009. Rotterdam, COS EDBR (2005), Economische Visie 2020; Rotterdam: stad van de toekomst, sterke stad in een welvarende regio, Rotterdam, EDBR Field, A. (2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: second edition, London, Sage publications Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creative class : and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life, New York, NY, Basic Books Gehl, J. et al. (2006) New city life, Copenhagen, Danish Architectural Press Gemeente Amsterdam (2009) Fact sheet toerisme, dienst onderzoek en statistiek [online] available at: http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/pdf/2010_ob_toerisme_2.pdf [accessed 13-10-2010] Gemeente Rotterdam (2006) Gateway to Europe: De koers naar 2030, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam Gemeente Rotterdam (2007) Stadsvisie Rotterdam: ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam Gemeente Rotterdam (2009) Cultuurprogramma binnenstad 2020, Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam Gemeente Rotterdam (2009) Rotterdammers over het milieu 2009: resultaten uit de omnibusenquête 2009, Rotterdam, COS Harms, L. (2006) Op weg in de vrije tijd: Context, kenmerken en dynamiek van vrijetijdsmobiliteit. Den Haag, SCP


99

Karsten, L (2007) „Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middleclass families‟ Preference for an urban residential location, Housing Studies 22:1 Kooijman, D., Romein, A. (2007) The limited potential of the creative city concept: policy practices in four Dutch cities, Delft, TUDelft, [online] Available at: www.repository.tudelft.nl [accessed on 14-04-2010]. Laar, P. van de, Jaarsveld, M. van, (2004). Historische atlas van Rotterdam: De groei van de stad in beeld, Amsterdam, Uitgeverij SUN Marlet, G., Woerkens, C. van (2010) Atlas voor gemeenten 2010, Utrecht, VOC Uitgevers Metz, T. (2002) Pret! Leisure en landschap, Rotterdam, NAi Uitgevers Mommaas, J.T., Heuvel, M.C.M. van den, & Knulst, W.P. (2000). De vrijetijdsindustrie in Stad en Land; Een Studie naar de Markt van Belevenissen. Den Haag, SdU Uitgevers Möring, M. (2009) Veel festivals maar cultuur komt op de tweede plaats. NRCHandelsblad. 19 Sept. opinie & debat NVM (2009) Het economisch belang van leisure en de rol van leisure in gebeidsontwikkeling, Nieuwegein, NVM OBR (2006) Plezierige zaken in Rotterdam 2006. Rotterdam, Ontwikkelingsbedrijf Rotterdam. OBR (2008) Economische Ontwikkelingsbedrijf Rotterdam

verkenning

OBR (2009) Economische verkenning Ontwikkelingsbedrijf Rotterdam

Rotterdam

Rotterdam

2008,

2009-2010,

Rotterdam,

Rotterdam,

Ouwehand, A. and Daalen, G. van (2002) Dutch housing associations: A model for social housing, Delft, Delft University Press Rhee, M. van, Roode, A.L. (2010). Staat van Rotterdam 2010, Rotterdam, Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS) Smook, R.A.F. (1984) Binnensteden veranderen: atlas van het ruimtelijk veranderingsproces van Nederlandse binnensteden in de laatste anderhalve eeuw. Zutphen, Walburg Pers. Social and Cultural Planning Office (2004) Trends in time: The Use and Organization of Time in the Netherlands, 1975-2000 , The Hague, SCP


100

Van den Berg, L., Van der Meer, J., Otgaar, A. (1999) The attractive city: catalyst of sustainable urban development. European Institute for Comparative Urban Research (EURICUR) Wigmans, G. (2007), Cities and their social context: a problem outline [online] Delft, Delft University of Technology Faculty of Architecture, Available at: Blackboard Documentation for course AR1R070 - 2008/2009 Real Estate and Housing [Accessed at: 6 January 2010] Zanden, W.v.d., Dujardin, M (2008) Komen en gaan, selectieve migratie in Rotterdam in 2006, Rotterdam, COS Zanden, W.v.d., Dujardin, M (2010) Komen en gaan, selectieve migratie in Rotterdam in 2009, Rotterdam, COS

Websites www.atlasvoorgemeenten.nl, [accessed 12-01-2010]. http://g4.databank.nl [accessed 12-01-2010]. www.grotevier.nl/ [accessed 12-01-2010]. www.rotterdam.nl/ [accessed on 14-07-2010]. www.leefbaarrotterdam.nl [accessed 01-12-2010]. www.scp.nl [accessed 01-12-2010]. www.obr.rotterdam.nl [accessed 12-01-2010]. www.politieenwetenschap.nl [accessed 01-12-2010]. www.stadsregio.info [accessed 11-10-2010]. www.cbs.nl, [accessed 12-01-2010]. www.cos.rotterdam.nl [accessed 23-11-2010]. www.top010.nl/ [accessed 01-12-2010]. www.v-index.nl [accessed 01-12-2010]. www.woonstadrotterdam.nl [accessed 11-10-2010].


101

Appendixes A:

Accompanying letter for the respondents

B:

Questionnaire of the survey

C:

Ranking model for the TOP5 priorities

D:

Composite variables (cronbach’s alpha)

E:

Overview of output of the Logistic regression models


102

A:

Accompanying letter for the respondents


103

Inlichtingen: Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (COS) Bezoekadres: Blaak 34 3011 TA Rotterdam Postadres: Postbus 21323 3001 AH Rotterdam

Aan de bewoners van Straatnaam (nr) 0000 AA Rotterdam

Website: www.cos.rotterdam.nl

Uw brief van: Arjan Koster Ons kenmerk: Betreft: Enquête woontest Email: [email protected] Datum: 25 juni 2010

Geachte mevrouw, meneer, Rotterdam wil een aantrekkelijke stad zijn om in te wonen, uw mening kan hierbij helpen! De Gemeente Rotterdam doet samen met de Technische Universiteit Delft onderzoek naar de rol van diverse onderdelen van de woonomgeving. Welke zaken vindt u belangrijk bij het kiezen van uw woonlocatie? Welke voorzieningen wilt u graag in uw directe omgeving? Welke onderdelen kunnen verbeterd worden? Deze en andere vragen komen aan bod. Graag wil ik u verzoeken om mee te werken aan dit onderzoek, dit kunt u doen door via onderstaande link de enquête in te vullen. De enquête duurt ongeveer 8 - 10 minuten. De gegevens worden vertrouwelijk behandeld en de enquête is uiteraard anoniem, de verkregen informatie wordt alleen gebruikt voor dit onderzoek. [via deze link komt u bij de enquête] www.cos.nl/woontest.htm Gebruikersnaam: Wachtwoord:

woontest 1234AB

Waarom juist u? U bent woonachtig in (regio) Rotterdam. De gemeente werkt hard aan het verbeteren van het woon- en leefklimaat in deze regio. Met behulp van uw mening wordt het mogelijk de juiste beslissingen en strategische keuzes te maken. Uw mening is dus van groot belang en kan van invloed zijn op de toekomst, u kunt meewerken aan de vormgeving van het Rotterdam van de toekomst. Ik wil u alvast vriendelijk bedanken voor uw medewerking.

Met vriendelijke groet, Arjan Koster

B:

Questionnaire of the survey


105

A. Woonmotieven 1 Kunt u aangeven in welke mate de onderstaande elementen een rol spelen in uw woonkeuze?

Niet

Weinig

Redelijk

Veel

woningtype (grootte, aantal kamers, stijl, etc.) woningprijs de woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen vrijetijdsvoorzieningen (horeca, restaurants, theater, sport, toneel, cultuur) het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) nabijheid van familie, vrienden en kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid de bevolkingssamenstelling (sociale klasse of culturele achtergrond) anders namelijk

2 U vond de onderstaande elementen 'redelijk' tot 'zeer belangrijk'. Wilt u in volgorde aangeven hoe belangrijk deze voor u zijn in uw woonkeuze. (1 = het belangrijkst, 2 = iets minder belangrijk, enz.) U kunt elk nummer maar 1 keer invullen. nr: woningtype (grootte, aantal kamers, stijl, etc.) woningprijs de woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen vrijetijdsvoorzieningen (horeca, restaurants, theater, sport, toneel, cultuur) het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) nabijheid van familie, vrienden en kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid de bevolkingssamenstelling (sociale klasse of culturele achtergrond)

U heeft zelf een element "anders" toegevoegd in de vorige vraag. Kunt u voor dit element de plaats in de rangorde aangeven. (1= belangrijkst, 2 iets minder belangrijk, etc.)

3 In welke mate speelt de bereikbaarheid een rol in uw woonkeuze? Niet

Weinig

Redelijk

Veel

Bereikbaarheid van uw werk Bereikbaarheid van voorzieningen (horeca, restaurants, theater, sport, toneel, cultuur) Bereikbaarheid van winkels Bereikbaarheid van familie, vrienden en kennissen Bereikbaarheid van scholen (onderwijs)

3

4 Bent u het eens of oneens met onderstaande stellingen? Eens

Oneens

Ik ben echt een stadsmens Ik heb uit verschillende woningen kunnen kiezen en daaruit mijn huidige woning gekozen Ik voel mij verbonden met Rotterdam Ik let op de uitstraling van de wijk bij het kiezen van een woning Ik vind het belangrijk om dicht bij mijn werk te wonen Ik ben bereid te verhuizen voor mijn werk Ik woon het liefst in een wijk met soortgelijke huishoudens

4

B. Leisure Voorzieningen worden gezien als belangrijk aspect voor de aantrekkelijkheid van een gebied. Daarom willen we u nu enkele vragen stellen over voorzieningen. 5

Welke van onderstaande uitgaansvoorzieningen wilt u op circa 10 minuten loopafstand of fietsafstand van uw woning hebben? bioscoop discotheek restaurant casino theater cafe anders namelijk, uitgaansvoorzieningen zijn voor mij onbelangrijk

6

Welke van onderstaande winkels wilt u op circa 10 minuten loopafstand of fietsafstand van uw woning hebben? apotheek / drogisterij luxe winkels (juwelier, cadeau &giftshop, speciaalzaak, etc.) mode winkels (kleding) winkels voor huishoudelijke artikelen supermarkt ambachtswinkel (groenteboer, bakker, slager, etc.) anders namelijk, winkels zijn voor mij onbelangrijk

7

Welke van onderstaande sportvoorzieningen wilt u op circa 10 minuten loopafstand of fietsafstand van uw woning hebben? vereniging voor teamsport (tennis, voetbal, hockey, korfbal, etc.) fitness centrum speeltuin of speelplaats voetbalveldje, basketbalveld of halfpipe ijsbaan individuele sporten (vechtsport, dressuur, watersport, gymnastiek, etc.) zwembad anders namelijk, sportvoorzieningen zijn voor mij onbelangrijk

8

Welke van onderstaande natuur & recreatie wilt u op circa 10 minuten loopafstand of fietsafstand van uw woning hebben? bossen park landelijk groen (weilanden) strand recreatieve fietsroute publieke plantsoenen (groenstroken) plein anders namelijk, natuur &recreatie is voor mij onbelangrijk

9

Welke van onderstaande kunst & cultuur voorzieningen wilt u op circa 10 minuten loopafstand of fietsafstand van uw woning hebbe n? musea dansschool monumenten of monumentale gebouwen buurthuis muziekschool bibliotheek anders namelijk,

kunst &cultuur is voor mij onbelangrijk

5

10 Welke van onderstaande onderwijs voorzieningen wilt u op circa 10 minuten loopafstand of fietsafstand van uw woning hebben? kinderdagverblijf basisscholen middelbaar onderwijs beroepsonderwijs hoger onderwijs (HBO of universiteit) anders namelijk, onderwijsvoorzieningen zijn voor mij onbelangrijk

11

In Rotterdam zijn jaarlijks veel verschillende evenementen. Deze evenementen trekken veel bezoekers, maar het is onduidelijk of ze de stad aantrekkelijker maken als woonlocatie. Kunt u aangeven welke van onderstaande evenementen de woonaantrekkelijkheid van de stad vergroten? (deze vraag is dus specifiek gericht op Rotterdam) dans evenementen (zoals; Zomercarnaval, Danceparade, etc. ) cultuur evenementen (zoals; Museumnacht, Filmfestival, Pleinbioscoop, Operadagen, etc.) muziek evenementen (zoals; North Sea Jazz festival, Dunya festival, Metropolis Popfestival, etc.) sport evenementen (zoals; Marathon van Rotterdam, Bavaria city racing, etc.) de Wereldhavendagen anders namelijk, evenementen dragen niet bij aan de woonaantrekkelijkheid van stad

12 Als u moet kiezen wat heeft dan uw voorkeur? A

13

B

winkelen

tuinieren

winkelen

sporten

tuinieren

sporten

dagje stedelijk vermaak

dagje in de natuur

rustig wonen

levendig woning

discotheek

museum

iets drinken in een cafe

naar een theatervoorstelling

winkelen in mijn eigen stad

winkelen in verschillende steden

kwaliteit woonomgeving

nabijheid van mijn werk

nabijheid familie, vrienden en kennissen


nabijheid van voorzieningen (restaurant, cafe, school, fitness, etc.)


Heeft u een Rotterdampas (of iemand uit uw huishouden)? Ja Nee

14

Vind u het belangrijk om een eigen tuin te hebben? Ja Nee

6

C1. Algemene gegevens Dit is het laatste onderdeel van de enquête. Er zullen u een aantal persoonsgegevens gevraagd worden die van belang zijn voor het onderzoek. Uw gegevens blijven volledig anoniem, de verkregen informatie wordt alleen gebruikt voor dit onderzoek. Wat is uw geslacht? Man Vrouw Wat is uw leeftijd?

Wat zijn de eerste 4 postcode cijfers van uw woonadres?

Woont u in een huur of koop woning? Huurwoning Koopwoning Hoe lang is het geleden dat u verhuisd bent naar uw huidige woning?

Jaren

Maanden

Graag aangeven in jaren of maanden

In welke klasse valt het gezamelijke netto (=schoon) inkomen van uw gehele huishouden? (Uitkeringen, pensioengelden, alimentatie, e.d. zijn ook inkomen) minder dan 1.000 per maand 1.000 tot 1.350 per maand 1.350 tot 1.750 per maand 1.750 tot 3.050 per maand 3.050 of meer per maand Op deze vraag wil ik geen antwoord geven Heeft u betaald werk? Ja, ik heb een parttime baan (minder dan 36 uur) Ja, ik heb een fulltime baan (meer dan 36 uur) Nee, ik heb nu geen betaald werk Wat zijn de eerste 4 postcode cijfers van uw werk adres?

Wat is de hoogste opleiding die u heeft afgemaakt? Geen onderwijs voltooid Lager onderwijs (basisschool, speciaal onderwijs) Lager of voorbereidend beroepsonderwijs (VMBO, LTS, LHNO, LEAO) Lager en middelbaar algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (VLO, ULO, MULO, MAVO, VMBO−T, 3 jaar HBS) Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO, MTS, UTS, MEAO, INAS, KVJV, VHBO) Hoger algemeen en voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs (HAVO, VWO, Gymnasium, HBS) Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO, HTS, HEAO, Sociale academie, Kunstacademie) Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (Universiteit, TU) Anders namelijk, Hoe is uw huishouden samengesteld? Ik woon alleen Samenwonend of gehuwd, zonder kinderen Samenwonend of gehuwd, met kinderen Een ouder met kind Anders namelijk,

7

C:

Ranking model for the TOP5 priorities


111

TE BEHALEN PUNTEN 1e 2e 3e 4e 5e

= = = = =

5 punten 4 punten 3 punten 2 punten 1 punten

ENQUETE TYPE 1 TOP5 GROENSTEDELIJK woningtype woningprijs woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid de bevolkingssamenstelling

1e 19 4 14 0 1 2 0 1 10 5 3 2 4

2e 11 13 14 1 1 1 1 4 9 4 4 0 2

3e 7 9 10 3 1 2 5 4 11 4 3 0 6

4e 8 7 9 1 2 3 2 3 7 5 8 1 9

5e 1 7 4 2 2 3 4 3 9 16 5 0 9

TOP5 RUSTIGSTEDELIJK woningtype woningprijs woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid de bevolkingssamenstelling

1e

2e

3e

4e

5e

21 12 30 0 2 0 1 0 7 3 5 0

23 10 14 0 2 2 1 1 12 10 2 3

10 6 17 1 9 1 2 2 12 9 3 1

4 6 7 1 8 2 6 1 12 14 8 2

7 9 6 3 3 8 3 3 12 10 10 2

1

2

9

10

4

TOTAAL BEHAALDE PUNTEN 177 120 178 17 18 29 27 42 142 79 61 12 73


TOP5 CENTRUMSTEDELIJK woningtype woningprijs woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid de bevolkingssamenstelling

1e 32 6 14 0 2 0 2 2 8 4 4 2 1

2e 12 14 17 1 8 2 0 1 4 8 2 4 4

3e 8 10 11 2 5 2 3 2 15 9 7 0 2

4e 3 9 17 0 5 5 0 2 13 9 5 2 6

5e 3 7 5 1 7 5 6 3 7 10 15 3 3


TOTAAL Groenstedelijk woonomgeving woningtype de veiligheid van het gebied woningprijs bereikbaarheid de bevolkingssamenstelling het imago van het gebied nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) vrijetijdsvoorzieningen zorgvoorzieningen aanbod van werkgelegenheid

score Rustigstedelijk 178 177 142 120 79 73 61 42 29 27 18 17 12

woonomgeving woningtype de veiligheid van het gebied woningprijs bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied vrijetijdsvoorzieningen de bevolkingssamenstelling scholen (onderwijs) het winkelaanbod aanbod van werkgelegenheid nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen zorgvoorzieningen

score Centrumstedelijk 277 242 155 139 120 68 64 64 30 23 21 15 8

woningtype woonomgeving woningprijs de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het imago van het gebied de bevolkingssamenstelling aanbod van werkgelegenheid het winkelaanbod nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen scholen (onderwijs) zorgvoorzieningen

score 241 210 141 134 107 74 74 42 33 29 27 25 11

TOTALE RESPONS (incl. bedrijven + LinkedIn) TOP5 GROENSTEDELIJK woningtype woningprijs woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid de bevolkingssamenstelling

1e

2e

3e

4e

5e

34 13 24 1 4 2 0 4 17 6 3 3 9

26 22 23 2 1 3 3 4 13 11 7 0 5

10 16 19 4 4 3 10 7 19 11 8 2 7

13 16 20 1 3 3 4 5 13 10 15 5 12

8 14 8 3 5 8 8 5 14 24 10 2 11

338 247 317 30 47 45 58 72 234 151 107 33 121

TOP5 RUSTIGSTEDELIJK woningtype woningprijs woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid de bevolkingssamenstelling

1e 48

2e 30

3e 16

4e 8

5e 8

TOTAAL BEHAALDE PUNTEN 432

18 40 0 5 1 2 1 10 8 5 2 6

26 25 0 9 4 2 4 17 13 5 7 4

16 29 1 14 1 2 6 19 21 5 5 11

16 18 1 15 8 9 7 15 19 13 3 13

11 12 5 13 13 7 6 19 21 17 4 7

285 435 10 146 53 49 59 224 214 103 63 112

TOTAAL BEHAALDE PUNTEN

TOP5 CENTRUMSTEDELIJK woningtype woningprijs woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid de bevolkingssamenstelling

1e 37 8 22 1 5 0 3 2 10 6 5 3 2

2e 19 17 21 1 9 2 0 4 7 11 3 5 5

3e 9 13 14 3 10 2 3 4 18 13 10 0 4

4e 6 12 18 1 9 8 0 4 14 12 8 3 8

5e 7 12 9 1 10 7 7 5 11 11 15 3 4


TOTAAL Groenstedelijk woningtype woonomgeving woningprijs de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid de bevolkingssamenstelling het imago van het gebied nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen scholen (onderwijs) vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het winkelaanbod aanbod van werkgelegenheid zorgvoorzieningen

score Rustigstedelijk 338 317 247 234 151 121 107 72 58 47 45 33 30

woonomgeving woningtype woningprijs de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid vrijetijdsvoorzieningen de bevolkingssamenstelling het imago van het gebied aanbod van werkgelegenheid nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) zorgvoorzieningen

score Centrumstedelijk 435 432 285 224 214 146 112 103 63 59 53 49 10

woningtype woonomgeving woningprijs de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid vrijetijdsvoorzieningen het imago van het gebied de bevolkingssamenstelling nabijheid van familie, vrienden kennissen aanbod van werkgelegenheid het winkelaanbod scholen (onderwijs) zorgvoorzieningen

score 307 281 183 171 148 119 98 62 51 44 37 31 21

D:

Composite variables (cronbach’s alpha)


116

Composite variable 1: Reliability Statistics Cronbach' s Alpha N of Items ,762

13 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted

bioscoop cafe theater restaurant mode winkels (kleding) luxe winkels (juwelier, cadeau & giftshop, speciaalzaak, etc.) sport evenementen (zoals; Marathon van Rotterdam, Bavaria city racing, etc.) muziek evenementen (zoals; North Sea Jazz festival, Dunya festival, Metropolis Popfestival, etc.) dans evenementen (zoals; Zomercarnaval, Danceparade, etc. ) cultuur evenementen (zoals; Museumnacht, Filmfestival, Pleinbioscoop, Operadagen, etc.) de Wereldhavendagen musea plein

5,30

7,651

,362

,750

5,20

7,529

,383

,748

5,27

7,347

,477

,737

4,92

7,643

,385

,747

5,52

8,162

,312

,755

5,54

8,277

,266

,758

5,09

7,601

,352

,751

4,89

7,485

,477

,738

5,31

7,529

,415

,744

4,90

7,582

,425

,743

5,00

7,409

,446

,740

5,28

7,580

,383

,748

5,37

7,842

,315

,754

Composite variable 2: Reliability Statistics Cronbach' N of Items s Alpha ,693

8 Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted de woonomgeving zorgvoorzieningen het winkelaanbod nabijheid van familie, vrienden en kennissen de veiligheid van het gebied bereikbaarheid het imago van het gebied de bevolkingssamenstelling (sociale klasse of culturele achtergrond)

20,99

9,324

,348

,675

22,36

7,831

,408

,659

21,81

8,377

,450

,650

22,50

7,976

,321

,687

21,23

8,407

,486

,645

21,25

8,952

,298

,681

21,46

8,223

,429

,653

21,67

8,089

,407

,658


117



Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted bereikbaarheid (algemeen van vraag 1) Bereikbaarheid van voorzieningen (horeca, restaurants, theater, sport, toneel, cultuur) Bereikbaarheid van winkels Bereikbaarheid van familie, vrienden en kennissen

8,36

2,720

,303

,500

8,99

2,422

,319

,487

8,83

2,552

,357

,458

9,42

2,075

,365

,450



Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted landelijk groen (weilanden) strand bossen

,451

,409

,382

,433

,708

,617

,350

,510

,460

,401

,406

,389



Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted kinderdagverblijf basisscholen

,394

,240

,764

.a

,305

,213

,764

.a



Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted voetbalveldje, basketbalveld of halfpipe speeltuin of speelplaats muziekschool middelbaar onderwijs


,68

,859

,403

,610

,58

,718

,516

,527

,74

,957

,351

,640

,73

,856

,483

,558

118

E:

Overview of logistic regression models


119

Logistic Regression

Dependent Variable Encoding (leisure) Original Value

Internal Value

onbelangrijk

0

belangrijk

1 Categorical Variables Codings

Onderzoekgebied

Soort Werk huishouden Inkomen geslacht

Parameter coding

Frequency

(1)

(2)

Groenstedelijk

43

,00

,00

Rustigstedelijk

58

1,00

,00

Centrumstedelijk

54

,00

1,00

kennis intensief

94

1,00

overig

61

,00

huishouden met kind

80

1,00

huishouden zonder kind

75

,00

untill 3.050 euro

21

,00

above 3.050 euro

134

1,00

Vrouw

57

1,00

Man

98

,00

Block 1: Method = Enter Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients Chi-square Step 1

df

Sig.

Step

18,010

8

,021

Block

18,010

8

,021

Model

18,010

8

,021

Model Summary Step 1

-2 Log likelihood

Cox & Snell R Square

145,078

Nagelkerke R Square

,110

,169

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test Step 1

Chi-square 3,677

df

Sig. 8


,885

120

95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Step 1a

Geslacht(1)

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

Lower

Upper

,752

,490

2,352

1

,125

2,122

,811

5,548

-,020

,037

,295

1

,587

,980

,912

1,054

Soort Werk(1)

,967

,445

4,734

1

,030

2,631

1,101

6,287

huishouden(1)

,535

,463

1,334

1

,248

1,707

,689

4,234

Leeftijd

,018

,029

,380

1

,538

1,018

,962

1,077

Inkomen(1)

,097

,625

,024

1

,877

1,101

,323

3,752

10,015

2

,007

Verhuisd (in jaren)

Onderzoekgebied Onderzoekgebied(1)

1,401

,515

7,393

1

,007

4,058

1,479

11,140

Onderzoekgebied(2)

1,416

,543

6,788

1

,009

4,120

1,420

11,955

-1,429

1,597

,801

1

,371

,240

Constant


df

Sig.

Step

34,093

5

,000

Block

34,093

5

,000

Model

52,103

13

,000

Model Summary Step

-2 Log likelihood

1

Cox & Snell Nagelkerke R Square R Square

110,985

,285

,439

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test Step

Chi-square

1

df

10,531

Sig. 8

,230 Variables in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B

Step 1a

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

Lower

Upper

Geslacht(1)

1,030

,600

2,954

1

,086

2,802

,865

9,074

Verhuisd (in jaren)

-,044

,041

1,132

1

,287

,957

,882

1,038

Soort Werk(1)

1,085

,551

3,886

1

,049

2,961

1,006

8,712

huishouden(1)

,663

,656

1,021

1

,312

1,940

,536

7,018

Leeftijd

,013

,035

,138

1

,710

1,013

,946

1,084

-,708

,793

,797

1

,372

,493

,104

2,330

5,161

2

,076

Inkomen(1) Onderzoekgebied Onderzoekgebied(1)

1,360

,660

4,239

1

,039

3,895

1,068

14,210

Onderzoekgebied(2)

1,295

,699

3,432

1

,064

3,651

,928

14,367

Comp_Voorzieningen_consumptie

,411

,123

11,206

1

,001

1,509

1,186

1,919

Comp_Woonelement

,332

,203

2,678

1

,102

1,393

,937

2,072

Comp_Bereikbaarheid

,454

,301

2,270

1

,132

1,574

,872

2,839

Comp_Voorzieningen_Natuur

-,248

,265

,880

1

,348

,780

,465

1,310

Comp_Voorzieningen_Jeugd

-,122

,272

,201

1

,654

,885

,519

1,510

-5,318

2,406

4,884

1

,027

,005

Constant


121


df

Sig.

Step

,022

1

,883

Block

,022

1

,883

Model

52,125

14

,000

Model Summary Step

1

Step 1

-2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke likelihood R Square R Square 110,963

,286

,439

Hosmer Chi-and Lemeshow Test square df Sig. 14,464

8


,070

122

Retaining Rotterdam s Elites

Recommend Documents