Separation and Housing Transitions in England and Wales€¦ · England and Wales and summarise the hypotheses of this study. Separation and housing in England and Wales In England

1

Separation and Housing Transitions in England and Wales

Júlia Mikolai and Hill Kulu, University of Liverpool

Abstract

This study investigates the interrelationship between partnership and residential changes in

England and Wales focusing on moves related to union dissolution. The aim is to determine

whether marital and non-marital separation has a long-term effect on individuals’ residential

and housing trajectories. Using data from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) and

applying multilevel competing-risks event history models we analyse the risk of a move of

single, married, cohabiting, and separated men and women to different housing types. We

distinguish between moves due to separation and moves of separated people. Our analysis

shows that many individuals move due to separation, as expected, but the likelihood of

moving is also relatively high among separated individuals. Interestingly, separated women

are more likely to move to terraced houses, whereas men tend to move to flats.

2

Introduction

This paper investigates the interrelationship between partnership and residential histories in

England and Wales focusing on moves related to union dissolution. Partnership events, such

as the start and end of a co-residential union, usually trigger a move as they imply a change

of residence for at least one of the partners (Dewilde 2008; Mulder and Wagner 1998; Mulder

2006; Clark 2013; Mulder and Lauster 2010). Moves related to union formation are usually

‘upward’ and are directed towards finding an ideal home, whereas moves related to union

dissolution are ‘downward’. In other words, following union dissolution, individuals are

likely to move to smaller, lower quality dwellings (Feijten 2005; Gober 1992) because moves

after separation are usually urgent and financially restricted (Feijten and van Ham 2007).

The link between separation and residential moves is of relevance to policy makers

and town planners because increasing divorce and union dissolution rates exacerbate the

magnitude of moves and imply an increased need for more, and smaller dwellings (Mulder

and Malmberg 2011; Dieleman and Schouw 1989; Feijten 2005). Additionally, the way in

which people from different socio-economic backgrounds move in relation to separation will

influence demand and supply on the local housing market (Mulder and Malmberg 2011). The

social stratification of access to housing and of family formation (Feijten and van Ham 2010;

Dewilde 2008) makes England and Wales an interesting and important context for the study

of the interrelationship between separation and residential relocations.

Previous research has shown that separated individuals are more likely to move than

those who are single or in a relationship, they are likely to move out of homeownership, and

from single-family to multi-family dwellings (Feijten and van Ham 2007, 2010; Mulder and

Malmberg 2011; Feijten 2005; Lersch and Vidal 2014; Sullivan 1986; Dieleman and Schouw

1989; Speare and Goldscheider 1987). Although previous studies have advanced our

understanding of housing changes related to separation, they suffer from shortcomings. First,

3

distinguishing between moves due to separation (also called induced moves or event moves)

and moves of separated people (also referred to as state moves) is essential to understand

whether and how separation influences housing careers in short and long term. Most previous

studies have either not distinguished between such moves or have excluded moves due to

separation from their analysis (except Feijten 2005). Second, previous research has not

accounted for possible selection effects (except Lersch and Vidal 2014); individuals who are

more likely to move might also be more likely to separate due to unobserved characteristics.

If this is true we would overestimate the potential effect of separation on moving. Third,

previous research has either not investigated the destination of residential moves or has solely

focused on moves out of homeownership and from single- to multi-family dwellings (Feijten

and van Ham 2010; Sullivan 1986; Lersch and Vidal 2014). However, housing type at

destination might be a better indicator of socio-economic differences in a country where over

60 per cent of the housing stock is owner occupied (Department for Communities and Local

Government 2015).

We aim to fill these gaps in the literature by, first, comparing moving risks of

separated individuals to those who are single or who are in a co-residential union in England

and Wales. We then analyse moving risks by housing type at destination. Finally, we

investigate whether the impact of separation on people’s residential and housing careers is

temporary or long-term. We distinguish between moves due to separation and moves of

separated people using time since separation. Additionally, we account for possible

unobserved selection effects into separation and residential moves.

Separation and residential moves

A change in family size or family structure usually triggers a move in order to adjust housing

conditions to the new circumstances (Mulder and Lauster 2010; Kulu 2008). According to

4

utility maximization theory, residential moves should only take place if the benefits of the

move exceed its costs. Thus, each subsequent dwelling is assumed to meet the housing needs

of a household better than the previous one (Feijten 2005). Therefore, union formation and

childbirth usually lead to an ‘upward’ move on the housing ladder.

However, moves related to separation are different because they are urgent and

financially restricted (Feijten and van Ham 2007)1. By definition, upon separation at least one

of the partners has to move out of the joint home. This suggests that individuals are likely to

settle for any type of housing (often moving to parent’s or friends’ place) even if it is of low

quality and not in the preferred area. Additionally, separation leads to a lower household

income, a decrease in resources due to loss of economies of scale, and a division of savings

and assets. Therefore, moves after separation are usually to smaller, lower quality dwellings,

from home ownership to renting, and from single-family to multiple-family dwellings (Gober

1992; Feijten 2005; Feijten and van Ham 2007).

Separation may also have a long-lasting impact on individuals’ residential careers. As

housing situation right after separation is likely to be temporary, it may take several

adjustment moves before separated individuals acquire housing of a similar quality, size, and

type as before separation (Feijten and van Ham 2007; Dieleman and Schouw 1989).

Additionally, those who remained in the matrimonial home upon separation may be unable to

pay for housing costs such as rent, mortgage and maintenance (Feijten and Mulder 2010).

Thus, separated people are expected to move more often than those in a relationship.

Previous research from the Netherlands has found that separated individuals (whether

single or re-partnered) are more likely to move than steady single and those in a first union

and that this relationship persists over time since separation, although the differences become

1 Throughout this paper, we use the term 'separation' to denote the dissolution of both marital and non-marital

co-residential unions. This is because even in case of a divorce, it is usually the actual date of separation (and

not the date of the legal divorce) which implies an immediate move out of the joint home for at least one of the

partners (Feijten 2005).

5

smaller (Feijten and van Ham 2007). Similarly, in the UK Feijten and van Ham (2010) found

that recently divorced and separated people have much higher risks of moving than those who

are in a relationship. Although their moving risk decreases over time, it remains higher than

for partnered individuals. Thus, these studies conclude that separation has a long-term effect

on housing careers. However, these studies only investigated moves of separated people and

excluded moves due to separation.

A study by Feijten (2005) found that immediately after separation (0-3 months)

individuals are most likely to move to shared dwellings followed by rental accommodation.

Additionally, for women separation had a long-term effect on the risk of moving out of

homeownership but for men it only had a temporary effect (Feijten 2005). Similarly, Feijten

and Mulder (2010) found that the long-term effects of separation are stronger for women; 80

percent of moves of men who separated two or more years ago were to single-family housing,

whereas this was only 60 percent among women. Additionally, immediately after separation

women are better off in terms of type of housing (they usually stay in the joint single-family

home especially if they have the children), whereas men are better off in terms of tenure

(owner occupied dwellings). One explanation for such gender differences in the Netherlands

is that upon divorce women are usually left with fewer resources than men because women

earn less and most women with children work part-time (or do not work). For men, a decline

in resources can occur when they have to pay alimony. Interestingly, Lersch and Vidal (2014)

found no gender differences in the risk of re-entering homeownership after separation in

Britain and in Germany.

To summarise, previous studies have shown that separated individuals have higher

risks of moving than those who are single or are in a relationship, that they are more likely to

move out of home ownership and out of single-family dwellings. Most of these studies have

typically focused on housing tenure and moves out of homeownership as an indicator of

6

socio-economic status following separation and they have not studied the destination of

moves by dwelling type2. Additionally, some studies suggest that separation has a long-term

effect on housing careers but these studies do not distinguish between moves due to

separation and moves of separated individuals. Furthermore, while some authors suggest that

the effect of separation on housing careers over time is different for men and women, others

find no gender differences. Thus, there is clearly a need to explicitly study the link between

separation and housing changes to improve our understanding of this, potentially complex,

relationship. The following sections briefly describe trends in separation and housing in

England and Wales and summarise the hypotheses of this study.

Separation and housing in England and Wales

In England and Wales the number of divorces increased from about 24,000 per year in 1960

to about 150,000 a year in the early 1980s and the figure remained fairly constant until 2003.

Between 2003 and 2009, the number of divorces declined to about 114,000 per year followed

by an increase in 2010 after which it has remained stable (Office for National Statistics

2012). At the same time, the number of marriages has dropped from 415,000 a year to

250,000 between the early 1970s and 2012 (Office for National Statistics 2012). Thus, the

fall in the number of divorces between 2003 and 2009 coincides with the decreasing number

of marriages. In line with this trend, the proportion of first unions that started as cohabitation

as opposed to marriage has increased (Beaujouan and Ní Bhrolcháin 2011). As cohabiting

unions are less stable than marriages, this increase in the prevalence of cohabitation is likely

to contribute to an increase in the number of unions that end with separation (Feijten and van

Ham 2010). Although official statistics on the prevalence of cohabitation and dissolution of

cohabitation are not available, survey estimates show that approximately 60 percent of

2 One exception is Feijten and van Ham (2010) who found that separated individuals in the UK are three times

as likely as married individuals to move to a flat or shared accommodation while those who are married mainly

move to single-family dwellings.

7

cohabitations become marriages while about 30 percent ends in union dissolution within 10

years (Ermisch and Francesconi 2000; Hannemann and Kulu 2015). The dissolution of

marital and non-marital co-residential unions may have different impact on housing careers.

Cohabiting couples are less likely to own a home together or to have invested in their housing

(Feijten and van Ham 2010). This suggests that there is less to loose when cohabitors split up

compared to the dissolution of a marriage. However, for couples who are long-term

cohabitors, the effects of separation might be similar to that of a divorce.

According to the 2011 census, there were 24 million households in England and

Wales. The housing market was dominated by owner occupied dwellings (61%), 17 percent

of the dwellings was socially rented while 16 percent was privately rented (Office for

National Statistics 2014). In England, the proportion of households in owner occupied

dwellings has increased from the 1980s to 2003 when it reached a peak of 71 percent. Since

then, there has been a gradual decline to 63 percent in 2014. The proportion of private sector

households remained at about 10 percent throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, the

sector has undergone sharp growth due to e.g. the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies

and the buy-to-let mortgage. By 2014, 19 percent of the households was renting privately in

England. The proportion of households in socially rented accommodation (this includes

housing from local authorities and housing associations) has decreased from 31 percent in

1980 to 17 percent in 2014. This is primarily due to the introduction of the Right to Buy

program which enabled many tenants to purchase their homes at a discounted price

(Department for Communities and Local Government 2015). The trends were very similar in

Wales where after 1991/1992, the proportion of owner occupied and privately rented

dwellings increased while that of socially rented dwellings decreased, although the proportion

of owner occupied dwellings decreased somewhat since 2000-01 (Statistics for Wales 2015).

8

Hypotheses

Based on the theoretical arguments and in light of previous findings, we develop the

following hypotheses. First, we expect that separated men and women in England and Wales

are more likely to move than those who are single or who are in a co-residential partnership

(moves hypothesis).

Second, we expect that separated individuals will be more likely to move to smaller

dwellings such as a flat, shared accommodation, or terraced house compared to their single

counterparts and particularly to those who are in a steady relationship (destination

hypothesis). This is expected to be especially so immediately after separation (short-term

effect). As separated individuals make adjustment moves later on after separation, we expect

that separation has a long-term effect on individual’s residential careers (duration

hypothesis). We expect that individuals will be more likely to move to a detached and semi-

detached house sometime after separation than they were immediately after separation,

although it will be interesting to find out whether and how the patterns vary by population

subgroups. Finally, as a previous study in Britain found no gender differences in the effect of

separation on moves, we do not expect to find such differences (gender hypothesis). In

Britain most women with children return to the labour market after a short period of

maternity leave, which may leave them with more resources upon divorce than in the

Netherlands or Germany. Additionally, in Britain housing benefits and social housing is

available for single mothers.

Data and Methods

We use data from 18 waves of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), a nationally

representative sample of 5,500 households and about 10,300 individuals. Between 1991 and

2008, the same sample of adults was interviewed each year. If a household splits, the original

household members are still followed up and new household members are also interviewed.

9

In our analyses, we use information on original sample members and two additional sub-

samples (the European Community Household Panel and the Wales Extension Sample). We

exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland from the sample, as in these countries of Great Britain

social norms, behaviours, and legislation are different from that in England and Wales.

Individuals are observed from age 16 or from the entry into the study (if later) until age 50,

widowhood, or the end of observation, whichever happens first. We use a sample of 4797

men and 5019 women and prepare a person-months dataset to study the risk of moving. For

the study of residential moves, panel attrition might be an issue because individuals with high

geographic mobility are more likely to be lost to follow-up than those with low mobility

(Uhrig 2008). Rabe and Taylor (2010) and Washbrook et al. (2014) found that attrition in

BHPS is not related to mobility rates and thus it does not influence analyses related to

moving risks.

We estimate four sets of models. First, we focus on the relationship between

partnership status and moves (Model 1). Second, in order to distinguish moves due to

separation from moves of separated individuals we split the category of separated individuals

by time since separation (0-4 months after separation versus 5 or more months after

separation) (Model 2). Third, we analyse moves of separated individuals by order of move

(Model 3). Preliminary analysis showed that in the first four months following separation

most individuals only move once; we therefore study the moves that happened five or more

month after separation by order of move. Finally, we include information on previous

residential history to further investigate whether separation has a long-term effect on moving

risks (Model 4).

We apply multi-level event history models with a piecewise linear baseline hazard to

study the risk of a move by partnership status for men and women. Multi-level models are

estimated because each individual can experience several moves. These moves are not

10

independent from each other and standard errors, therefore, need to be adjusted. The risk of a

move is expressed by:

ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚(𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜(𝑡) + ∑ 𝛼𝑗𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑚 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑚 (𝑡) + ԑ𝑖,𝑙𝑗 (1)

where 𝜇𝑖(𝑡) denotes the hazard of a move of order m (first or higher order) for individual i, ln

𝜇𝑜(𝑡) denotes the baseline log-hazard which is specified as piecewise linear. For first moves,

the baseline is individual’s age in months whereas for second and higher order moves it is

time since previous move. 𝑥𝑖𝑗 represents a time-constant variable and 𝑤𝑖𝑗(𝑡) denotes time-

varying variables. We also include an individual-level random effect to control for

unmeasured time-constant characteristics that influence individuals’ moving propensities.

Then, we estimate multi-level competing-risks event history models to calculate the

risk of a move to different dwelling types by partnership status for each set of models. This

model is depicted in Figure 1. Each box represents a possible state that individuals can

occupy over the life course while the arrows indicate possible transitions between there

states. Each state is defined as a combination of partnership status and housing type. If

several events occur in the same month, we assume the following order of events: separation,

residential move, union formation. The risk of a move to different dwelling types is expressed

by:

ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝐷 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜

𝐷(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝐷(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗

𝐷𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝐷𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡) + ԑ𝑖𝑙𝑗

ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑆 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜

𝑆(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝑆(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗

𝑆𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡) + ԑ𝑖𝑙𝑗

ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑇 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜

𝑇(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝑇(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗

𝑇𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝑇𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡)𝑙𝑗 + ԑ𝑖

ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝐹 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜

𝐹(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝐹(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗

𝐹𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝐹𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡)𝑙𝑗 + ԑ𝑖

ln 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑂 (𝑡) = ln 𝜇𝑜

𝑂(𝑡) + ∑ 𝑧𝑘𝑂(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) +𝑘 ∑ 𝛼𝑗

𝑂𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 + ∑ 𝛽𝑙𝑂𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑙 (𝑡) + ԑ𝑖𝑙𝑗 (2)

11

where 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝐷 (𝑡), 𝜇𝑖𝑚

𝑆 (𝑡), 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑇 (𝑡), 𝜇𝑖𝑚

𝐹 (𝑡), 𝜇𝑖𝑚𝑂 (𝑡) denote the hazard of a move of order m for

individual i to detached house, semi-detached house, terraced house, flat, and other type of

dwelling, respectively, ln 𝜇𝑜(𝑡) denotes the baseline log-hazard for each dwelling type which

is specified as piecewise linear (again it is age for first moves and time since previous move

for second and higher order moves). The parameter 𝑧𝑘(𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘 + 𝑡) denotes the spline

representation of a time-varying variable that is a continuous function of t with origin 𝑢𝑖𝑚𝑘

(e.g. time since separation). 𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑗 represents a time-constant variable and 𝑤𝑖𝑚𝑗(𝑡) denotes

time-varying variables. Again, we include an individual-level random effect to control for

unmeasured time-constant characteristics that influence individuals’ moving propensities.

Additionally, we study whether the impact of separation on the risk of residential moves and

housing transitions is temporary or long-lasting. All models are estimated using aML.

In all steps, we analyse men and women separately because their partnership and

residential histories are not independent. Analysing them within the same model would

violate the independence assumption and would lead to biased estimates of parameters and

standard errors.

Variables

The BHPS contains rich information on many important individual characteristics such as

partnership and family events, educational level, educational enrolment, household

composition, housing tenure, housing type, and housing conditions. Respondents’ age is

measured in 5-year age groups: 16-19 (reference), 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-45, and 45-

50. Housing type at origin is measured with a categorical variable: detached house, semi-

detached house (reference), terraced house, flat, and other/missing category and indicates the

type of dwelling before individuals moved to a new dwelling. Respondents’ partnership

12

status is operationalised as single, married, cohabiting, or separated. When we study long-

term effects of separation, we replace the variable “separated” with time since separation (0-4

months and 5+ months). Housing tenure at origin is measured as home-ownership (owned

outright or with mortgage) (reference), social renting (from local authority, housing

association, or employer), private renting (furnished or unfurnished), and missing.

Respondents’ educational level is categorised as high (university degree or teaching

qualification), medium (A level) (reference category), and low (O levels, CSE, none) while

their employment status is categorised as self-employed, full-time employee (reference), part-

time employee, in education, unemployed, other, and missing. Additionally, we distinguish

between seven types of areas of residence based on the size and population density of the

local authority district at origin: the capital city of London, large cities with a population of

more than 400,000 (reference), medium cities (200,000-400,000 inhabitants), towns (less

than 200,000 inhabitants but a population density or at least 1000 individuals per km2), small

towns (less than 200,000 inhabitants and a population density of 250-1000 individuals per

km2), and rural areas (less than 200,000 inhabitants and less than 250 individuals per km

2).

The analyses are controlled for order of move, whether separation was from

cohabitation or marriage, and the order of separation. Additionally, in order to control for

period effects in the risk of residential moves, we distinguish four periods: 1991-1994

(reference), 1995-1999, 2000-2004, and 2005-2008. We also control for whether the woman

(or wife in case of men) was pregnant in a given month, the number of children (one, two,

and three or more children) and whether respondents were part of a minority group. Table 1

reports the number and proportion of person-months and residential moves in each category

of the variables used in the multivariate analyses.

Results

13

Table 1 shows that in total, women and men experienced 5,720 and 5,181 residential moves,

respectively. For both genders, most of these moves (28% for women, 26% for men) were

directed towards terraced houses, followed by semi-detached houses (25% for women, 24%

for men), flats (20% for women, 22% for men), detached houses (18% for women, 17% for

men), and other types of housing (10% for men and women).

Table 2 and Table 3 show the results of four event history models of the risk of a

residential move by partnership status for women and men, respectively. Results from four

sets of models (Model 1 to Model 4) are shown in the different columns of these tables.

Model 1 shows that separated men and women have around 40 per cent higher risk of a

residential move than single men and women. This is in line with what we expected based on

previous studies. Additionally, compared to single individuals, married men and women have

a smaller risk of moving. Cohabiting women are less likely to move than single women while

for men this difference is not significant. Figure 2a and Figure 2b presents the risk of a

residential move to different housing types by partnership status for women and men,

respectively. Interestingly, single individuals are most likely to move to a flat or terraced

house, cohabiting individuals mainly move to terraced and semi-detached houses, while those

who are married have the highest moving risks to detached and semi-detached houses.

Separated women are most likely to move to a terraced house, followed by a semi-detached

and a flat while separated men are equally likely to move to a flat, terraced house, and semi-

detached house.

In Model 2, we distinguish between moves due to separation and moves of separated

individuals by replacing the category of separated individuals with a variable showing time

since separation. The analysis reveals that the risk of a residential move is more than twice as

large in the first four months following separation as it is for single men and women. This

suggests that many men and women move due to separation, which corresponds to

14

expectations. Five or more months after separation, the risk of a residential move is similar to

that of single individuals. Separated men and women still exhibit higher risks of a residential

move than those who are in a relationship. Figure 3a and Figure 3b shows that immediately

after separation, women are most likely to move to a terraced house and this is also the case

later. For men, there is a tendency to move to flats which becomes more distinct (but not

significantly different from the risk of moving to a terraced house) over time. This seems to

suggest that separated men are more likely to move to smaller dwellings, whereas this may

not be necessarily the case for women. One explanation for this might be that in relationships

where children are present, children usually stay with their mother upon separation. Indeed,

additional analyses (not shown) revealed that women without children are more likely to

move to flats than those with children and that men with children are less likely to move to a

flat compared to the other dwelling types.

To gain a better understanding of whether separation has a long-term effect on

individuals’ residential and housing careers, Model 3 further distinguishes moves that

occurred five or more months after separation by order of residential moves. We find that five

or more months after separation, the risk of a move is highest for men and women who had

already moved once during separation. Separated women who moved once are 16 per cent

more likely to move again compared to single women while separated men are 30 per cent

more likely to do so. When we break down these risks by destination of move, we find that

women who move for the first time five or more months after separation are most likely to

move to a terraced and semi-detached house (Figure 4a). Upon a second move, they are

equally likely to move to semi-detached and terraced houses and flats. However, higher order

moves are mainly directed towards terraced houses. For men we find a different pattern

(Figure 4b). First moves after five months since separation are to terraced and semi-detached

15

houses as well as to flats. Upon second, and third and higher order moves, men are most

likely to move to a flat, although they also move to terraced houses.

Finally, Model 4 introduces indicators of past residential histories to further examine

the potential long-term effect of separation on individuals’ residential careers. We examine

whether the first move occurred due to separation (0-4 months) or later (5 or more months).

This is an indicator for whether the individual moved out upon separation. We find that men

who moved out upon separation and moved again five or more months after separation have a

21 per cent higher risk of moving again than those who did not move upon separation. For

women, we do not find any significant differences by past history. These results indicate that

for men who move out upon separation, separation has a longer-lasting effect than for

women.

Other variables in the models show consistent results with what we know from the

literature. In short, the risk of a residential move decreases with age and with time since

previous move. Living in a flat and other type of dwellings, and in private rented

accommodation as well as being more educated are associated with an increased risk of a

residential move. Additionally, couples, where the woman is pregnant, are more likely to

move. We find some gender differences in the effect of some control variables. For example,

for women, being in part-time employment and living in a rural area decreases the risk of a

move while for men being in education and belonging to a minority group increases the risk

of a move. Also, women who have two children are less likely to experience a residential

move compared to those who do not have any children while for men having children is

associated with increased moving risks.

Conclusion and Discussion

16

This study investigated the interrelationship between partnership and residential histories in

England and Wales focusing on moves related to union dissolution. The aim of the study was

to determine whether separation (of both cohabitation and marriage) has a long-term effect on

men’s and women’s residential and housing careers. We explicitly distinguished between

moves due to separation and moves of separated people. Using multilevel and competing-

risks event history models, we analysed the risk of a move of single, married, cohabiting, and

separated men and women and moving patterns by housing type at destination (detached,

semi-detached, and terraced house, flat, and other).

As expected (moves hypothesis), and in line with previous studies, we found that

separated men and women are more likely to experience a residential move than those who

are single or are in a relationship. When distinguishing between moves due to separation (0-4

months after separation) and moves of separated individuals (5 or more months after

separation) the analysis showed that the risk of a move due to separation is more than twice

as high as that among separated individuals. This was expected; upon separation, at least one

of the ex-partners will have to move to a new dwelling in order to adjust their living

conditions to the new circumstances. Five or more months after separation, the risk of a

residential move is comparable to that of single individuals, but still higher than that for

partnered individuals. This finding provides some evidence for a potential long-term effect of

separation on individuals’ residential careers, thus supporting the duration hypothesis. To

further investigate this hypothesis, we first disaggregated the risk of a move of separated

individuals by order of move and found that separated men and women who had moved once

or more had a higher risk to move again. We then also analysed the likelihood of moving by

past residential history. Men who had moved out upon separation (and had moved again five

or more months after separation) had a higher risk of moving again than those who did not

move upon separation. For women, we did not find any significant differences by past

17

history. These results indicate that separation has a long-term effect for those separated

individuals who have either moved several times or, in case of men, for those who move out

upon separation.

Additionally, we expected that separated individuals would be most likely to move to

smaller dwelling types such as flats, other types of dwellings, and terraced houses, especially

soon after separation (destination hypothesis). We found that moves of women were mainly

directed towards terraced houses while men were equally likely to move to flats, terraced

houses, and semi-detached houses. For women, this pattern also held when we distinguished

separated individuals by time since separation whereas for men the results were less clear.

After separation men were equally likely to move to terraced and semi-detached houses and

flats while later the highest risk was observed for moves to flats and terraced houses. Further

analysis showed that over time women had a tendency to move to terraced houses and men to

move to flats.

Finally, based on previous literature, we did not expect to find gender differences in

the risk of moving for separated men and women. While the overall findings were similar for

men and women, we found one distinct difference: the tendency of women to move to

terraced houses and of men to move to flats. This pattern persisted whether we examined

moves due to separation or moves of separated individuals.

18

Table 1. Number of events by partnership status, gender, and housing type.

Men

semi-detached detached terraced flat other Total

single 232 448 613 653 283 2229

cohabiting 92 224 247 150 52 765

married 487 400 289 106 106 1388

separated 78 186 222 228 85 799

separated 0-4 months 14 54 48 50 26 192

separated 5+ months 64 132 174 178 59 607

Total 889 1258 1371 1137 526 5181

Women

semi-detached Detached terraced flat other Total

single 219 408 619 617 278 2141

cohabiting 110 250 263 167 48 838

married 546 478 333 106 155 1618

separated 129 282 359 266 87 1123

separated 0-4 months 27 62 66 58 29 242

separated 5+ months 102 220 293 208 58 881

Total 1004 1418 1574 1156 568 5720

µ(t) µ(t) µ(t) Separated,

House type 3

Separated,

House type 4

Separated,

House type 5

µ(t) µ(t) µ(t) In union,

House type 2

In union,

House type 3 In union,

House type 4

µ(t) µ(t) µ(t) Single,

House type 1 Single,

House type 2

Single,

House type 3

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

19

Table 2. Risk of a move, women, hazard ratios

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Constant 0.052 *** 0.053 *** 0.053 *** 0.054 ***

Age

16-19 1.369 *** 1.358 *** 1.359 *** 1.361 ***

20-24 0.942 *** 0.944 *** 0.944 *** 0.947 ***

25-29 0.924 *** 0.928 *** 0.928 *** 0.928 ***

30-34 0.936 *** 0.937 *** 0.937 *** 0.937 ***

35-39 0.952 *** 0.956 *** 0.956 *** 0.956 ***

40-44 0.930 *** 0.930 *** 0.930 *** 0.930 ***

45+ 1.022

1.026

1.026

1.026

Time since previous move

Intercept 0.179 *** 0.177 *** 0.177 *** 0.177 ***

0-1 year 9.135 *** 9.425 *** 9.364 *** 9.432 ***

1-3 years 0.780 *** 0.782 *** 0.783 *** 0.783 ***

3-5 years 1.099 ** 1.100 ** 1.100 ** 1.098 **

5+ years 0.962 * 0.952 ** 0.952 ** 0.952 **

House type

detached 1.076

1.068

1.066

1.066

semi detached (ref) 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

terraced 1.039

1.039

1.039

1.040

flat 1.376 *** 1.371 *** 1.371 *** 1.379 ***

other & missing 1.589 *** 1.578 *** 1.574 *** 1.574 ***

Partnership status

single (ref) 1

1

1

1

married 0.825 *** 0.803 *** 0.802 *** 0.774 ***

cohabiting 0.879 *** 0.866 *** 0.865 *** 0.839 ***

separated 1.401 ***

Time since separation

0-4 months

2.093 *** 2.095 *** 2.095 ***

5+ months

1.090

Long-term effect

Separated 5+ months ago & non-mover

1.101

Separated 5+ months ago & moved once

1.161 *

Separated 5+ months ago & moved 2+

times

0.962

Past history


0.883

Separated 5+ months & 1st moved 5+

months after separation (ref)

1

Separated 5+ months & 1st moved 0-4

months after separation

0.949

Union type at separation

cohabitation 1

1

1

1

marriage 1.098

1.069

1.064

1.130 **

Order of separation

first 1

1

1

1

20

second and subsequent 1.366 *** 1.322 *** 1.321 *** 1.374 ***

Pregnancy status of woman

not pregnant 1

1

1

1

pregnant 1.341 *** 1.362 *** 1.362 *** 1.371 ***

Number of children

no child (ref) 1

1

1

1

one 1.036

1.050

1.051

1.062

two 0.917 * 0.912 * 0.913 * 0.918 *

three plus 0.956

0.950

0.949

0.954

Housing tenure

homeowner (ref) 1

1

1

1

social rent 1.486 *** 1.508 *** 1.509 *** 1.515 ***

private rent 3.347 *** 3.365 *** 3.373 *** 3.371 ***

missing 1.404 *** 1.385 *** 1.386 *** 1.382 ***

Area type

London 0.961

0.960

0.960

0.958

large city (ref) 1

1

1

1

medium city 1.056

1.051

1.052

1.053

town 1.060

1.055

1.055

1.057

small town 1.112 * 1.108 * 1.107 * 1.111 *

rural area 1.079

1.075

1.075

1.078

Employment status

full-time (ref) 1

1

1

1

self employed 0.885

0.879

0.878

0.878

part-time 0.867 *** 0.868 *** 0.868 *** 0.869 ***

in education 1.045

1.049

1.050

1.045

unemployed 1.028

1.014

1.014

1.014

other 1.045

1.046

1.046

1.048

missing 1.145

1.164

1.165

1.157

Educational level

high 1.186 *** 1.184 *** 1.184 *** 1.180 ***

medium (ref) 1

1

1

1

low 0.802 *** 0.796 *** 0.795 *** 0.794 ***

Member of a minority group

no (ref) 1

1

1

1

yes 0.868

1.104

1.105

1.106

Period

1991-1994 (ref) 1

1

1

1

1995-1999 1.089 ** 1.075 * 1.078 * 1.069

2000-2004 0.955

0.950

0.952

0.942

2005-2008 0.868 *** 0.854 ** 0.856 ** 0.848 **

Order of move

< two moves (ref) 1

1

1

1

two+ moves 0.779 *** 0.787 *** 0.795 *** 0.789 ***

Standard deviation of residuals 1.488 *** 1.487 *** 1.493 *** 1.493 ***

ln-L -35458.26

-35408

-35406

-35408

21

Table 3. Risk of a move, men, hazard ratios

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Constant 0.032 *** 0.032 *** 0.032 *** 0.032 ***

Age

16-19 1.359 *** 1.349 *** 1.354 *** 1.349 ***

20-24 0.986

0.986

0.987

0.988

25-29 0.949 *** 0.953 *** 0.953 *** 0.954 ***

30-34 0.934 *** 0.936 *** 0.936 *** 0.936 ***

35-39 0.918 *** 0.921 *** 0.921 *** 0.921 ***

40-44 0.952 ** 0.953 ** 0.953 ** 0.954 **

45+ 0.935 ** 0.933 ** 0.933 ** 0.933 **


Intercept 0.171 *** 0.169 *** 0.166 *** 0.169 ***

0-1 year 10.344 *** 10.615 *** 10.634 *** 10.642 ***

1-3 years 0.774 *** 0.774 *** 0.777 *** 0.773 ***

3-5 years 1.099 ** 1.104 ** 1.109 ** 1.105 **

5+ years 0.956 * 0.947 ** 0.946 ** 0.947 **

House type

detached 0.947

0.950

0.951

0.951

semi detached (ref) 1

1

1

1

terraced 1.044

1.049

1.050

1.051

flat 1.326 *** 1.345 *** 1.346 *** 1.347 ***

other & missing 1.270 *** 1.290 *** 1.292 *** 1.291 ***

Partnership status

single (ref) 1

1

1

1

married 0.854 *** 0.837 *** 0.840 *** 0.828 ***

cohabiting 0.992

0.976

0.983

0.968

separated 1.435 ***

Time since separation

0-4 months

2.242 *** 2.239 *** 2.210 ***

5+ months

1.076

Long-term effect


0.870

Separated 5+ months ago & moved once

1.302 ***

Separated 5+ months ago & moved 2+ times

1.160

Past history


0.948

Separated 5+ months & 1st moved 5+

months after separation (ref)

1

Separated 5+ months & 1st moved 0-4

months after separation

1.208 *


cohabitation 1

1

1

1

marriage 1.333 *** 1.227 *** 1.241 *** 1.238 ***

Order of separation

first separation 1

1

1

1

22

second and subsequent separation 1.219 *** 1.143 * 1.145 * 1.142 *


not pregnant 1

1

1

1

pregnant 1.517 *** 1.530 *** 1.529 *** 1.531 ***

Number of children

no child (ref) 1

1

1

1

one 1.258 *** 1.267 *** 1.264 *** 1.268 ***

two 1.182 *** 1.168 *** 1.160 *** 1.168 ***

three plus 1.264 *** 1.244 *** 1.238 *** 1.242 ***

Housing tenure

homeowner (ref) 1

1

1

1

social rent 1.773 *** 1.789 *** 1.793 *** 1.789 ***

private rent 3.577 *** 3.586 *** 3.592 *** 3.587 ***

missing 1.457 *** 1.420 *** 1.426 *** 1.421 ***

Area type

London 0.910

0.914

0.909

0.914

large city (ref) 1

1

1

1

medium city 1.003

1.005

1.002

1.006

town 1.012

1.012

1.007

1.011

small town 1.018

1.014

1.010

1.015

rural area 0.956

0.960

0.955

0.959

Employment status

full-time (ref) 1

1

1

1

self employed 0.998

0.995

0.995

0.996

part-time 1.028

1.030

1.031

1.031

in education 1.290 *** 1.301 *** 1.303 *** 1.299 ***

unemployed 1.077

1.084

1.083

1.086

other 0.939

0.940

0.936

0.940

missing 0.993

0.992

0.989

0.992

Educational level

high 1.100 ** 1.102 ** 1.102 ** 1.102 **

medium (ref) 1

1

1

1

low 0.721 *** 0.721 *** 0.722 *** 0.723 ***

Member of a minority group

no (ref) 1

1

1

1

yes 1.313 *** 1.330 *** 1.329 *** 1.330 ***

Period

1991-1994 (ref) 1

1

1

1

1995-1999 1.083 * 1.068

1.066

1.065

2000-2004 0.991

0.985

0.985

0.981

2005-2008 0.918

0.907 * 0.905 * 0.903 *

Order of move

< two moves (ref) 1

1

1

1

two+ moves 0.744 *** 0.760 *** 0.756 *** 0.757 ***

Standard deviation of residuals 1.586 *** 1.578 *** 1.577 *** 1.574 ***

ln-L -32377.5

-32332.2

-32326.8

-32331.3

23

Figure 2a. Results of multi-level multi-state models, risk of moving into different types of

housing by partnership status, Model 1, women

Figure 2b. Results of multi-level multi-state models, risk of moving into different types of

housing by partnership status, Model 1, men

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

single cohabiting married separated

detached semi terraced flat other

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

single cohabiting married separated


24





0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

single cohabiting married sep 0-4 sep 5+


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

single cohabiting married sep 0-4 sep 5+


25





0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

single cohabiting married sep 0-4 non-mover 1st move 2+ move

sep 5+


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

single cohabiting married sep 0-4 non-mover 1st move 2+ move

sep 5+


26

Appendix

Table A 1 Number and proportion of person-months and residential moves by categories of variables, men

and women

Men Women

Person-Months

Residential

moves Person-Months

Residential

moves

Number % Number % Number % Number %

Age

16-19 53,788 11 563 11 52,310 10 766 13

20-24 70,745 15 1390 27 66,706 13 1660 29

25-29 64,653 13 1166 23 68,180 13 1149 20

30-34 67,641 14 788 15 77,736 15 791 14

35-39 73,184 15 571 11 85,035 16 580 10

40-44 76,352 16 406 8 85,724 16 436 8

45+ 76,866 16 297 6 84,167 16 338 6


0-1 year 55,299 11 977 19 61,132 12 1081 19

1-3 years 63,242 13 1247 24 69,734 13 1401 24

3-5 years 34,266 7 420 8 38,788 7 458 8

5+ years 45,893 9 352 7 53,442 10 362 6

no previous move 284,530 59 2185 42 296,761 57 2418 42

House type

detached 107,396 22 826 16 116,384 22 989 17

semi detached (ref) 168,275 35 1486 29 182,117 35 1552 27

terraced 139,066 29 1509 29 152,346 29 1694 30

flat 47,016 10 1013 20 48,088 9 1106 19

other & missing 21,477 4 347 7 20,923 4 379 7

Partnership status

single (ref) 167,392 35 2229 43 127,319 24 2141 37

married 215,819 11 1388 15 264,561 51 1618 28

cohabiting 53,503 45 765 27 60,563 12 838 15

separated 46,517 10 799 15 67,416 13 1123 20


marriage 25,062 5 351 7 482,894 93 5276 92

cohabitation 458,169 95 4830 93 36,966 7 444 8

Order of separation

first 472,475 98 4986 96 500,222 96 5352 94

second and subsequent 10,756 2 195 4 19,638 4 368 6


not pregnant 470,808 97 4971 96 504,712 97 5444 95

pregnant 12,423 3 210 4 15,148 3 276 5

Number of children

no child (ref) 270,417 56 3477 67 231,220 44 3567 62

one 58,871 12 650 13 76,276 15 796 14

two 108,898 23 755 15 145,035 28 926 16

27

three and more 45,045 9 299 6 67327 13 431 8

Housing tenure

homeowner (ref) 324,671 67 2154 42 337,716 65 2296 40

social rent 72,108 15 917 18 91,182 18 1111 19

private rent 57,918 12 1800 35 62,373 12 2002 35

missing 28,533 6 310 6 28,588 5 311 5

Are type

London 66,301 14 757 15 73,722 14 889 16

large city (ref) 55,673 12 624 12 64,564 12 658 12

medium city 94,469 20 1066 21 98,068 19 1128 20

town 61,654 13 684 13 63,494 12 713 12

small town 84,272 17 876 17 89,833 17 983 17

rural area 120,860 25 1174 23 130,178 25 1349 24

Employment status

full-time (ref) 302,684 63 3072 59 205,805 40 2388 42

self employed 52,922 11 443 9 23,087 4 188 3

part-time 19,894 4 216 4 117,287 23 838 15

in education 41,339 9 699 13 44,756 9 841 15

unemployed 33,659 7 472 9 21,734 4 320 6

other 24,771 5 217 4 101,417 20 1079 19

missing 7,961 2 62 1 5,771 1 66 1

Educational level

high 94,287 20 1251 24 93,376 18 1317 23

medium (ref) 120,129 25 1564 30 101,975 20 1527 27

low 268,814 56 2366 46 324,509 62 2876 50

Period

1991-1994 (ref) 98,373 20 976 19 102,819 20 1048 18

1995-1999 136,501 28 1608 31 145,867 28 1721 30

2000-2004 151,927 31 1630 31 163,874 32 1803 32

2005-2008 96,429 20 967 19 107,299 21 1148 20

Order of move

no move 284,530 59 2185 42 296,761 57 2418 42

first move 95,187 20 1251 24 107,228 21 1390 24

second and subsequent move 103,513 21 1745 34 115,870 22 1912 33

Total 483,232 100 5181 100 519,861 100 5720 100

28

References

Beaujouan, E., & Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (2011). Cohabitation and marriage in Britain since the

1970s. Population Trends(145), 1-25.

Clark, W. A. V. (2013). Life course events and residential change: Unpacking age effects on

the probability of moving. Journal of Population Research, 30, 319-334.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2015). English Housing Survey,

Headline Report 2013-14. London: Department for Communities and Local

Government.

Dewilde, C. (2008). Divorce and the housing movements of owner-occupiers: A European

comparison. Housing Studies, 23(6), 809-832.

Dieleman, F. M., & Schouw, R. J. (1989). Divorce, mobility, and housing demand. European

Journal of Population, 5, 235-252.

Ermisch, J., & Francesconi, M. (2000). Cohabitation in Great Britain: not for long but here to

stay. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 163, 153-171.

Feijten, P. (2005). Union dissolution, unemployment and moving out of homeownership.

European Sociological Review, 21(1), 59-71.

Feijten, P., & Mulder, C. H. (2010). Gender, divorce and housing - a life course perspective.

In D. Reuschke (Ed.), Wohnen und Gender. Theoretische, politische, soziale und

räumliche Aspekte (pp. 175-193). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2007). Residential mobility and migration of the divorced and

separated. Demographic Research, 17, 623-654.

Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2010). The impact of splitting up and divorce on housing careers

in the UK. Housing Studies, 25(4), 483-507.

Gober, P. (1992). Urban houisng demography. Progress in Human Geography, 16(2), 171-

189.

Hannemann, T., & Kulu, H. (2015). Union formation and dissolution among immigrants and

their descendants in the United Kingdom. Demographic Research, 33, 273-312.

Kulu, H. (2008). Fertility and spatial mobility in the life course: evidence from Austria.

Environment and Planning A, 40, 632-652.

Lersch, P. M., & Vidal, S. (2014). Falling out of love and down the housing ladder: A

longitudinal analysis of marital separation and home ownership. European

Sociological Review, 30(4), 512-524.

Mulder, C. H. (2006). Population and housing: A two-sided relationship. Demographic

Research, 15, 401-412.

Mulder, C. H., & Lauster, N. T. (2010). Housing and family: An Introduction. Housing

Studies, 25(4), 433-440.

Mulder, C. H., & Malmberg, G. (2011). Moving related to separation: who moves and to

what distance. Environment and Planning A, 43, 2589-2607.

Mulder, C. H., & Wagner, M. (1998). First-time home-ownership in the family life course: A

West-German-Dutch comparison. Urban Studies, 35(4), 687-713.

Office for National Statistics (2012). Divorces in England and Wales, 2012. Statistical

Bulletin.

Office for National Statistics (2014). CT0259 - Tenure of dwelling by accommodation type

(of dwelling). Source: 2011 Census.

Rabe, B., & Taylor, M. (2010). Residential mobility, quality of neighbourhood and life

course events. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A(173), 531-555,

doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00626.x.

Speare, A. J., & Goldscheider, F. K. (1987). Effects of marital status change on residential

mobility. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 455-464.

29

Statistics for Wales (2015). Dwelling stock estimates for Wales, 2013-14.

Sullivan, O. (1986). Housing movements of the divorced and separated. Housing Studies,

1(1), 35-48, doi:10.1080/02673038608720561.

Uhrig, S. C. N. (2008). The nature and causes of attrition in the British Household Panel

Study. ISER Working Paper Series, No. 2008-05.

Washbrook, E., Clarke, P. S., & Steele, F. (2014). Investigating non-ignorable dropout in

panel studies of residential mobility. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C,

63, 239-266.

Documents

Separation and Housing Transitions in England and Wales€¦ · England and Wales and summarise the hypotheses of this study. Separation and housing in England and Wales In England