“The Dutch are coming back”
Exploring the impact of gentrification on local social cohesion
in an ethnically diverse neighborhood in Amsterdam
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the
Joint European Master in International Migration and Social Cohesion
Jolijn van der Ploeg
May 2015
Student ID: 14201770
Thesis supervisors:
Dr. Gerard Boucher, University College Dublin
Dr. Walter Nicholls, University of Amsterdam
2 DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE
I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and effort and not the work of someone else. Where other sources of information have been used, they have been acknowledged. I have been informed of the completion and assessment rules of the MISOCO Programme.
Name: Jolijn van der Ploeg
Signature: jolijn
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration by candidate ... 2 Table of contents ... 3 Preface ... 7 1. Introduction ... 8
1.1 The case study: A gentrifying multi-ethnic neighborhood ... 8
1.2 research questions ... 9
1.3 Methodology ... 10
1.4 The Dutch integration context ... 10
1.5 Research relevance: societal and scientific... 12
1.6 Chapter outline ... 13
2. Literature Review ... 15
2.1 Introduction ... 15
2.2 Gentrification and social mix ... 15
2.3 State-led gentrification In Dutch neighborhoods ... 17
2.4 Disadvantaged neighborhoods, lack of ‘liveability’ and ethnic minorities ... 18
2.5 The role of ‘gentrifiers’ ... 20
2.6 Gentrification and ethnic neighborhoods ... 22
2.7 Gentrification and social cohesion ... 24
4
Social cohesion ... 27
Social capital ... 29
Social cohesion, social capital and integration ... 30
2.9 Conclusion ... 30
3. Research methodology ... 32
3.1 Introduction ... 32
3.2 The research location ... 32
3.3 Description of respondents ... 35
3.4 Methods of data collection ... 38
Semi-structured interviews ... 38
Participant observations ... 39
Data analysis ... 40
Validity and reliability ... 41
3.5 Ethical considerations ... 42
Reflexivity ... 42
3.6 Conclusion ... 43
4. Gentrification and (social) change ... 44
4.1 Introduction ... 44
4.2 Perspectives on ‘newcomers’ ... 44
Positive about social change ... 45
Negative about social change ... 46
5
5. Social cohesion and the neighborhood ... 48
5.1 Introduction ... 48
5.2 Defining social cohesion ... 48
5.3 Social cohesion as lived experience ... 49
5.4 Gentrifiers vis-à-vis the neighborhood ... 52
5.5 Social cohesion: changing, returning, weakening or strengthening? ... 54
Common values and civic culture ... 54
Social order and social control ... 55
Social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities ... 55
Place attachment and identity ... 57
Social network and social capital ... 58
5.6 ‘Living parallel lives’, a good or a bad thing? ... 59
5.7 Conclusion ... 61
6. Participation and community cohesion ... 62
6.1 Introduction ... 62
6.2 Civic-society communities ... 62
6.3 Change agents’ perspectives on groups ... 63
Who participates? ... 64
Who does not participate? ... 65
6.4 The challenges ‘change agents’ face in closing the gap ... 66
6.5 “Who owns the street?” ... 68
6
Helping the local and ethnic economy ... 70
Makassar square: Old becomes new ... 70
Activating potential and social capital through buddies ... 71
Stretching the boundaries of diversity ... 72
6.7 Conclusion ... 73
7. Conclusion and discussion ... 74
Appendix A – description of respondents and observations ... 77
appendix B – Interview guide (Dutch and English) ... 79
Appendix C – Sample consent form (Dutch and English) ... 82
Appendix D – Code list (Atlas.ti) ... 86
7 PREFACE
In the summer of 2013, at the start of my MISOCO1 career, I moved to a little attic in Amsterdam East. Moving to Amsterdam equated to a process of integration. Not in the classical sense of integrating into the dominant “native” group, but rather into a diversity of people. I realized later that my integration into this diversity was rather limited. Reading articles on gentrification and its impact on neighborhoods, I found myself feeling guilty; I valued a type of diversity that I was not supporting, or was even undermining, through my daily choices of where to get groceries or get my coffee. This awareness formed the start of my research. Since then it has transformed radically, like all thesis projects seem to do.
During the past months I have had the opportunity to explore the relations between gentrification, social cohesion and integration and how these are shaping the Indische Buurt2 today. I am grateful to all direct and indirect participants who have taken the time to provide me with clues on how to solve the riddle. Luckily I received help many more people.
I want to thank Alice Feldman for reminding us to ‘trust the process’ and my supervisor Gerry Boucher for listening, being patient and asking the right questions. I want to thank my fellow students for sharing the ups and downs of the thesis journey, D for being the odd and perfect roommate, and Darren for providing me my daily dose of tunes and smiles. As always, none of the work would have been possible without pap & mam for their unconditional love and support; O&A for their thoughts and for being proud; and Mikey, F & Schnor for sharing their spaces, jokes and hugs.
Dear reader, I wish you a very pleasant read.
Jolijn
1
MISOCO is an acronym for Master program in International Migration and Social Cohesion
8 1. INTRODUCTION
Across many European countries, there is a continuing backlash against immigration and multiculturalism. A major concern that fuels current debates is that many immigrants and ethnic minorities are not integrating into the societies in which they settle. A lack of integration is seen to threaten social cohesion and what is perceived as a homogeneous national identity (Vasta, 2013). In the Netherlands, an increasing level of segregation and spatial concentration of ethnic groups is seen as problematic due to the assumed negative effects on integration and upward social mobility (Musterd & Ostendorf, 2009). Against this background, state-led gentrification is increasingly used in urban policies to encourage middle-class households to move into disadvantaged neighborhoods with a high proportion of ethnic minorities to create socially mixed and more ‘liveable’ neighborhoods (Lees, 2008). In order to succeed, middle-class households, or ‘gentrifiers’, are expected to play an active role in the community that they move into, thereby supplying the stock of social capital that is needed to maintain social cohesion (Uitermark, 2003). This research looks at this presumed relationship between gentrification, social mix and social cohesion in the context of a disadvantaged neighborhood in Amsterdam.
1.1 The case study: A gentrifying multi-ethnic neighborhood
The Indische Buurt is a neighborhood in the eastern part of Amsterdam. The different ethnic minority groups form the majority of the neighborhood’s population. For a long time the area was considered as one of Amsterdam’s least liveable neighborhoods, and has been target of policies to improve the neighborhood through social and tenure mixing. State-led gentrification is evident in the changing housing stock. Concentrated in the western part of the Indische Buurt, the percentage of social-rental housing declined and average real-estate values increased more rapidly than in Amsterdam overall (Hochstenbach, 2014). Since renovations and restructuring started in 1995, the reputation of the neighborhood has rapidly shifted from
9 a ‘no-go area’ to upcoming and ‘hip’; attracting young, native Dutch, middle-class residents (Metaal, Reijndorp, & Teijmant, 2009). At the same time, the reduction in social housing and rising costs of living create problems for existing residents (de Wit & Flintoff, 2010). The residents that ‘live through’ gentrification are confronted with new residents that are identified through class and ethnic difference. They are often referred to as ‘gentrifiers’ and ‘yuppies’ (Lees, Slater, & Wyly, 2008). Not only do they have more economic power and are therefore likely to ‘take over’ (Colic-Peisker & Robertson, 2014, p. 78), they also bring different perspectives on what it means to live together and be involved in a neighborhood. An important aspect that defines the Indische Buurt is the range of civic-society communities and initiatives that aim to foster contact between the different resident groups (Hochstenbach, 2014).
In order to find out how the presumed relationship between gentrification, social mix and social cohesion plays out in the context of the Indische Buurt, this study focuses on the impact that the influx of new, middle-class native Dutch residents has on the local social cohesion in the Indische Buurt as perceived by its residents. The following research questions guide this study.
1.2 research questions
This study aims to answer the following research question:
What is the impact of gentrification on the local social cohesion in an ethnically diverse neighborhood of Amsterdam as perceived by its residents?
This question is divided into several sub questions, namely:
How do long-term residents perceive (social) change due to the inflow of newcomers?
10 What are the strategies of ‘change agents’ to ‘bundle’ social capital in the neighborhood?
1.3 Methodology
This study answers these questions on the basis of a literature review of the presumed relationship between gentrification, social mix and social cohesion in the context of disadvantaged neighborhoods. In addition, empirical fieldwork has been done in the Indische Buurt, during two months based on qualitative methods. In total, 27 semi-structured interviews and five participant observations provided the data for a thematic analysis. Based on the findings, this study argues that gentrification-induced social mix increases segregation on a micro level, destabilizes existing local social cohesion and creates the conditions for the weakening of supportive networks that ethnic minority residents depend on. Yet, the civic-society communities that are continuously developing in the Indische Buurt have the potential to close the gap between the resident groups if there is a more critical awareness of the diverging interests and stakes that gentrification brings to the table.
In order to understand the perceived social changes in a gentrifying neighborhood where an ethnic majority is confronted with an incoming native minority, it is important to sketch the broader context of immigration and integration in the Netherlands.
1.4 The Dutch integration context
The current demographic composition of the Indische Buurt illustrates that ethnic minorities make up the majority of the population. The native Dutch ‘newcomers’ therefore form a relatively small group that can be expected to adapt to the environment they move into. Crul et al, (2013) argue that the idea of who is integrated needs to change in the light of the new majority-minority cities. “In a society where one group forms a clear majority, minorities are expected to adapt to the opinions and customs of the dominant group. If there is no longer an ethnic majority group, everyone will have to adapt to everyone else” (Crulz, Schneider, &
11 Lelie, 2013, p. 14). In reality, the local minority-majority division is informed by the integration and immigration discourse at the national level. This overview provides the major changes in Dutch policies on immigration and integration. It is this national context in which local communities are embedded and through which the everyday lives of residents are shaped.
Policies, public discourse and attitudes concerning the integration of immigrants into Dutch society have moved away from liberal, multicultural policies that recognized the right to cultural and religious difference, towards a more restrictive and assimilationist approach based on the logic of civic integration (Joppke, 2007; Uitermark, 2010; Vasta, 2007). The described shift is based on the idea that multiculturalism in terms of immigrant incorporation has failed, and that the reasons for this are two-fold. First, tolerance for cultural difference was a wrong approach, and second, immigrants are blamed for purposefully not meeting their responsibility to embrace Dutch culture, language, norms and values (Vasta, 2007).
Spanning a period of 60 years, there have basically been three approaches in the Netherlands: pillarization, ethnic minorities policy (1983), and integration policy (1994 and revised since). In short, pillarization refers to a system which reflected the division of Dutch society in different ideological and religious sub-cultures. It allowed immigrants to create their own state-sponsored institutions, hence they could cultivate their own culture and group formation. This ideology overlapped with the ethnic minorities policy which started in the late 1970s and was formalized in the 1983. Ethnic Minorities Policy which seen as a welfare policy for segregated groups.
The integration policy was formulated in 1994 as a response to the acknowledgement that migrants had not been integrated in a structural sense. Multiculturalism's tendency to "lock migrant ethnics into their separate worlds" (Joppke, 2007, p. 249) was replaced by the
12 opposite aim of civic integration that is based on the idea to treat migrants as individuals who are responsible for their own integration, a process that was seen to lead to the complete and equal participation of individual and groups in society (Vasta, 2007). To increase the incorporation of immigrants in mainstream institutions, autonomy and self-sufficiency through learning the Dutch language, culture and society and integrating into the labor market were demanded. A key aspect of civil integration is its obligatory, coercive character to meet these criteria (Joppke, 2007). The Civic Integration of Newcomers Act of 1998 gave shape to this ambition; an integration obligation arose in which immigrants have to pass an integration test, and are in charge of the provision of their own integration (Vasta, 2007).
Two figures and their deaths particularly fuelled a divide between immigrant Muslims and native Dutch over liberal democratic values such as freedom of speech and the position of women in Muslim communities. The populist politician Pim Fortuyn who argued that there were too many immigrants in the Netherlands and Islam is a backward religion. In 2004, film-maker Theo Van Gogh was murdered who was known for a film on Muslim women and domestic violence, as well as for his outspoken opinion against Islam (Vasta, 2007).
This overview of the major changes and events that shaped the integration and immigration discourse in the Netherlands provides the wider context in which neighborhoods are entrenched. It is clear that there is now more pressure on immigrants, and especially Muslims, to integrate into Dutch society. This is relevant as it gives an understanding of lived realities in the Dutch context of integration.
1.5 Research relevance: societal and scientific
Societal relevance flows from the fact that state-led gentrification today is a widely used tool for Western governments to improve disadvantaged neighborhoods by creating a better mix of residents. However, studies indicate the negative effects that gentrification has on low-income
13 residents who are often displaced or marginalized. There is a lack of knowledge, however, on the more subtle forms of gentrification-induced social mix in disadvantaged neighborhoods that can legitimize the process through the narrative that it serves social cohesion and that it provides ethnic minorities possibilities to integrate. This study contributes to a more inclusive framework that can inform a critical understanding of gentrification practices and its relation to social cohesion and integration in today’s cities.
Combining migration and urban sociology research helps to identify the lack of literature that can be attributed to migrant lives in gentrification studies. This forms the scientific relevance of the present research. First, even though there is an extensive amount of research concerning gentrification, there has been little consideration of the intersection between ethnic groups and gentrification. The emphasis has been placed much more on class and gender, than ethnicity and race (Lees, 2008). Second, research has also focused more on gentrifiers, as the ‘winners’ and displaced low-income households as the ‘losers’ of the gentrification process, rather than learning from the perspectives of those who live through it (Doucet, 2013). By looking at the existing resident population of a neighborhood, a more nuanced picture of the social dynamics of the new ‘mix’ of residents is provided. Third, the ways in which social
mix policies are linked to the national integration discourse (via ideas on social cohesion) (Uitermark, 2003) remain separate from these social dynamics and lived realities of the different resident groups in urban settings. This research will explore these gaps and thereby adding more empirically-based knowledge to the existing body of literature.
1.6 Chapter outline
This thesis is divided into 6 chapters. Chapter two describes the relevant literature on gentrification, social mix, social cohesion and social capital. This review provides the concepts and theoretical framework from which guide the research. Chapter two elaborates on the methodology. It describes the case study, the groups of respondents, the qualitative
14 methods of data collection – semi-structured interviews and participatory observations, the data analysis and considerations of ethics and reflexivity. The findings of this study are presented in three chapters. Chapter 4 deals with the perspectives of residents on ‘newcomers’ and establishes whether this change is positive or negative. Chapter 5 describes the findings on social cohesion: how respondent groups perceive this concept, how they relate to it, how it has changed and what it should be like. Diverging perspectives are outlined and lead to the chapter on participation and community cohesion. This last findings chapter presents the perspective of ‘change agents’ on the different groups that they try to connect, their characteristics in terms of participation and diversity as well as the strategies that are used to foster contact. The conclusion sums up the findings of this study and presents a discussion in which several aspects of the study are critically looked at.
15 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In order to explore the impact of gentrification on local social cohesion in the context of the Indische Buurt, this chapter will discuss the relevant policy discourse and academic context on gentrification and social mix, as well as the concepts of social cohesion and social capital. To understand the process of gentrification that is taking place in Dutch neighborhoods, this section takes a look at the restructuring discourse in the Dutch policy context and the ideas in the literature on the “uneasy cohabitation” of gentrification and social mix, as Rose (2004)
puts its (p.280). The presented information can explain the role that gentrifiers are expected to play in disadvantaged neighborhoods in order to make them more ‘liveable’. The second part of this chapter describes the different dimensions of social cohesion and social capital. This literature review provides both the contextual and theoretical framework for this study.
2.2 Gentrification and social mix
Processes of gentrification significantly shaped and are still shaping contemporary cities. Although originally coined by sociologist Ruth Glass to explain the process of upgrading of London’s inner-city working-class neighborhoods, it has come to represent a much more complex process of urban transformation (Atkinson & Bridge, 2005, p. 4). The classic theories of why gentrification happens are based on the work of Smith (1995) who argues that gentrification can be explained based on capital flows, market forces and profit motives; and on the work of Ley (1996) who explains that changing lifestyles and the emergence of a new group of consumers results in gentrification. However, more recently, national governments have become more and more important in promoting gentrification. Today, state-led gentrification is increasingly used in urban policies to encourage middle-class households to move into working-class neighborhoods to create socially mixed communities (Lees et al., 2008).
16 The strategies to change these neighborhoods are based on the liberalization of urban housing markets in which state-regulated social rent is decreased to make way for more market-regulated owner occupancy. This switch attracts residents with a higher socio-economic status and hence creates a “better” social mix (Van Der Land, Curley, & Van Eijk, 2012). “Better” here is based on the assumption that gentrification will contribute to more mixed, less segregated and more ´liveable´ neighborhoods, thereby increasing the social capital and social cohesion of communities (Lees, 2008; Uitermark, Duyvendak, & Kleinhans, 2007; Uitermark, 2003; Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009). This policy consensus is established around the idea that the residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods will benefit from the social mix resulting from an ‘imported’ middle-class. In general, this benefit is assumed to be a result of trickle-down effects of local economic revitalization, positive role models and a rebranding of the neighborhood (Lees, 2008).
On this point, scholars are skeptical about the extent to which lower-income residents actually benefit from social mixing. As gentrification is likely to gradually reinstate a level of socio-economic homogeneity at a higher level, this means that low-income residents are often displaced or marginalized; either directly through the reduction in social housing or indirectly “squeezed out” by rising costs of living (Colic-Peisker & Robertson, 2014). In addition, scholars have criticized social mix policies and gentrification for increasing segregation and polarization between socio-economic groups and diminishing a sense of community cohesion (Colic-Peisker & Robertson, 2014; Doucet, 2013; Lelévrier, 2013) (Colic-Peisker & Robertson, 2014; Doucet, 2013; Lelévrier, 2013).
In the discourse about the urban restructuring policy, a ‘liveable’ neighborhood is perceived as having low levels of crime or nuisance, and a reasonable share of middle-income households. It does not refer to improving the conditions for the most disadvantaged people in these neighborhoods, nor does it serve the middle classes. Rather, gentrification is a means to
17 attract middle classes with the aim of “civilizing and controlling” these areas, it is a tool to
increase the manageability of disadvantaged neighborhoods (Uitermark et al., 2007, p. 127). The next part of this review unpacks (the state-led) gentrification and social mix discourse in the Netherlands and elaborates on the relevant academic literature.
2.3 State-led gentrification In Dutch neighborhoods
In order to understand gentrification and social mixing in the Netherlands, we need to look at the restructuring policy and the ideas behind it. The Dutch restructuring policy is part of the Big Cities Policy which was launched in 1994. Reflected in the Big Cities Policy are the concerns of many politicians about residential segregation, spatial concentration of problems (e.g. increasing criminality), lack of integration and the growing risk of exclusion for parts of the population. The assumption underpinning these fears is that an increasing level of segregation and spatial concentration of specific groups are assumed to have a negative effect on integration and upward social mobility (Musterd & Ostendorf, 2009). As a response, the restructuring policy of 1997 was introduced. The overall aim of the policy is to increase home-ownership in areas with a weak market position by decreasing state-regulated social rent to make way for more market-regulated owner occupied housing (Uitermark & Bosker, 2014). The policy involved three goals: managing the housing stock, strengthening the economic base of big cities and promoting socially mixed neighborhoods.
Priemus and van Kempen (2002) view the active promotion of socially mixed neighborhoods as the most important policy goal. According to them, social mixing can contribute to the first two goals, but they are hesitant whether it will benefit residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods. They illustrate that the Dutch case does not provide evidence for negative neighborhood effects and more importantly, that people might benefit from living among people with a similar socioeconomic or ethnic background (Kempen & Priemus, 2002). In addition, income inequality is relatively low in the Netherlands, and social mixing
18 cannot change the fact that people will choose to associate with like-minded people (Uitermark, 2003). Thus, although the promotion of social mix is the most important reason for restructuring it might not benefit residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and it could even have adverse effects for residents who are supposed to be helped by it. What can explain this ambiguity? Uitermark (2003) argues that the restructuring policy has a multiplicity of effects for a variety of actors, and does not only concern (or does not at all concern) the social mobility of poor residents.
Uitermark (2003) argues that state-led gentrification is used to generate social order in disadvantaged neighborhoods. In short, the argument is as follows: Gentrification as a policy tool functions as a compensation for the lack of integration and (pillarized) emancipation of ethnic minorities which form a threat to the Dutch system of regulations (Uitermark, 2003). Affluent households are essential for the establishment and functioning of governance coalitions that are responsible for the social management of disadvantaged neighborhoods. Therefore, restructuring, gentrification and social mix serve to mitigate the social effects of the problematic integration of ethnic minorities, not by aiming to enhance conditions for disadvantaged residents, but by increasing the manageability of the neighborhoods they live in.
2.4 Disadvantaged neighborhoods, lack of ‘liveability’ and ethnic minorities
The continued weak socioeconomic position of ethnic minority groups creates tensions that concentrate in specific areas where ethnic minorities live, as they are not evenly distributed across space. As neoliberal reforms further marginalized disadvantaged groups, while the national economy recovered, the situation in disadvantaged areas got worse and there was more attention to social problems. ‘Social renewal’ was started in 1990, a program that was designed to spread a feeling of shared responsibility among the people living in disadvantaged neighborhoods and to stimulate social interaction between different social and ethnic groups
19 (Uitermark, 2003). Urban policy began to emphasize local autonomy, co-operation and revitalization, while from the 1990s onwards, concentration neighborhoods came to resemble a lack of ‘liveability’ as the income of neighborhoods (a high share of low-income residents) came to be equated with ethnic concentration (a high share of minorities). Hence, the socioeconomic status of residents became connected with the degree of neighborhood ‘liveability’ (Uitermark, 2003). This changing focus, however, did not bring about a growing concern for the fate of the marginalized. It was supposed to “strengthen the position of relatively poor cities and neighborhoods, not (or at least not primarily) that it should improve the material situation of disadvantaged groups” (Uitermark, 2003, p. 540). This explains the ambiguity that is reflected in the solutions that can have indirect and sometimes adverse, rather than direct and beneficial, outcomes for disadvantaged groups.
For state institutions there is a logistical problems to be overcome in terms of the distance between formal institutions and residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods. In short, formal institutions are facing rather closed social and informal institutional structures. The solution was to combat concentrations. Although building luxury housing in disadvantaged urban areas with state subsidies was considered to be undesirable because it would create pockets of wealth and would have little value for the current residents (Uitermark, 2003), this was exactly what happened as the interests of poor residents were not the main concern for the people who seek to ‘revitalize’ the targeted neighborhoods. These people are urban politicians, housing corporations and other organizations that have a stake in creating order in disadvantaged neighborhoods. They found that an influx of affluent households would mean a change for the better because it would increase the manageability of disadvantaged neighborhoods (Uitermark, 2003, p. 543). Hence, from the 1990s onwards, measures to promote ‘liveability’ were simultaneously measures that involved combating concentration and segregation and involved affluent households. But how are they supposed to the effects of
20 the restructuring policy? To answer this question, the next section looks at the role of middle-class residents in gentrified neighborhoods based on Uitermark’s discourse analysis as well as gentrification literature.
2.5 The role of ‘gentrifiers’
In terms of gentrification policy, affluent households have become associated with vital neighborhoods and are viewed as a means to an end. As Uitermark (2003) argues: “The web of institutions that is spun around the neighborhood as part of the Big Cities Policy can fulfill its role only if people who share the norms, rules and communication codes of formal institutions are present and willing to participate. This situation makes the presence of affluent households a sine qua non for the establishment and successful functioning of the governance coalitions that are responsible for the social management of disadvantaged neighborhoods” (Uitermark, 2003, p. 545). What are the assumptions about the characteristics of affluent residents that make them different from existing residents already living in these areas? Four explanations are given by policy makers. Firstly, they provide for positive role models (especially youth). Secondly, they function as a tool to control access to residential areas, and disperse the problems associated with a high share of poor or ethnic households over a larger territory which decreases the burden on institutions that are concerned with the social management of the neighborhood. Thirdly, the role of affluent ethnic households is that they should prevent poor residents from socializing only in their own community: “They are to function as intermediaries between state institutions—and perhaps Dutch society generally— and the ethnic communities. Put in harsh terms: the presence of affluent households should prevent deprived households from socializing (exclusively) in their own community” (Uitermark, 2003, p. 545). Lastly, wealthier households are supposed to take on a more active role in comparison to poor households; and are expected to supply and support the stock of social capital that is needed to maintain social cohesion. In addition, the restructuring policy
21 assumes that they will revitalize neighborhood institutions (Uitermark, 2003). This last assumption is of central importance in this study. It is noted that lower class residents can also actively be involved in setting up social activities in the neighborhood, and might even be more inclined to do so, but in line with Uitermark’s argument, their larger distance to formal institutions means that activities are not of primary relevance to neighborhood managers (Uitermark, 2003). Throughout these explanations there is already a clear sense of different roles in terms of ethnic and non-ethnic affluent residents and how they are supposed to contribute to producing the effects of social mix. That is, ethnic gentrifiers should prevent other ethnic residents from socializing within their own ethnic group, and native gentrifiers should supply and support the stock of capital. This relates to the type of social cohesion that is expected to be present (or not) and the type of social cohesion that is valued in order for the neighborhood to be ‘liveable’.
Looking at the gentrification literature, the first question is: who are the gentrifiers? Studies have found that they are the new middle-class, produced by a change in occupational and income structure, that move to increasingly desirable inner city areas (Lees, 2008; Ley, 1996; Smith, 1995). They are often associated with 'yuppies' (Young Urban Professionals) (Lees et al, 2008). the cultural identity of gentrifiers is described as having a preference for urban lifestyles, because the city provides them freedom, privacy, the possibility to develop culturally, and the city offers diversity and tolerance, this is in contrast to the routine-like life in the suburbs (Lees et al., 2008). These characteristics are related to the stage of gentrification. In the early stages, initial gentrifiers looked for more dense and socially diverse communities in seeking out inner-city areas for their diversity. This is based on the idea of an ‘emancipatory city’ where social justice and openness is valued in combination with living amidst (and maintaining) diversity. This is part of a set of values that is identified by Ley (1996) as an urban lifestyle. However, scholars argue that this is based on an idealized vision
22 of what urban life should be like. It fits the self-image of the initial gentrifiers, presenting themselves as cosmopolitan citizens. “The belief that such connections exist in a multiethnic and socially mixed neighborhood is sometimes articulated in a shared discourse on, and pride in, ‘cosmopolitanism’” (Rose, 2004, p. 283). In the end, these pioneer gentrifiers are often actively involved with local facilities that benefit the broader group of residents, while simultaneously paving the way for more gentrification (and decreasing diversity). More recent waves of gentrification are related to more individualistic lifestyles, in which community or civic participation becomes a rarity. Butler and Robson (2001) show that middle-class residents are characterized by a high level of individualism and privatization and that there is little evidence to assume that the middle class uses its resources for the benefits of the wider community. They termed the lack of interaction between gentrifiers and other groups in the neighborhood as ‘social tectonics’, indicating that different groups living in the same space live separate or parallel lives. “The ‘social mixing’ that residents say they like is the coming together through commonly shared social networks of like-minded individuals and which, in reality, is largely exclusive of non- middle-class people, and not a mixing across racial, ethnic and class boundaries” (Butler & Robson, 2001, p. 2150). In a similar vein, May (1996) argues
that the presence of working-class residents and ethnic minorities allows gentrifiers the chance to observe other cultures, hence making these groups not much more than the object of an “exotic gaze” (May, 1996, p. 208). This illustrates that diversity, culture and consumption possibilities of the neighborhood can be celebrated by middle class residents, while at the same time separating themselves from other groups.
2.6 Gentrification and ethnic neighborhoods
In the context of gentrification in a multi-ethnic neighborhood, the complex dynamics between gentrification by native majority groups and integration of ethnic minority groups seems relevant. Although there have been studies addressing different social aspects such as
23 gender and class, the intersection between gentrification and ethnicity have remained largely absent from these studies (Lees, 2000, p. 400). Meanwhile, several case studies have been conducted on the impact of gentrification on minority groups (for example, Betancur, 2002; Nyden et al., 2006; Murdie & Teixeira, 2011). Both Chicago based, research by Betancur (2002) and Nyden et al, (2006) describes the destructive forces of gentrification on a community fabric that is essential for low-income, immigrant and minority communities. Nyden et al., emphasize that demographic change can give rise to tensions between residents (existing and gentrifiers) that is related to the fear of losing a sense of community. According to their research, gentrification can disrupt the neighborhood’s social networks, especially when the community has a racial or ethnic identity that is rooted in its residents as well as ethnic retail, religious organizations and community institutions (Nyden et al., 2006). Murdie and Texeira (2011) find ambivalent results in their study on the impact of gentrification on a Portuguese community in Toronto. On the one hand, tensions arise due to different lifestyle, on the other hand, gentrifiers are helping them mix and thus integrate into wider Canadian society. The cultural diversity that gentrifiers bring helps to break down the community’s closed ethnic enclaves and first generation migrants are getting more open to people with a different ethnic or socio-economic background, as they slowly embrace the idea of increasing cultural diversity in the neighborhood. These positive impacts of gentrification are not found by Freeman’s (2006) study on groups living through gentrification in New York neighborhoods. Although the largely African American low-income residents saw better services and facilities, they also expressed a loss of community and habits that used to be common practice, for instance gathering and talking on stoops late at night, were perceived as nuisance by gentrifiers (Freeman, 2006). These accounts give an indication of the tensions that can arise between gentrifiers on the one hand, and ethnic groups as longstanding residents on the other. The next section will take a look at these tensions in terms of social cohesion.
24 2.7 Gentrification and social cohesion
Now that the roles of gentrifiers and possible perceptions of (longstanding) residents in gentrified neighborhoods have been established, what does literature tell about the effect of gentrification on social cohesion in general? The in-migration of newcomers into a diverse neighborhood community can be viewed as an urban social change (demographic, economic and changes to the physical environment) that brings in unfamiliar people, practices, businesses and buildings. On the one hand, it can be hypothesized that this has the potential to unsettle a local sense of community cohesion. On the other hand, in-migration of newcomers can create mixed-income communities in which there is potential to create a shared space and place.
The scholarly literature generally describes the effect of gentrification as decreasing a sense of community or village-like behavior. The disruption of the social environment can have negative effects on residents who rely on support from their locally based networks (Colic-Peisker & Robertson, 2014; Forrest & Kearns, 2001). In this sense, destabilizing existing structures of the community can worsen gentrifying effects as it can lead to the further marginalization of low-income households in terms of exclusion from facilities, physical displacement, an increased segregation and decreased social cohesion as people move away (Colic-Peisker & Robertson, 2014). Uitermark, Duyvendak, and Kleinhans (2007) argue that an inflow of middle-class residents into a disadvantaged neighborhood does not add up to social cohesion; rather, the connections between low- and higher-income households are likely to be superficial or hostile at worst (Uitermark, Duyvendak, & Kleinhans, 2007). However, it is often expected that better living conditions arise as social mix can lead to local social cohesion. This is a notion that policy makers seem to firmly believe in (Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009). This argument stipulates that spatial proximity is conducive to social interactions between different groups and that these interactions may increase aspects of social cohesion,
25 for instance place attachment and common norms (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). However, these interactions are often lacking. As the urban mix literature illustrates, living in the proximity of other income groups is in itself insufficient to overcome racial, ethnic and class divides in social networks. An example is the study by Blokland and van Eijk (2010) that demonstrates that there is no empirical basis for the assumption that even diversity seekers, people with a preference for a diverse neighborhood, translate this preference into practices or social networks that enhance the integration of ethnic minorities into mainstream society. Blokland and van Eijk (2010) conclude that although they are living side by side, they still live in networks that are separated by class, ethnicity and education level: “.. in terms of the integration of social networks across borders of race, ethnicity and class, or in terms of their contribution to vital community politics or sociability - hence to a community’s social capital and integration - we have found no supporting evidence” (Blokland & Eijk, 2010, p. 329). Thus, there is a lack of interaction between different groups and the new middle-class residents tend to participate only marginally in community life.
Social change can also produce tensions in the neighborhood. Scholars have warned against the ‘import’ of higher class households on too local a scale, as instead of contributing
to a ´liveable city´, it can produce tensions in everyday interactions between residents. This is especially likely when there are striking economic or ‘lifestyle’ differences between residents, which can create discomforting experiences of neighboring. As a result, people can become more aware of the difference between themselves and the Other, and withdraw rather than mix (Rose, 2010, p. 281). Similarly, Colic-Peisker and Robertson (2014) describe that “Social change increases the likelihood of tension arising in the power struggle between proponents of the status quo and those who practice and/or advocate new norms and customs” (Colic-Peisker & Robertson, 2014, p. 78). Walks and Maaranen (2006) illustrate in the Canadian
26 context that practices of gentrification increase existing social and income polarization (Walks & Maaranen, 2006).
On the other hand, and on a more optimistic note, in-migration of newcomers can create mixed-income communities in which there is potential to create a shared space and place. In this way, a socially mixed neighborhood can mediate the negative consequences of gentrification by promoting opportunities for inclusion through organizational infrastructure (Chaskin & Joseph, 2013). “Cultivating and strengthening organizational ‘places’ that provide opportunities for both provision and shared use—stores, coffee shops, recreational facilities, schools—may diversify the kinds of spaces available to residents, integrate their activities into the broader community and provide a range of neutral grounds on which to find some commonality—or greater comfort in difference” (Chaskin & Joseph, 2013, p. 499) 499). This is also an option that Blokland and van Eijk (2010) mention when they describe ways in which middle-class residents can contribute to integration, in theory: “.. middle-class residents, especially when white, could interact with ethnic-minority residents in social and political neighborhood activities and organizations, exposing members of ethnic minorities to the mainstream cultural values and ways of communication, or simply reducing closure in social networks.” (Blokland & Eijk, 2010, p. 318). This would suggest that, theoretically, gentrification, provides opportunities for inclusion through organizational infrastructure, which could facilitate interaction so that ethnic minority residents can learn about mainstream values, and by decreasing the closeness of ethnic networks.
2.8 Social cohesion, social capital and integration
As the restructuring policy has illustrated, promoting socially mixed neighborhoods and communities has become a major urban policy and planning goal in the Netherlands, as well as in other Western countries (Lees, 2008). The rationale for social mixing, that is central here, is based on Putnam’s (1995) work on bridging and bonding social capital which is used
27 to promote social mixing as the way to generate social cohesion (Lees, 2008). This section will look into these concepts, discuss what they mean to whom, and how they relate to the social changes in a gentrifying ethnic neighborhood.
Social cohesion
The literature on social cohesion illustrates that the concept is not clearly or consistently defined. It is often used to refer to a sort of glue that holds members of a society together, and it is framed as inherently positive (Maloutas & Malouta, 2004). Kearns and Forrest (2000) describe a cohesive society as one that ‘hangs together’ in a way that all its constituent parts
fit together and contribute to the collective project and well-being of society as a whole; and there are no conflicts between common goals and groups, or major disruptive behaviors that challenges the existing order (Kearns & Forrest, 2000, p. 996). In order to answer the question what social cohesion means for respondents, this research uses a grounded definition of community cohesion, asking the respondents how they would define social cohesion and how they relate to this definition. Thereby this study works inductively towards an empirically informed definition (See section 5.2). Social cohesion can describe large imagined communities on all geographic levels, such as nations and neighborhoods (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). For this research it is relevant to specifically look at what contributes to social cohesion on the neighborhood level.
To understand how social cohesion in the neighborhood has changed due to gentrification a typology is used based on the work of Kearns and Forrest (2000). Based on the review of available literature, Kearns and Forrest (2000) divide social cohesion into different dimensions. These five dimensions are usually considered interconnected or reinforcing, although not all of them are interchangeable (Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009). The five dimensions are stated and described here.
28 Members of a socially cohesive community have common values which allow them to agree on and achieve common aims and goals, and share a common set of moral principles and codes of behavior that regulate the way they interact. It is also reflected in a widespread support for and willingness to engage in political institutions. Citizenship and cohesion themes promote recognizing one’s own responsibility to participate, democratic ways of resolving conflict, being tolerant and keeping social harmony. This dimensions emphasizes people’s attitudes towards the political system and their role in it.
Social order and social control
Social cohesion is here viewed as a by-product of the routines, demands and reciprocities involved in everyday life. Instead of a shared social values being key, it is about the mundane lived experiences of getting by and getting on. This seems to be a more pragmatic approach to cohesion based on lived experiences of being interdependent and co-operating to reach common goals of which everyone shares the benefits. It reflects the idea of inter-group co-operation, and social harmony so that people respect difference. This dimension involves the question how diverse groups can cohere or be integrated into the wider social order at the same time as respecting cultural difference. “This is very much a version of the urban problem, wherein social cohesion, comprising intergroup co-operation, respect for difference and an absence of hatred and prejudice, is manifest as social harmony.” (Kearns & Forrest, 2000, p. 998).
Social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities
This dimension of social cohesion is largely useful to think about the definition on larger scales (e.g. reflected in EU policy on social solidarity). It emphasizes the need to reduce social and economic disparities in order to form a community. Inequality is seen as something
29 that can break down social cohesion. On a lower scale, it involves recognizing the need of co-residents, caring for their well-being, a willingness to help and participate in collective actions with one-sided benefits (Kearns & Forrest, 2000).
Place attachment and identity
The attachment to a place and the connection between people’s identity with that of place strengthens social cohesion as it predicts the adherence to shared norms and values, the willingness to participate in social networks and accumulation of social capital (Kearns & Forrest, 2000, p. 1001). Place attachment is thought to serve a feeling of security, a relation to important people, sharing of experiences, ideas and culture; creation of group and personal identity, building self-esteem.
Social networks and social capital
It is assumed that a high occurrence of social interaction within (neighborhood) communities and families is involved in a cohesive society. At a local level, socialization and mutual support processes make sure that social cohesion is maintained.
Social capital
Bridging and bonding capital refer to the ideas of social capital proposed by Putnam (1995). On the one hand, bridging involves horizontal ties and voluntary relations on the basis of common interests that overcome differences of ethnicity or socio-economic status. Bridging capital refers to weak ties that provide information on the wider world, such as the availability of jobs. Bonding social capital concerns exclusive ties that emerge on the basis of homogeneity, creates strong ties between people that provide very little new information. This bonding is strong within a particular group, but easily leads to social fragmentation in the wider society.
30 Social cohesion, social capital and integration
In relation to social cohesion, bridging social capital is deemed more valuable as it is expected that ties within ethnic minority groups that are too strong might be at the expense of integration into wider society (Cheong, Edwards, Goulbourne, & Solomos, 2007). In other words, When combining this with a strong place attachment, strong bonds within the neighborhood can at the same time lead to weakening of bonds with the rest of (urban) society. In other words: “One place’s cohesion may be society’s deconstruction.” (Kearns & Forrest, 2000, p. 1001). This is explained by Cheong, et al. (2007) who illustrate that the dominant ideology and debates on integration and social cohesion symbolize issues that are formed by historical, social, economic and political relations of what used to be called ‘immigrant’ and ‘host’ situation. They make the link between immigration, social cohesion,
and social capital by looking at the possible threats to social cohesion represented by growing immigration flows and ethnic diversity that have been reflected in recent urban policies. They argue that: “In the light of the present political context where cohesion and accompanying practices...are promoted, bridging social capital by new immigrant groups is perceived as a positive resource whilst bonding social capital among minority ethnic communities is seen as less desirable.” (Cheong et al., 2007, p. 30).
2.9 Conclusion
This chapter elaborated on the Dutch context of state-led gentrification and reviewed a broad range of literature to explore the relationship between gentrification-induced social mix, social cohesion, and integration. The literature review has discussed possible effects of gentrification-induced social mix on social cohesion in different contexts, assumptions on the role of gentrifiers in disadvantaged neighborhoods, the different dimensions of social cohesion and the types of social capital. First, the discourse analysis of Uitermark (2003) illustrates that the restructuring policy aims to increase the manageability of disadvantaged
31 neighborhoods with a high concentration of ethnic minorities. According to Uitermark’s
analysis, affluent residents are vital as they are expected to supply and support the stock of social capital that is needed to maintain social cohesion. Second, the review of gentrification literature has shown that the presence of middle-class households has little or negative effects on the wider neighborhood in terms of a lack of involvement, living separate lives or increasing the marginalizing effects of gentrification. Specifically looking at ethnic groups, literature has largely found that gentrification destabilizes social cohesion and creates tensions between groups, although it was in one instance viewed to help immigrants integrate (Murdie & Teixeira, 2011). Third, the concept of social cohesion has been described based on five interrelated dimensions and the terms bridging and bonding have been explained. This illustrated that bridging social capital by new immigrant groups is perceived as a positive resource whilst bonding social capital among minority ethnic communities is seen as less desirable.
The role of the gentrifier is at least found to be very relevant in the kind of impact gentrification has on local groups of residents and the existing social cohesion. There are different roles attributed to the ‘gentrifier’: it can mold the social fabric in a way that the state
can reach its population, or it can live an individual lifestyle that creates parallel lives, or it can challenge the status quo and create tension or it can help migrants integrate. This integration of ethnic minorities can come about through interactions with ethnic minority residents via community organizations or activities, thereby exposing members of ethnic minorities to the mainstream cultural values and ways of communication, or by reducing closure in social networks.. It is within this context that my research question has been formulated. The next chapter present the methodology that has been used to answer the research questions.
32 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This thesis is descriptive and exploratory as the social effects of gentrification are studied. In order to gain knowledge on the impact of gentrification on local social cohesion as perceived by residents, three sub questions have been formulated. These have guided my methodology and research design. As mentioned earlier the sub question are: How do long-term residents perceive (social) change due to the inflow of newcomers? Moreover, how do groups of residents think about social cohesion and their role in the ‘community’? And, what are the strategies of ‘change agents’ to ‘bundle’ social capital in the neighborhood? In order to answer these questions, and subsequently answer the main research question, a qualitative methodological approach has been applied which included semi-structured interviews and participant observations as research methods. This chapter will explain how the research has been designed and conducted in order to answer the research questions. The topics in the chapter expand on the choice of the research location, the qualitative methodology and the targeted respondents. After that, it presents an explanation for and a description of the methods of data collection and data analysis. This is followed by ethical considerations, reflexivity and limitations.
3.2 The research location
The type of research for this thesis is a case study of the Indische Buurt. Zooming in on a particular neighborhood allows one to provide a rich contextual framework, in which the social dynamic is investigated at a specific time and place, in this case the experienced social cohesion of the residents. It fits well with the exploratory nature of the research. What makes this particular neighborhood an interesting case study? Fist, the Indische Buurt is an ethnically mixed neighborhood, in which the different ethnic minority groups form the majority of the neighborhood’s population. Second, the neighborhood was considered one of Amsterdam’s
33 least liveable neighborhoods for a long time and state-led gentrification has changed this image. Third, the presence of civic-society communities make the Indische Buurt and their active involvement in bringing the diverse groups together makes that the neighborhood is an interesting case to look at. Besides this, the choice for this location is also personal. During my studies I have lived close to the Indische Buurt but never went there, although in my direct environment I heard people talking about buying property there as it was ‘upcoming’. My unfamiliarity with the Indische Buurt, but my familiarity with different parts of Amsterdam and the Dutch context helped me to ‘get to know’ the neighborhood in a short period of time. I think that this study benefits from the analytical distance of not knowing the neighborhood beforehand, as well as gradually developing an ‘insider perspective’ when living there during the fieldwork period.
The Indische Buurt is located in Amsterdam East. It is caught between the Flevopark on its eastern border and the railway with the Muiderpoort station on the western edge. For the most part, the neighborhood dates back to the early 20th century when it was developed to accommodate a large number of port laborers (Boersma, Langen, & Smets, 2013). Some of the housing was demolished and replaced in the 1980s, but much of the original housing stock from the early 20th century remains (Doucet, 2013).
Figure 1: The position of the Indische Buurt in Amsterdam. Source: GoogleMaps, 2015
34 Once the port had shifted to the western part of the city in the 1960s, the residential status of the neighborhood became more apparent. Beginning in the 1960s, the Dutch population suburbanized and was replaced by immigrants, largely ‘guest workers’ who
were recruited in Turkey and later Morocco, drawn to the area by low rents. The Indische neighborhood gradually became a low-income neighborhood with 22.776 residents (O+S Amsterdam, 2014). Today,
the neighborhood has an ethnically mixed population with 64,3% of the residents of migrant origin, and 51 % of non-Western migrant background, mainly Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese (Boersma et al., 2013) (see table 1). Although the ‘traditional’ residents of the Indische Buurt are native Dutch working-class, they have become a small minority in the neighborhood and in my research the migrant groups are perceived as the long-term residents.
Table 1: Population statitiscs. Based on data from O+S Amsterdam (2014). Bevolking stadsdeel Oost naar buurten en herkomstgroepering, 1 January 2014. http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/buurten, adapted by author
Population Autochtones Allochtones, non-Western Allochtones, Western M31 Indische Buurt west 12732 4668 6161 1903 M32 Indische Buurt oost 10044 3434 5477 1133 Total 22.776 8102 11638 3036 As percentage of total population 100.0 35.6 51.0 13.3
Photo 1: The entrance to the Flevopark, the eastern border of the Indische Buurt
35 De Indische Buurt is divided into two administrative areas: Indische Buurt West (M31 neighborhood combination) and Indische Buurt East (M32). These are both divided in two parts: Timorpleinbuurt (northwest), Ambonpleinbuurt (southwest) and Makassarpleinbuurt (northeast) and Sumatraplantsoenbuurt (southeast).
The Indische Buurt has been deemed problematic and has been selected as ‘Vogelaarwijk’, a national policy that targeted the 40 worst neighborhoods in the Netherlands. After that the area has been subject to a regeneration strategy which mainly relied on renovation and tenure conversion of the social rental housing stock, which made up 70 percent of the total housing stock (Botermans & van Gent, 2014). The share of owner occupied housing increased from 3.5 per cent in 2000 to 10 per cent in 2005 (Boterman & van Gent, 2014) and 16% in 2009 (Boersma et al., 2013). This conversion aimed to attract higher income households and hence create a better social mix in the neighborhood, assuming that this would have positive social effects and make the neighborhood more manageable (Boterman & van Gent, 2014). This strategy has attracted young native Dutch households at the start of their careers (Botermans & van Gent, 2014).
3.3 Description of respondents
In order to gain an understanding of how ‘gentrifiers’ differ from the existing resident groups, an identification of respondent groups was relevant in this research. The respondents were grouped during the process of data collection based on descriptions provided by respondents as well as the researcher’s observations of public and consumption spaces. Respondent groups are roughly divided into categories divided along the lines of length of residency and ethnic background (see table 2).
36 Long-term Short-term
Native Dutch Long-term native ‘Gentrifier’
Ethnic minority
background Ethnic minority Ethnic minority
Table 2: Schematic overview of respondent groups
Long-term respondents can be either native Dutch or people with an ethnic background. The condition is that residents that have lived in the neighborhood for a period of over 10 years. Respondents who have lived in the neighborhood for a longer period of time can provide a better perspective on the changes that have taken place over time, physical as well as social. The category long-term is based on the fact that in 2006 (9 years prior to the research) radical restructuring in the neighborhood started to take place (see start date of the covenant of the housing corporation Alliantie and local government Zeeburg, 2002). This means that these findings are based on the experiences of people who have ‘lived through’ the process and who would therefore be better able to indicate the effects it has had on their lives and the neighborhood. Both long-term and short-term residents are assumed to have an idea of social cohesion, attachment and ways of living together.
When referring to long-term residents with an ethnic background, the specific term ‘ethnic minorities’ is used. The group called ‘gentrifiers’ are people who have recently moved into the neighborhood and who are primarily young, native Dutch and highly educated. The group called ‘change agents’ are residents who are actively involved in the neighborhood via civic community organizations, and sometimes professionally.
‘Change agents’
37 After the groups were established I used a form of stratified sampling in order to increase the generalization of the selected subgroups within the population. In Total, 26 respondents participated (interviews with multiple respondents at once are counted as one). (For an overview and description of the respondents see appendix A).
Of these, 8 respondents were labeled as ‘ethnic minority’. This group consisted mostly out of residents with a Turkish or Moroccan background. 6 were long-term residents and two were short-term residents, with one woman who had recently came over to marry, and a mother and daughter who had moved to the neighborhood 6 years previously. Most of these respondents were either older first generation labor migrants, or from the younger second generation who were born and raised in the neighborhood.
4 respondent were grouped as native long-term residents. They often came in to the area as students. This goup included people that were employed, or used to be employed at the local government but were now self-employed as advisors. They had much knowledge about the neighborhood and how it had changed, hence they functioned largely as informants in the initial stages of the research.
Of the respondent, there were 7 gentrifiers. ‘Gentrifiers’, were labeled as such based on the
fact that they had recently moved to the neighborhood and had a native Dutch background. (This is based on the description in the literature (as described in 3.2). Respondents had lived in the neighborhood between 2 months and 4 years at the time that I interviewed them and they were young and high educated.
All the 7 ‘change agents’ that were interviewed were men. They formed a mixed group in terms of Dutch native and ethnic background (three: (Algeria, Moroccan, Iran). ‘Change agent’ were both mostly long-term residents (two short-term and five long-term). The term ‘change agent’ is derived from one of the respondents, who is cited in a paper : “According to
38 [respondent], these activities and opportunities have created new leaders in the neighborhood. He estimates that the neighborhood is home to about 40 ‘change agents’ or community leaders. They arose from the exceptional mix of cultures and social strata in the area” (Temmink, 2014, p. 8)
Initial respondents were found through my personal network after which more respondents were found through snowball sampling. After that the respondent groups were approached differently. Most ‘gentrifiers’ were reached via my personal network, I met one woman on a neighborhood meeting, and one woman was referred to via a ‘change agent’. ‘Change agents’ were approached via a gatekeeper who supplied me with e-mail addresses of people I could contact. That was a list of 8 people of whom 6 responded. Most of the respondent that were placed in the ‘ethnic minorities’ group were approached on the street and in public spaces, like the public library, all during day-time. The easiest method was to walk with someone to their destination. This often created a comfortable and informative setting.
3.4 Methods of data collection
Semi-structured interviews
The semi-structured interview allows to define the topics that are going to be discussed during the interview, however it also leaves space for a conversational setting in which the information provided is largely related to the frame of reference of the respondent. This helps to avoid ‘fitting together’ the respondent’s contributions to the researcher’s explanatory framework (Bryman, 2012).
The 27 interviews were the main source of data, supplemented with 5 participant observations. The location of the interviews was decided on by the interviewee in order to make sure that they would be comfortable with the location, and it allowed for a more relaxed atmosphere and a faster building of rapport between the interviewer and the interviewee
