The Spatialities of Ageing in Britain:
Is Residential Age Segregation Increasing?
Albert Sabater, Elspeth Graham and Nissa Finney
Department of Geography and Sustainable Development
University of St Andrews
E: [email protected]
MAIN FINDINGS

The level of residential separation between older and younger age groups in England and Wales has
increased since 2001.

Increasing residential segregation over time is mostly due to greater unevenness between groups in
post-retirement ages (60-84 years) and groups in the younger age range (25-40 years).

The observed increase in geographical separation between older and younger age groups in the
smallest census areas means that local neighbourhoods are becoming less mixed in terms of age
composition.

Geographical separation between older and younger groups is growing predominantly in urban
settings, with the largest increases in residential segregation in principal cities, as well as in small and
large cities.
BACKGROUND
AIM
• The relationship between age (or social generations) and residential geographies remains an under-researched field
• To investigate whether, and to what degree, residential age segregation has changed in Britain since the
of empirical enquiry, despite growing concerns that demographic and institutional changes have led to the social and
spatial separation of extra-familial generations (Hagestad and Uhlenberg, 2006).
• Recent scholarship has highlighted the importance of creating intergenerational spaces where people of different ages
can meet and interact (Vanderbeck and Worth, 2015).
beginning of the millennium.
DATA AND METHODS
• Small area population data from the 2001 and 2011 Census rounds in England and Wales are used in conjunction with
two detailed geographical classifications (the Output Area urban/rural classification from the Office for National
Statistics, and the 13-group classification of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).
• Social cohesion may be threatened if different age groups in a population live separate lives in different
neighbourhoods (Andrews and Phillips, 2005).
• Limited contact and personal knowledge across age groups risks creating a dichotomy between “us” and “them”,
• The index of dissimilarity (ID) is employed to document patterns of residential segregation by age across the smallest
areas (Output Areas) for which census statistics are released. There are at least 100 persons and 40 households in
each Output Area in England and Wales.
which is often associated with increased competition for limited public resources to support the interests, agendas,
services, and institutions that best meet a group’s age-specific needs (Binstock, 2010).
• Arguments favouring age segregation on the grounds of efficient service provision may make economic sense but they
• To address our main research question – how residentially segregated are the old versus the young? – patterns of
residence (segregation as measured by ID) are examined for older groups (aged 50+ and 65+) compared to younger
groups (aged 16-40 and 25-40).
are seriously challenged by potentially adverse consequences for social cohesion (Hagestad and Uhlenberg, 2006).
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION BY AGE ACROSS OUTPUT AREAS IN ENGLAND AND WALES 2001-2011
DISSIMILARITY INDEX
DISSIMILARITY INDEX
60
50
40
30
20
70
70
60
60
DISSIMILARITY INDEX
70
OL DER GR OU PS ( 5 0 +) VS. YOU N GER GR OU PS ( 2 5 -4 0)
OL DER GR OU PS ( 5 0 + A N D 6 5 +) VS. YOU N GER GR OU PS ( 1 6-40)
50
40
30
20
50
40
30
20
10
10
10
0
0
0
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
AGE
2001 (50+)
2011 (50+)
2001 (65+)
2011 (65+)
A5 0 5 4
A5 5 5 9
A6 0 6 4
A6 5 6 9 A7 0 7 4
AGE
All 2001 (25-40)
A7 5 7 9
A8 0 8 4
A8 5 +
OL DER GR OU PS ( 5 0 +) VS. YOU N GER GR OU PS ( 2 5 -4 0)
I N U R B AN A N D R U R AL SETTI NGS
A5 0 5 4
A5 5 5 9
All 2011 (25-40)
A6 0 6 4
A6 5 6 9 A7 0 7 4 A7 5 7 9
AGE
Urban 2001 (25-40) Urban 2011 (25-40)
Rural 2001 (25-40)
A8 0 8 4
A8 5 +
Rural 2011 (25-40)
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF OLDER GROUPS (65+) VS. YOUNGER GROUPS (25-40)
ACROSS OUTPUT AREAS FOR EACH LOCAL AUTHORITY DISTRICT IN ENGLAND AND WALES 2001-2011
BL –
BM –
CF –
LL –
LS –
MR –
SD –
OPCS district classification
Bristol
Birmingham
Cardiff
Liverpool
Leeds
Manchester
Sheffield
LS
MR
LL
SD
Inner London
Outer London
Principal cities
Other metropolitan districts
Large cities
Small cities
Industrial areas
New towns
Resort, port and retirement
Mixed urban-rural
Mixed urban-rural remote
Mainly rural
Mainly rural remote
ID - 2001
ID Change - 2001 to 2011
Jenks' Natural breaks
Jenks' Natural breaks
17.43 - 24.09 (28)
24.09 - 26.49 (52)
26.49 - 29.78 (111)
29.78 - 34.20 (114)
34.20 - 44.26 (43)
-5.34 - -0.99 (62)
-0.99 - 0.88 (75)
0.88 - 2.06 (77)
2.06 - 3.06 (59)
3.06 - 8.51 (75)
ID Change - 2001 to 2011
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
Small cities
3.11
3.03
Outer London
2.37
2.11
Inner London
1.83
Industrial areas
1.28
Jenks' Natural breaks
Mainly rural - remote
19.33 - 25.64 (35)
25.64 - 27.99 (49)
27.99 - 31.24 (111)
31.24 - 34.43 (89)
34.43 - 42.85 (64)
CF
5.00
4.79
Large cities
ID - 2011
4.00
Principal cities
Other metropolitan districts
BM
3.00
0.94
Mainly rural
0.84
Mixed urban-rural
0.73
BL
Resort, port and retirement
Mixed urban-rural - remote
New towns
0.30
-0.11
-0.20
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
 While the term ‘segregation’ in Britain and elsewhere is almost entirely associated in academic and  Although the policy focus on ‘ageing in place’ is seen as a benign adaptation to demographic change
that is expected to gradually increase age segregation, residential immobility among young adults has
similar consequences for age segregation, albeit the latter is seen as a dysfunctional adaptation to
housing market failures.
policy circles with racial and ethnic segregation rather than segregation by age, it is clear that the
emergence of socio-spatial age segregation deserves more attention (Graham and Sabater, 2015).

Ageing is a feature of many contemporary societies, and our findings suggest that intergenerational
social distance may increase in different locales or communities as the age structure of the population
changes.

The age differentiation of space is often taken for granted by policymakers, who may overlook the
negative societal implications of changing age composition in neighbourhoods and, particularly, of
increases in socio-spatial segregation.
www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gsd
The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013532

An increase in residential immobility can have an immediate negative effect on the pace and places of
age mixing, including the commitment to care for the next generation (Binstock, 2010).

The World Health Organisation initiative on ‘global age-friendly cities’ demonstrates the relevance of
the spatialities of ageing to international urban policy making (WHO, 2007).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-ANDREWS, G. J., & PHILLIPS, D. R. (2005) Geographical studies in ageing: Progress and connections to social gerontology. In G. J. Andrews, & D. R. Phillips (Eds.), Ageing and place: Perspectives, policy practice.
London: Routledge.
-BINSTOCK, R. H. (2010) From Compassionate Ageism to Intergenerational Conflict. The Gerontologist, 50(5): 574–585.
-GRAHAM, E., & SABATER, A. (2015) Population Change and Housing across the Life Course: Demographic Perspectives, Methodological Challenges and Emerging Issues. ESRC Centre for Population Change Working
Paper 64.
-HAGESTAD, G. O., & UHLENBERG, P. (2006) Should we be concerned about age segregation? Some theoretical and empirical explorations. Research on Aging 28(6): 638–653.
-VANDERBECK, R., & WORTH, N. (2015) Intergenerational space. London: Routledge, pp. 366.
-WHO (2007) Global age-friendly cities: a guide. Geneva: World Health Organisation.