Deprivation areas in Attica

The objective in this section is to locate the city’s neighbourhoods where multiple deprivation is elevated. Similar studies have been developed in several countries (the UK having probably the largest number) and they are based on variables related to quality of life e. The content of this section is based on work in progress about multiple deprivation in Athens and in the region of Attica (Arapogou et al., 2021; Karadimitriou et al., 2021; Karadimitriou et al. 2017).

The method followed in order to map multiple deprivation is rather simple, but innovative nevertheless, insofar as the study of deprivation in Greek cities is concerned: The variables used were provided by the 2011 Population Census. Either very high, or very low, values in some areas indicated the presence of issues of potential concern. These variables cover three sectors: Employment, education and housing. For each of these sectors, a deprivation index was calculated. The sum of these three indices is the index of multiple deprivation (IMD).

A number of variables was used to calculate the deprivation index for each sector. Sub-sectors were created within each sector to accommodate the selected variables (table 1). Sub-sectors were attributed equal weights, meaning that they contributed equally to the sector’s overall index, irrespective of the number of variables they comprised. In the same way, the three sectors contributed equally to the IMD calculation.

Table 1: Variables used to calculate deprivation indices

Each variable in every spatial unit of analysis (URANU) was attributed a deprivation index value according to its average and standard deviation, in the following way:

χ = value of variable “ν” in URANU “i”

1-7 = range of values of deprivation indices

1:  χ < μ(ν) 2: μ(ν) < χ  < μ(ν)+0,5 stdev(ν) 3: μ(ν)+0,5 stdev(ν) < χ < μο ν+1 stdev(ν) 4: μ(ν)+1 stdev(ν) < χ < μο ν+2 stdev(ν) 5: μ(ν)+2 stdev(ν) < χ < μο ν+3 stdev(ν) 7: μ(ν)+3 stdev(ν) < χ [/av_textblock] [av_gallery ids='20223,20229,20232' style='big_thumb' preview_size='no scaling' crop_big_preview_thumbnail='avia-gallery-big-crop-thumb' thumb_size='portfolio' columns='5' imagelink='lightbox' lazyload='avia_lazyload' av_uid='av-jx0r9zze' admin_preview_bg=''] [av_textblock size='' font_color='' color='' av-medium-font-size='' av-small-font-size='' av-mini-font-size='' av_uid='av-jv2pwr9z' admin_preview_bg='']

Maps 1-3: Distribution of residential areas according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for 1991, 2001 and 2021

Table 2 shows the content of residential area σ grouped according to the IMD. Values in this table are location quotients, i.e. multiple or submultiple values of the mean of each variable for the whole city. For example, the percentage of the unemployed in the area group with the lowest index of deprivation (group 1) is  0,69 of the mean of unemployment, while in those with the highest index (group 6) it is 1,75 times the mean.

Table 2 shows that the variables that really make a difference for the areas of intense deprivation (group 6) in respect to their average city values are: living in irregular housing, housing without heating, early drop-out from education (15-18 year old), unskilled employment, lack of housing space per capita, housewife status for women, and unemployment. In these deprivation areas young people and immigrants from developing countries are overrepresented —mainly from the Indian sub-continent— although these variables were not used to calculate the index of deprivation.

Table 2: Residential areas, grouped according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 1991) and compared using the location quotients of various social variables (location quotients)