Introduction

Our aim in this chapter is to illustrate inequalities and segregation across several fields, like employment, education and housing.

These inequalities and segregation are mainly revealed through the following 180 maps. These were organised in 17 dynamic groupings of maps, each one comprising a distribution of hierarchical categories within a specific field in order to increase the visibility of the spatial structure of inequalities and segregation. For example, one of these dynamic groupings depicts the areas of residence of the population according to their education level (2.1 Educational level), based on an ordinal scale.

Apart from the thematic sections in this chapter, an additional section comprise maps resulting from synthesis of data from different fields and following different statistical and mapping techniques. It is the section on the social typology of residential areas.

The following list comprises the themes of the chapter that the reader can directly access by clicking on the active link in each title.

1. Demography

1.1 Age groups
1.2 Family status
1.3 Household type
1.4 Ethic groups

2. Education

2.1 Education level
2.2 Youth not in education
2.3 Country of studies

3. Employment

3.1 Main activity
3.2 Occupations
3.3 Sectors of economic activity
3.4 Branches of economic activity

4. Housing and living standards

4.1 Main sources of income
4.2 House tenure
4.3 Housing units size
4.4 Housing surface per capita
4.5 Age of housing stock
4.6 Heating system
4.7 Access to the internet
4.8 Private cars

5. Composite themes

5.1 Social typology of residential areas

All the data used to produce the maps in this chapter originate from the 2011 Census of the Greek Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) and some additional data originate from previous censuses (1991, 2001). They were all accessed through the online application “Panorama of Greek Census Data 1991-2011” (https://panorama.statistics.gr/en), which is the outcome of a long cooperation between the National Centre for Social Research (EKKE) and ELSTAT.

Users can access directly the data used to produce the maps in this entry. They can be used to map the same phenomena in alternative ways through the mapping options provided by the application “Panorama of Greek Census Data 1991-2011” (menu: toolsimport custom data). Further information is provided in a separate file.

This online application provides data for spatially detailed analyses for all Greek cities with a population over 50.000 in 2011. The spatial units of analysis are small units called URANUs (Urban Analysis Units) and correspond more or less to ELSTAT’s census tracts. Metropolitan Athens comprises 3.000 URANUs with an average population of 1.200, which shows that the following analysis is much more detailed than the usual analysis on the local authority level (59 local authorities or, at best, their 117 municipal and local community subdivisions, which moreover are very uneven in size).

The area covered by the maps is not the entire urbanised area, but the broader central part of the metropolitan area. It comprises the most populous areas and extends from the coast of Eastern Attiki to Elefsina. Areas like Lavreotiki, part of Kalyvia, Megara, Nea Peramos, part of Salamina and Grammatiko were left outside the map. All these areas excluded from the map may have some interest, but their inclusion would reduce the visibility of differences among spatial units in the smaller but much more populated and densely built parts of the city.

1. Demography

1.1 Age groups

Maps 1.1.1 – 1.1.4: Population distribution by age group and area of residence (2011)

The age of the population is a parameter that substantially differentiates the neighbourhoods of Athens. Younger ages (childhood and early adolescence) are more concentrated in the new expansions of the metropolis—in Mesoghia at the eastern part of the metropolis, at the western part around the bay of Elefsis, at the coastal zone in the east and in a few municipalities in the northwest, northeast and the south of the central part of the metropolis.

The elderly, on the contrary, are concentrated in older neighbourhoods of the city and in areas where higher occupational strata are also concentrated. The central municipality (Municipality of Athens) is more complex, even though it is the oldest part of the city. The relocation of a large part of older households belonging to higher and intermediate income groups to the suburbs and the arrival of much younger and much poorer households have limited the concentration of elderly population, especially in the western part of the central municipality.

The relative concentration of older adolescents and young adults and, even more so, of the middle aged is more evenly distributed in space. The former are more present in areas of student concentration or areas of deprivation in the western periphery, while the latter—who are relatively missing from these areas—are more present in the first suburban ring and especially in the rather wealthy northeastern and coastal suburbs.

Table 1.1 shows the specific weight of each broad age group and the way it has evolved from 1991 to 2011. It also depicts the ageing of the city’s population.

Table 1.1: Age groups in Attiki (except the islands) and changes between 1991-2011

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)

1.2 Family status

Maps 1.2.1 – 1.2.4: Population distribution by family status and area of residence (2011)

Family status differentiates city space substantially. The single are more present in the city centre—partly related to the increased presence of students—and in some parts of the periphery (municipalities of Aspropyrgos, Zafyri, Marathonas, Kato Souli) where large concentrations of young males from specific ethnic groups are observed (Pakistan, India). Married and cohabiting couples, on the contrary, are more concentrated in areas outside the centre and in increasing rate as the distance from the centre increases. Widows and widowers are situated closer to the centre, something compatible with their older age. Those separated live also closer to the centre due to better conditions provided by central neighbourhoods to those living alone. Finally, the divorced are located closer to the residential areas of higher and intermediate social groups because divorce—a practice much more limited in Greece than in most other Europeans countries—is unevenly practiced by different social groups. Higher socio-economic categories follow much less traditional practices and behaviours.

Table 1.2 shows that the percentage of the single, widows and widowers and the divorced is increasing, while that of the married or partners is decreasing. This trend is compatible with population ageing , the belated formation of new nuclear family households (decrease of married/partners) and the easier termination of marriages (increased of divorcees) due to the greater financial autonomy of both parts and the gradual decline of traditional values and practices.

Table 1.2: Distribution of the 20+ year olds in the region of Attiki (except the islands) by family status and area of residence  1991-2011

* those in temporary separation included

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)

1.3 Types of household

Maps 1.3.1 – 1.3.8: Distribution of population by type of household and area of residence (2011)

The different types of household that structure urban society are unevenly distributed throughout the space of the city, as shown by the maps comprising this section. Single person households have a clear spatial pattern with an intense concentration in the centres of Athens and Piraeus; nuclear families are more concentrated in new and distant suburbs; those who live together without being partners or related by kin are more present close to the centre and nuclear families who cohabit with someone not kin-related (usually live-in help) are mainly located in the areas where higher social groups are concentrated.

Table 1.3 reveals the specific population weight of the different types of household.

Table 1.3: Distribution of the population of region of Attiki (except the islands) by type of household and area of residence 2011

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)

1.4 Ethnic groups

Maps 1.4.1 – 1.4.26: Population distribution by citizenship and area of residence (2011)

The number of immigrants increased significantly in metropolitan Athens during the 1990s and stabilized during the following decade. According to census data, 82.000 immigrants lived in the region in 1991. By 2001 they had increased to 368.000 and by 2011 to 399.000 (Μαλούτας 2018).

Foreign citizens accounted for 10,5% of the population of Athens according to the census of 2011. 9,5% originated from developing countries and the remaining 1% from developed ones [1]. The 26 largest ethnic groups—each comprising more than 2.000 members—accounted for more than 94% of foreign citizens in Athens. These groups and their population are presented in table 1.4.

Table 1.4: Immigrant groups in Athens by country of origin and size (2011)

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)

The spatial distribution of the various ethnic groups in Athens shows that each one follows a different pattern. However, there are often similarities among groups due to their common demographic features—for example, groups where young women significantly prevail—or/and to their common geographical origin—for example, groups originating from Eastern European countries.

Albanian immigrants—by far the largest immigrant group in Athens and in the whole of Greece—are mainly concentrated in the densely populated neighbourhoods of the centre (Patissia, Kypseli, Pangrati, Ampelokipi) but also in parts of the distant periphery, like the coast of Eastern Attiki, Mesoghia, Elefsina and Aspropyrgos. Most other groups from Eastern Europe are concentrated in the densely populated central neighbourhoods, andless in the distant periphery, due to their significantly smaller engagement with rural activities.

Among those originating from Eastern Europe, Bulgarians and Polish are the most concentrated in central neighbourhoods. Concentration in central neighbourhoods is even higher for a number of groups originating from countries outside Europe, especially Nigeria, Bangladesh, China and Afghanistan.

Immigrants from several countries follow unique patterns of spatial distribution, often due to their particular composition. Turkish citizens, for example, are highly concentrated in the municipalities of Palaio Faliro, Alimos and Nea Smyrni. They are mostly former residents of Istanbul of Greek origin, who settled in these areas close to the coast when they were forced to leave Turkey in the 1950s and 1960s. A smaller concentration of Turkish citizens is observed in Lavrio (outside the map), a host region for Kurdish refugees.

Immigrants from the Philippines—mostly women—are mainly gathered in Ampelokipi, where the Filipino community has settled since the 1990s. On the other hand, an important presence of Filipinos is observed in wealthy suburbs, where many Filipino women work as live-in domestic help. Most groups from developed economy countries are also concentrated in wealthy suburbs and central neighbourhoods due to their higher income.

Several other groups are also mainly present outside the city centre. The Armenians, established in Greece since the early 20th Century, are mostly present in areas of their traditional concentration at the outskirts of the Municipalities of Athens and Piraeus. Iraqis in Peristeri and Egaleo. Indians and Pakistanis in rural areas of the distant periphery—like Mesoghia and Marathonas—and, Pakistanis in particular, along the axes of the two highways due to their employment in low grade positions in logistics.

2. Education

2.1 Education level

Maps 2.1.1 – 2.1.9: 23-67 year olds by education level and area of residence (2011)

The education level of the city’s residents is probably the variable that reveals the social geography of Athens in the clearest way. The relative concentration of residents aged 23-67 by educational credentials shows that as their level of education rises their concentration in the western part of the metropolis drops while their concentration of the eastern part of the metropolis rises.

The western part of the metropolis and the distant periphery display important concentrations of those with lower educational credentials (up to elementary school). These areas comprise traditional working class suburbs and the western part of the Municipality of Athens, but the highest percentages are found in new working class areas and in the outskirts, in municipalities like Salamina, Aspropyrgos and Marathonas.

For those who finished the 9-year compulsory education (Gymnasium), as well as for those with secondary level vocational training, the differences with the previous group in terms of spatial distribution are rather small. These groups are overrepresented in working class areas and, more generally, in areas where thos who occupy positions of manual labour are over-represented.

The distribution pattern changes considerably for those having completed general secondary education (Apolyterion). The areas where they are overrepresented comprise the traditional working class suburbs, but also all the neighbourhoods of intermediate strata in the outskirts of the Municipalities of Athens and Piraeus. They are underrepresented in new working class areas.

Those who completed a post-secondary (not tertiary) education program are located further to the east. It is worth mentioning that their location is closer to the pattern of upper and upper-middle groups, compared to the pattern of those who graduated from tertiary vocational education, even though the status of the educational titles of the latter is higher. This is due to the traditional link of vocational training with the working class and the broader lower strata, and this link has not been broken despite the official upgradings of vocational education during the last 20 years.

University graduates and those with equivalent titles are overrepresented in the eastern part of the city and are relatively absent in the rest. The separation axis in this case between east and west is similar to this axis emerging through the opposite location pattern of those with low educational credentials.

Finally, those with the highest degrees (Masters and PhDs) are not generally overrepresented in the eastern part of the city. Their overrepresentation is particularly notable in the strongholds of the upper occupational categories (Municipalities of Psychico, Filothei, Ekali and the central neighbourhood of Kolonaki).

Table 2.1 shows the distribution of the 23-67 year old population in the broad categories of educational level that can be found in both the censuses of 1991 and 2011. The change within these 20 years shows the important increase of those with tertiary education degrees and the precipitous decrease of those with an education up to elementary school only.

Table 2.1: Distribution of the 23-67 year old population of Attiki (except islands) by education level 1991-2011

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)

2.2 Youth not in education

Maps 2.2.1 – 2.2.2: Percentage of 15-18 and 19-22 year old persons not participating in education by area of residence (2011)

The two maps in this section depict the concentration of disadvantage regarding access to education for the young population in different residential areas accross the metropolis. In contrast with the maps of the previous section, where the focus was on the educational titles acquired in the last 40 years by the population aged 23-67 in 2011, the maps of this section refer to the unequal access to education for youths in late adolescence (15-18) and for young adults (19-22) depending on their area of residence during the last census (2011).

The map presenting the percentage of young adults (19-22) who are not in education resembles strikingly with the map of the previous section depicting the concentration of those with low educational credentials. The areas with the highest percentages comprise neighbourhoods of the centre along Patission Av. and Acharnon Av., the municipalities of Rentis and Tavros, Zefyri, Ano Liosia, part of menidi, Aspropyrgos, Marathonas and Salamina. These are the areas with the highest concentration of working class and low-income groups. The comparatively early abandonment of school by the young of these areas, undermines their potential chances for social mobility and contributes significantly to reproduce the low position of these areas in the social hierarchy of the city’s residential areas.

If not participating in education is a relative disadvantage for young adults (19-22), for those in late adolescence (15-18) it depicts a situation at the border of social exclusion. This assumption is based on the fact that for the former, the percentage of their age group participating in education was 56,3% in 2011, while for the latter it was 92,7% (EKKE-ELSTAT 2015). These percentages has significantly changed since 1991 when those in late adolescence participated in education at a rate of 79,5% and young adults (19-22) at a rate of 37,1%. The highest rates of non participants in education among the young are to be found in central neighbourhoods close to Omonia square, parts of Zefyri, Ano Liosia, Aspropyrgos and Marathonas. In most of these areas there are important concentrations of particularly vulnerable groups, like the Roma.

2.3 Country of studies

Maps 2.3.1 – 2.3.11: Distribution of degree holders aged 23-67 by country of studies and area of residence (2011)

The maps in this section present the distribution in the residential areas of Athens in 2011 of Greek citizens aged 23 to 67 with a higher education degree by the country in which they studied. The last map in this series shows the spatial distribution of those of the same age with no higher education degree. An important segment of the Greek—and even more so of the Athenian population—studied abroad (see following table). This is an issue investigated through different angles (fiscal, demographic, impact on ‘brain-drain’ etc.) but there are no robust studies on the social origin and on the spatial distribution of those who studied abroad.

The distribution of those who studied in Greece, which is included here for comparison, is almost identical with the distribution of higher education degree holders (presented in a previous section). This was to be expected since more than 80% of higher degree holders have studied in Greece.

Studies in countries with developed economies and, usually, with high standards of university studies, but also involving a rather high cost—like the US, Switzerland, France, the UK, Germany etc.—seem to be a privilege of those who live in neighbourhoods where upper occupational categories are highly concentrated. Those who studied in the UK and in Italy have a comparatively more even spatial distribution due to the large number of Greek students in these two countries, where during certain periods there were opportunities for more accessible studies in terms of cost, sometimes corresponding to lower academic standards.

The assumption that those who studied in countries of high academic standards and increased cost do not originate from the areas where they were registered in the 2011 census suggests that their settlement in the privileged parts of the city is the outcome of their good studies which affected positively their social mobility. Even though this may be true for some of them, this assumption is in contrast with the very low residential mobility in Athens and in Greece. Studies in these countries—and especially in their elite universities—are a privilege of upper and upper-middle strata who could afford the cost of such an educational trajectory. This is not contradicted by the rather small number of those originating from lower social groups and followed this path due to their high academic performance. Exceptions confirm the rules.

Those who studied in low cost neighbouring countries—like Bulgaria and Romania—follow a completely different pattern in terms of residential location. Their social background is very different and the same applies to the status of their residential areas. Moreover, those who studied in Albania are most probably former Albanian nationals, often of Greek ethnic origin, who obtained Greek citizenship in the 2000s.

Finally, the spatial distribution of those who did not study in Greece or abroad is similar to that of those with low educational credentials.

Table 2.3 shows the number and the percentage of Greek citizens aged 23-67 living in Athens who studied abroad. The table includes all countries where more than 1000 Greek degree holders studied, according to the 2011 census.

Table 2.3: Greek citizens aged 23-67 living in Attiki (except islands) holding higher education degrees by country of studies (2011) 

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)

3. Employment

3.1 Main activity

Maps 3.1.1 – 3.1.5: Population distribution by main activity and area of residence (2011)

The spatial distribution of the population of Athens according to their main activity brings to the fore a number of issues not necessarily related to the activity itself. For example, the fact that pupils and students are highly concentrated in peripheral areas of the metropolis, is not due to their student activity, but due to their young age. Adolescents and children are mainly gathered in peripheral areas as part of the nuclear families they belong to.

Those in employment are rather evenly distributed in the space of the city. However, the western part of the metropolis and the distant periphery display lower percentages for two main reasons. The first is unemployment, which is unevenly concentrated in the western part—the crisis has increased this unevenness—and in some parts of the distant periphery. The second is the reduced employment rate for women in the western part and the distant periphery, as illustrated by the mapping of women with the household being their main activity.

Pensioners are mostly present in the areas of the elderly, i.e. in the upper and upper-middle class suburbs and in the coastal zones of the region, as well as in the island of Salamina.

Table 3.1 shows main activity categories of the population in the metropolis for 1991 and 2011. Categories that were not common for the two censuses (e.g. military service) are omitted from the table.

Table 3.1: Population of Attiki (except islands) by main activity 1991-2011

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)

3.2 Occupation

Maps 3.2.1 – 3.2.39: Distribution of the active population by occupational category and area of residence (2011)

The analysis of social hierarchies based on occupational categories is the most comprehensive manner since these categories are related to economic, cultural and social capital at the same time. This is something which other categories—like income categories—can provide in a rather unidimensional way. Moreover, occupational categories refer to positions within a system of production, something that simple income or education level categories cannot adequately reveal.

A problem in putting together this section was the difficulty to compare data among different censuses. This is due to the important changes in the international classification models of occupations every 20 years (ISCO-International Standard Classification of Occupations) of the International Labour Office (ILO), which make comparison a challenging process. The Greek census of 1991 was based on the ISCO68 model; the one of 2001 on the ISCO88 model and that of 2011 on the ISCO08 model. However, the broad lines of the changing trend for the main (1-digit) occupational categories between 1991 and 2011 are presented in the following table (table 3.2), even though with some important error margins.

Table 3.2: Distribution of the active population of Attiki (except islands) by 1-digit occupational categories 1991-2011

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)

The table above allows a broad comparison of occupational categories between 1991 and 2011. The higher occupational categories in 1991—the two first on the table—accounted for 22,0% of the active population. Their content corresponds to the first three categories of 2011 who accounted for 37,1%. In the opposite side of the occupational hierarchy, the two last categories for 1991 comprised 32,9% of the active population. They corresponded to the four last categories of 2011 and to 29,3% of the active population. This means that the general pattern of change for the occupational categories between 1991 and 2011 shows a considerable increase of higher categories, a limited loss of lower categories and a considerable decrease of intermediate ones. However, the inclusion of an important part of intermediate categories to the higher ones—technicians, technical assistants of liberal professionals etc. that were part of higher groups in 1991—reduces the significance of our previous conclusions.

The 39 maps in this section refer to higher occupational categories—like top managers, engineers, medical doctors and lawyers—to intermediate categories—like technicians, office employees and salespersons—and to lower ones—like skilled and unskilled workers. The maps are in the sequence the ILO (ISCO) and ELSTAT register occupational categories (from higher to lower). However, these hierarchies are neither absolute and stable nor obvious.

The spatial distribution of occupational categories in residential areas shows that the higher ones are overrepresented in the eastern part of the city, the lower ones in the western part, while the intermediate are comparatively more evenly distributed. The division between centre / periphery is much less important in the distribution of these categories. For some particular categories—like artists, cleaners, cooks, waiters and, to some extent, lawyers—the city centre is important in their distribution pattern.

There are two main groups among the highest categories. The first comprises the upper part—for example CEOs and lawyers—overrepresented in the few areas where the highest social groups are concentrated (Psychico-Filothei, Kifissia, Ekali, Kolonaki, and the coastal zone from Palaio Faliro to Vouliagmeni). Their presence is limited in the rest of the eastern part of the city and they are almost absent from the western part. The second group comprises the lower part—for example lower managers and teachers in secondary and primary education—who are overrepresented in the broad eastern part of the city, without being absent from the western part.

Similar differences are observed amongst intermediate categories as well. The categories on the upper part of the hierarchy—like management technicians, executive secretaries and office employees—are relatively evenly distributed between east and west. On the contrary, those at the lower end—like inventory registration, logistics and correspondence employees, hairdressers and beauticians, and shop salespersons—are located much more on the western part of the city.

Among the lower occupational categories, the ones on the upper part—as most skilled workers—are distributed rather diffusely mainly in the western part of the city. Makers of precision tools and printers are an exception, with a residential pattern much closer to that of intermediate categories. Categories at the lower end—like unskilled workers in industry and construction works, cleaners and garbage collectors and street cleaners—are concentrated in the areas of lower social groups (Aspropyrgos, Zafyri, Ano Liosisa, central neighbourhoods north of Omonia square etc.), have limited presence in the rest of the western part of the city and are absent from the eastern part. Salespersons in open-air markets have a similar settlement pattern, even though they formally are part of intermediate categories.

3.3 Sectors of economic activity

Maps 3.3.1 – 3.3.3: Distribution of the active population by sector of economic activity and area of residence (2011)

The three maps included in this section give a synthetic picture of the residential location of the active population in the three main sectors of economic activity (primary/agriculture and mining, secondary/industry and construction, tertiary/services).

Those employed in the primary sector are, as expected, much more concentrated in the distant periphery of the metropolis and are scarcely present in the rest of the region. Those employed in the secondary sector are gathered mainly in the western part of the city—mainly in the northwestern part—and in the distant periphery, while those employed in services are present throughout the region, but their presence is higher in the eastern part of the city.

The main changes presented in table 3.3 show that between 1991 and 2011 employment dropped in the secondary sector—in relative rather than in absolute terms—and increased considerably in the service sector.

Table 3.3: Distribution of the active population of Attiki (except islands) by sector of economic activity 1991-2011

Data source: EKKE-ELSTAT (2015)