Archive:Housing conditions

Data from August 2012, most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database. This article analyses recent statistics on housing conditions in the European Union (EU). One of the key challenges of Europe 2020 and in particular the poverty and social exclusion element, is to provide decent (in terms of quality and cost) housing for everyone. The cost and quality of housing is key to living standards and well-being; shortage of adequate housing is a long-standing problem in most European countries. Over the past decade, worsening affordability, homelessness, social and housing polarisation and new forms of housing deprivation have been an increasing concern for public policy.

Figure 1: Distribution of population by dwelling type, 2010
(% of population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho01)

Figure 2: Distribution of population by tenure status, 2010 (1)
(% of population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho02)

Figure 3: Housing cost overburden rate, 2010
- Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho07a) and (ilc_lvho07a)

Table 1: Housing cost overburden rate by sex, age and tenure status, 2010
(% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho07a) and (ilc_lvho07c)

Figure 4: Overcrowding rate, 2010
(% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho05a) and (ilc_lvho06)

Figure 5: Overcrowding rate by poverty status, 2010
(% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho05a)

Figure 6: Housing deprivation rate EU-27, 2010
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddd04b)

Table 2: Proportion of the population with housing problems or deprived of some housing items by poverty status
(% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mdho01) and (ilc_mdho02) and (ilc_mdho03) and (ilc_mdho04)

Figure 7: Severe housing deprivation rate by poverty status, 2010
(% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mdho06a)

Table 3: Proportion of the population suffering from problems in the residential area
(% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddw01) and (ilc_mddw02) and (ilc_mddw03)

Main statistical findings

Type of dwelling and Tenure status

In 2010, 41.8 % of the EU-27 population lived in flats, 34.4 % in detached houses and 23.0 % in semi-detached houses. Latvia had the largest share of persons living in flats (65.4 %), followed by Estonia and Spain (both 64.5 %). The share of people living in detached houses was highest in Slovenia (67.3 %), Hungary (64.5 %), Romania (61 %) and Denmark (59.2 %); Norway and Croatia also reported high shares (62.4 % and 72.9 % respectively) of persons living in detached houses. The highest propensity to live in semi-detached houses was reported in the Netherlands (60.7 %), the United Kingdom (60.3 %) and Ireland (58.3 %) – see Figure 1.

In 2010, over one quarter (27.9 %) of the EU-27 population lived in an owner-occupied home for which there was an outstanding loan or mortgage, while just under half (42.9 %) of the population lived in an owner-occupied home without a loan or mortgage. As such, close to two-thirds (70.8 %) of the population lived in owner-occupied dwellings, while 17.8 % lived in dwellings with a market price rent, and 11.4 % in reduced-rent or free accommodation.

More than half of the population in each EU Member State (see Tabele 1) lived in owner-occupied dwellings in 2010; the share ranged from 53.2 % in Germany to 97.5 % in Romania. In Switzerland, people living in rented dwellings outweighed those living in owner-occupied dwellings (55.7 % of the population are tenants). In Sweden (68 %), the Netherlands (59.5 %) and Denmark (52.7 %) more than half of the population lived in owner-occupied dwellings with an outstanding loan or mortgage; this was also the case in Iceland (67.6 %) and Norway (61.1 %).

The share of persons living in rented dwellings with a market price rent in 2010 was less than 10 % in 12 EU Member States, as well as in Croatia. In Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Luxembourg and Austria more than one quarter of the population lived in rented dwellings with a market price rent. The share of the population living in a dwelling with a reduced price rent or occupying a dwelling free of charge was less than 20 % in all Member States.

Housing affordability

In 2010, 10 % of the EU-27 population lived in households that spent more than 40 % of their disposable income on housing (see Figure 3). In Denmark, Greece, the United Kingdom, Romania and Switzerland the Housing cost overburden rate exceeded 14 %, while the lowest rates were reported by Cyprus (2.5 %) and Malta (3.4 %). Housing affordability varies between different groups of society. Overall women were found to be more vulnerable to housing cost overburden than men in most of the EU Member States and at EU-27 level (Table 1). This trend is especially evident in Greece and the Czech Republic, where overburden rates were 3.1 percentage points higher for women than for men in both countries, and in Switzerland (where the difference was 3.9 percentage points). No clear trend is apparent in terms of a person's age with regard to housing affordability; although at EU-27 level the housing cost overburden rate was around 1.2 percentage points higher for both categories of young people (below the age of 18) and for people in the 18-64 age group than for the elderly (over the age of 65), this is not the same in all EU Member States. The greatest difference in the housing cost overburden rate between these two age groups was reported in Spain (a difference of 7.4 percentage points between the ’18-64’ age group and the elderly) and in Switzerland and Croatia (which reported differences of 14.4 and 9.7 percentage points respectively).

The proportion of the population whose housing costs exceeded 40 % of their equivalised disposable income was higher for owners with a mortgage than those owners that had no outstanding mortgage or housing loan, with the exceptions of Greece, Sweden, Bulgaria and Switzerland. For tenants, higher overburden rates tend to apply to those tenants that pay their rent at the market price. The only exception here applies to Sweden, where tenants whose rents are at reduced prices suffer from a housing overburden rate of more than double that of tenants with rents at market price (14.9 % and 31.8 % respectively).

Housing quality - Overcrowding

One major element of the quality of housing conditions is the availability of sufficient space in the dwelling. The indicator that has been invented to describe space problems is the Overcrowding rate, which assesses the proportion of people living in an overcrowded dwelling, as defined by the number of rooms available to the Household, the household’s size, as well as its members’ ages and family situation. In 2010, the highest rates of overcrowding (Figure 4) were observed in Latvia (57.1 %), Romania (54.9 %) and Poland (47.2 %), while the lowest were seen in the Netherlands (2.0 %) and Cyprus (2.8 %). The EU27 average rate of overcrowding was 17.6 %.

Figure 4 presents countries in descending order in terms of their rate of overcrowding, split into two groups; those where single households decrease the overcrowding rate and those where single households increase the overcrowding rate. In the EU as a whole, the overcrowding rate is 1.1 percentage points higher if single person households are excluded from the computation of the indicator. However, the exceptions are Sweden, France, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands, where the inclusion of single-person households increases the overcrowding rate (e.g. very small flats - studios are inhabited by one person). However, in these countries overcrowding rates are relatively low.

Overall, the overcrowding rate is higher for those who are at risk-of-poverty (i.e. people living in households where equivalised disposable income per person was below 60 % of the national median) compared to the total population. Figure 5 presents countries in descending order, in terms of the percentage difference between the two groups. Indicatively, at the EU level, the overcrowding rate for those at-risk-of-poverty was 29.4 % while for the total population it was 17.6 % (difference of 11.8 percentage points). The greatest differences between the two groups were observed in Hungary (a difference of 22.5 percentage points) and the Czech Republic (a difference of 21.6 percentage points), with the smallest differences observed in Malta, Croatia, the Netherlands, Cyprus, Spain and Ireland (each with percentage difference of lower than or equal to 4 percentage points).

Housing quality – Housing deprivation

Housing quality can also be assessed by looking at other housing deficiencies, such as lack of certain basic sanitary facilities in the dwelling (such as a bath or shower or indoor flushing toilet) and problems in the general condition of the dwelling (leaking roof or dwelling being too dark). In 2010 (Figure 6), 77.9 % of the Europeans (EU-27 average) were declared as not materially deprived for the 'housing dimension' (Material deprivation), 16.6 % were found to suffer from one of the dwelling problems, 4.3 % suffered from two, 0.9 % suffered from three and 0.3 % suffered from all four of dwelling problems (i.e. leaking roof/damp walls/floors/foundation or rot in window frames AND accommodation being too dark AND no bath/shower AND no indoor flushing toilet for sole use of the household). In Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania, Lithuania, Hungary, Estonia, Poland and Portugal, a larger portion of the population was found to be deprived in terms of the housing dimension compared to the EU average. By contrast, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom reported that none of their population suffered from more than two of the above-listed housing problems.

At the EU-level, the main housing problem was found to be a ‘leaking roof’ (i.e. leaking roof or damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in window frames of floor') (16 %), followed by ‘darkness of the dwelling' (6.8 %) (Table 2) while less than 3.5 % of the EU population lacked basic sanitary facilities (i.e. lack of bath/shower or indoor flushing toilet). Exceptions to this EU trend are Romania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Estonia where sanitary problems were found to be equally or more frequent than the other two housing problems mentioned above. In Spain and the Netherlands, nobody was reported to be lacking basic sanitary facilities. At the other extreme, about 40 % of the people in Romania had no bath or shower, or no indoor flushing toilet (38.9 % and 40.8 % respectively).

Overall, those people at-risk-of poverty suffered more than the total population from these certain housing problems (or were deprived to a greater extent than the total population for the particular items). This was particularly the case in Romania, where the deficiency of basic sanitary facilities was found to be extremely common; 78.2 % of the at-risk-of poverty population were found not to have a bath or shower and 79.7 % did not have indoor flushing toilet. The situation is somewhat better, but still bad, in Bulgaria where 60 % of the at-risk-of-poverty population were found to be lacking indoor flushing toilet accounted and 45.4 % of the at-risk-of-poverty population were found to be lacking a bath or shower. In Hungary and Slovenia, almost half of the at-risk-of-poverty population suffered from a ‘leaking roof’.

Insufficient spacing and poor amenities are those chacteristics used to define severe housing deprivation. In 2010, the severe housing deprivation rate in the EU was 5.7 % and it was more than double that figure (13.7 %) for the population that was at-risk-of poverty (Figure 7). The highest rates were exhibited by Romania (26.9 %) and Latvia (22.6 %). The severe housing deprivation rate was below 1 % of the total population in the Netherlands, Ireland and Finland. In Romania more than 54 % of the population that was at-risk-of poverty faced severe housing deprivation.

The severe housing deprivation rate was 1.4 to 3.7 times (for the EU-27 it is 2.4 times) greater for the population at-risk-of poverty compared to the total population. The discrepancy is even larger in Norway, where the rate was found to be six times greater for the at-risk-of-poverty population.

Housing quality – Problems in the residential area

Housing quality depends not only on the quality of the dwelling itself, but also on the wider residential area. In this case the indicators rely on the subjective opinion of the respondents, but have the advantage of drawing a more complete picture of housing.

In 2010, 20.6 % of EU-27 population lived in a dwelling where noise from neighbours or from the street was perceived as a problem (Table 3). Over 30 % of people in Romania were concerned with noise, followed by Cyprus (29.1 %), Malta (27.1 %) and Germany (25.7 %). At the other extreme, the rates were lowest in Ireland (9.5 %) and Estonia (11.0 %).

In 2010, 14.8 % of the EU-27 population perceived the area in which they live as being affected by pollution, grime or other environmental problems. At the country level, the figures ranged from less than 10 % in Ireland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland to over 30 % in Malta.

Crime and/or vandalism were perceived as a problem by 14.4 % of the EU-27 population in 2010. At the country level, the rates were highest in Bulgaria (27.7 %), Latvia (23.8 %) and the United Kingdom (23.1 %), while only 5.2 % of the population in Lithuania and 6.5 % in Poland considered this to be a problem. Rates were also low for Iceland (3.7 %) and Norway (5.5 %).

For the population at-risk-of-poverty, these rates were, on average, higher. At the EU-27 level, the greatest difference of 3.7 percentage points between the total population and the population at-risk-of-poverty concerned crime, violence and vandalism, while the greatest difference (of 1.2 percentage points) concerned pollution. Noise lay in-between the two (2.8 percentage points).

Data sources and availability

The data used in this section are primarily derived from micro-data from EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC). The reference population is all private households and their current members residing in the territory of the Member State at the time of data collection; persons living in collective households and in institutions are generally excluded from the target population. The EU-27 aggregate is a population-weighted average of individual national figures.

Context

Questions of social housing, homelessness or integration play an important role within the EU’s social policy agenda. The charter of fundamental rights stipulates in Article II-94 that ‘in order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices’.

However, the EU does not have any responsibilities in respect of housing; rather, national governments develop their own housing policies. Many countries face similar challenges: for example, how to renew housing stocks, how to plan and combat urban sprawl, how to promote sustainable development, how to help young and disadvantage groups to get onto the housing market, or how to promote energy efficiency among house owners.

Further Eurostat information

Publications

Housing conditions in Europe in 2009 - Statistics in focus 4/2011
Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2011
Income and living conditions in Europe – Statistical books
The social situation in the European Union 2009 – Statistical books
Over-indebtedness of European households in 2008 - Statistics in focus 61/2010
51 million young EU adults lived with their parent(s) in 2008 - Statistics in focus 50/2010
Combating poverty and social exclusion

Main tables

Living conditions and welfare (t_livcon), see:

Income and living conditions (t_ilc)

Income distribution and monetary poverty (t_ilc_ip)

Living conditions (t_ilc_lv)

Database

Living conditions and welfare (livcon), see:

Income and living conditions (ilc)

Living conditions (ilc_lv)

Housing conditions (ilc_lvho)

Material deprivation (ilc_md)

Housing deprivation (ilc_mdho)

Other information

Regulation 1177/2003 of 16 June 2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC)
Regulation 1553/2005 of 7 September 2005 amending Regulation 1177/2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC)
Regulation 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Regulations and Decisions in the fields of ... statistics, ..., by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania