Advertisement

Housing Affordability, Housing Tenure Status and Household Density: Are Housing Characteristics Associated with Union Dissolution?

Abstract

Housing is an important dimension of social inequality between couples, but it has been largely ignored in prior research on union dissolution. Extending the literature that controlled for the stabilizing effect of homeownership, we investigate whether housing, measured as household density, housing tenure and housing affordability, is related to the risk of union dissolution. Based on data from the German Family Panel (pairfam), we analyze 3441 coresidential partnerships. We run discrete-time event-history models to assess the risk of separation within a time frame of 7 years. Housing affordability is found to be negatively related to the risk of union dissolution among couples, as those couples with a high residual income (i.e., household income after deducting housing costs) were less likely to separate than those with a lower residual income. By contrast, household density is found to be unrelated to separation. In line with previous research, our findings indicate that homeowners had more stable relationships than tenants. The analysis shows that this was the case regardless of whether the home was jointly owned or was owned by one partner only.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1

Source: Pairfam waves 1–7. Authors’ own calculation. Multiply imputed data. Control variables: duration of coresidential union, duration squared, age of female partner, partnership status, region, number of children in the household, housing tenure. Average marginal effects and significance levels are presented in Table 6 in “Appendix”

Fig. 2

Source: pairfam Waves 1–7. Authors’ own calculation. Multiply imputed data. Control variables: duration of coresidential union, duration squared, age of female partner, partnership status, region, number of children in the household, housing tenure, household density. Average marginal effects and significance levels are presented in Table 6 in “Appendix”

Notes

  1. 1.

    As the number of multiple cohabitations of the same main respondent was small, we refrained from running multilevel analyses.

  2. 2.

    Moreover, we excluded those couples who reported a cohabitation break because if the partners did not share a dwelling, their housing conditions were less relevant for their partnership development.

  3. 3.

    We calculated an alternative measure of the person–room ratio in which we counted all household members as one person (instead of 0.5 of a person for each child under age 12). The use of this measure led to substantially the same results in our regression analyses (not shown here).

  4. 4.

    When we checked how high-density living was distributed among higher- and lower-income households, we found that high density was more common in households with below median income (9.2%) and less common in households with median income or higher (2.8%).

  5. 5.

    This correlation coefficient is calculated based on the complete case sample of our analyses.

  6. 6.

    When running regression models with other socioeconomic variables, such as partners’ education and labor force status, the effects of residual income turned insignificant; but the added variables themselves did not show strong and significant effects. We interpret this result as an overspecification of the model. Given our focus on housing characteristics, and in order to keep the models parsimonious, we decided to exclude the employment and education characteristics of the two partners from the models.

  7. 7.

    Changing the reference category, the difference between male and female homeowners was also insignificant (results not shown).

  8. 8.

    In order to determine whether the effect of housing affordability might differ according to housing tenure status, we performed an additional analysis. However, we found no indication of an interaction of housing costs and housing tenure on the risk of separation (see Fig. 3 in “Appendix”).

  9. 9.

    In the baseline model (not shown here) with only the two relationship duration variables and density, we did find a significantly increased dissolution risk among couples who were living in a low-density household (i.e., a household in which the average number of persons per rooms was smaller than one) compared to couples in dwellings with a medium level of density (reference category). However, this effect turned insignificant after including the other control variables.

  10. 10.

    Controlling for age and education homogamy did not change our results substantially.

References

  1. Ærø, T. (2006). Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective. Housing, Theory and Society,23(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090600773139.

  2. Allison, P. D. (1982). Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. Sociological Methodology,13, 61–98.

  3. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family,72(3), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x.

  4. Amato, P. R., & James, S. (2010). Divorce in Europe and the United States: Commonalities and differences across nations. Family Science,1(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620903381583.

  5. Andreß, H.-J., & Bröckel, M. (2007). Income and life satisfaction after marital disruption in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family,69(2), 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00379.x.

  6. Angelini, V., Laferrère, A., & Weber, G. (2013). Home-ownership in Europe: How did it happen? Advances in Life Course Research,18(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2012.10.006.

  7. Arránz Becker, O., Brüderl, J., Buhr, P., Castiglioni, L., Fuß, D., Ludwig, V., et al. (2013). The German family panel: Study design and cumulated field report (waves 1 to 4). Release 4.0. Pairfam technical paper 01.

  8. Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Political Economy,85(6), 1141–1187. https://doi.org/10.2307/1837421.

  9. Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced Swiss couples. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,44(1–2), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v44n01_04.

  10. Boehm, T. P., & Schlottmann, A. (2008). Wealth accumulation and homeownership: Evidence for low-income households. Cityscape,10(2), 225–256.

  11. Bracher, M., Santow, G., Morgan, S. P., & Trussell, J. (1993). Marriage dissolution in Australia: Models and explanations. Population Studies,47(3), 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000147216.

  12. Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review,64(3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657490.

  13. Brüderl, J., & Kalter, F. (2001). The dissolution of marriages: The role of information and marital-specific capital. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology,25(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990262.

  14. Brüderl, J., Hank, K., Huinink, J., Nauck, B., Neyer, F. J., Walper, S., Alt, P., Borschel, E., Buhr, P., Castiglioni, L., Fiedrich, S., Finn, C., Garrett, M., Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Huyer-May, B., Lenke, R., Müller, B., Peter, T., Schmiedeberg, C., Schütze, P., Schumann, N., Thönnissen, C., Wetzel, M., & Wilhelm, B. (2017). The German family panel (pairfam). Release 8.0. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5678 Data file Version 8.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/pairfam.5678.8.0.0.

  15. Clark, W. A. V., Deurloo, M. C., & Dieleman, F. M. (2000). Housing consumption and residential crowding in U.S. housing markets. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2166.00039.

  16. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family,72(3), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x.

  17. Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., et al. (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family,52(3), 643–656.

  18. Conley, D. (2001). A room with a view or a room of one's own? Housing and social stratification. Sociological Forum,16(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011052701810.

  19. Cooke, L. P. (2006). “Doing” gender in context: Household bargaining and risk of divorce in Germany and the United States. American Journal of Sociology,112(2), 442–472. https://doi.org/10.1086/506417.

  20. Coulter, R., & Thomas, M. (2019). A new look at the housing antecedents of separation. Demographic Research,40(26), 725–760.

  21. Coulter, R., van Ham, M., & Feijten, P. (2012). Partner (dis)agreement on moving desires and the subsequent moving behaviour of couples. Population, Space and Place,18(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.700.

  22. Dechter, A. R. (1992). The effect of women’s economic independence on union dissolution. CDE working paper No. 92–28. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  23. DESTATIS. (2013). Wirtschaftsrechnungen. Einkommens- und Verbrauchsstichprobe. Wohnverhältnisse privater Haushalte 2013. Fachserie 15, Sonderheft 1. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

  24. Dewilde, C., & De Decker, P. (2016). Changing inequalities in housing outcomes across Western Europe. Housing, Theory and Society,33(2), 121–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2015.1109545.

  25. Eads, A., & Tach, L. (2016). Wealth and inequality in the stability of romantic relationships. RSF,2(6), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.6.10.

  26. Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine,80(4), 536–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jtg063.

  27. Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Household crowding and social support: A quasiexperimental analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65(2), 308–316.

  28. Frick, J. R., & Grimm, S. (2010). Wohnen in Deutschland nach dem Mauerfall. Eine Analyse für die Jahre 1990 bis 2008 auf Basis der Daten des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP). In P. Krause & I. Ostner (Eds.), Leben in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Eine sozialwissenchaftliche Bilanz der Einheit 1990–2010 (pp. 653–671). Frankfurt/New York: Campus.

  29. Gerber, T. P., & Zavisca, J. R. (2015). Housing and divorce in Russia, 1992–2013. In Paper presented at the PAA annual meeting in San Diego, April 30-May 02, 2015.

  30. Gómez-Jacinto, L., & Hombrados-Mendieta, I. (2002). Multiple effects of community and household crowding. Journal of Environmental Psychology,22(3), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2002.0236.

  31. Gove, W. R., & Hughes, M. (1983). Overcrowding in the household: An analysis of determinants and effects. New York: Academic Press.

  32. Grinstein-Weiss, M., Manturuk, K. R., Guo, S., Charles, P., & Key, C. (2014). The impact of homeownership on marriage and divorce: Evidence from propensity score matching. Social Work Research,38(2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svu016.

  33. Grünheid, E. (2013). Ehescheidungen in Deutschland: Entwicklung und Hintergründe. BiB Working paper 1/2013. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung.

  34. Haffner, M., & Heylen, K. (2011). User costs and housing expenses. Towards a more comprehensive approach to affordability. Housing Studies,26(04), 593–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2011.559754.

  35. Hardie, J. H., Geist, C., & Lucas, A. (2014). His and hers: Economic factors and relationship quality in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family,76(4), 728–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12129.

  36. Härkönen, J. (2014). Divorce: Trends, patterns, causes, and consequences. In J. Treas, J. Scott, & M. Richards (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to the sociology of families (pp. 303–322). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

  37. Hu, Y., & Coulter, R. (2017). Living space and psychological well-being in urban China: Differentiated relationships across socio-economic gradients. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,49(4), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x16680213.

  38. Huinink, J., Brüderl, J., Nauck, B., Walper, S., Castiglioni, L., & Feldhaus, M. (2011). Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework and design. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung,23(1), 77–101.

  39. Jalovaara, M. (2002). Socioeconomic differentials in divorce risk by duration of marriage. Demographic Research,7(16), 537–564.

  40. Jalovaara, M. (2013). Socioeconomic resources and the dissolution of cohabitations and marriages. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie,29(2), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9280-3.

  41. Kalmijn, M. (2010). Country differences in the effects of divorce on well-being: The role of norms, support, and selectivity. European Sociological Review,26(4), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp035.

  42. Kalmijn, M., Loeve, A., & Manting, D. (2007). Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation. Demography,44(1), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2007.0005.

  43. Kaplan, A., & Herbst, A. (2015). Stratified patterns of divorce: Earnings, education, and gender. Demographic Research,32(34), 949–982.

  44. Kaplan, A., & Stier, H. (2017). Political economy of family life: Couple’s earnings, welfare regime and union dissolution. Social Science Research,61, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.014.

  45. Kaya, N., & Weber, M. J. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in the perception of crowding and privacy regulation: American and Turkish students. Journal of Environmental Psychology,23(3), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00087-7.

  46. Killewald, A. (2016). Money, work, and marital stability: Assessing change in the gendered determinants of divorce. American Sociological Review,81(4), 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416655340.

  47. Kulu, H. (2008). Fertility and spatial mobility in the life course. Evidence from Austria. Environment and Planning A,40(3), 632–652.

  48. Kurz, K., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2004). Home ownership and social inequality in comparative perspective (studies in social inequality). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  49. Lauster, N. T. (2008). Better homes and families: Housing markets and young couple stability in Sweden. Journal of Marriage and Family,70(4), 891–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00534.x.

  50. Lersch, P. M. (2014). Geburten und die Wohnraumversorgung von Familien: Anpassungen der Wohnung im zeitlichen Verlauf. Zeitschrift für Soziologie,43(2), 131–149.

  51. Lersch, P. M., & Vidal, S. (2014). Falling out of love and down the housing ladder: A longitudinal analysis of marital separation and home ownership. European Sociological Review,30(4), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu055.

  52. Lersch, P. M., & Vidal, S. (2016). My house or our home? Transitions into sole home ownership in British couples. Demographic Research,35(6), 139–166.

  53. Levinger, G. (1979). A social exchange view on the dissolution of pair relationships. In R. L. Burgess, T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.

  54. Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Research-based theories (Vol. 1, pp. 268–294). New York: Free Press.

  55. Lyngstad, T., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research,23(10), 257–292.

  56. Meinfelder, F. (2014). Multiple imputation: An attempt to retell the evolutionary process. AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv,8, 249–267.

  57. Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review,26(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp006.

  58. Mulder, C. H., & Billari, F. C. (2010). Homeownership regimes and low fertility. Housing Studies,25(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673031003711469.

  59. Mulder, C. H., & Smits, J. (1999). First-time home-ownership of couples: The effect of inter-generational transmission. European Sociological Review,15(3), 323–337.

  60. O'Connor, T. G., Pickering, K., Dunn, J., & Golding, J. (1999). Frequency and predictors of relationship dissolution in a community sample in England. Journal of Family Psychology,13(3), 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.436.

  61. OECD. (2011). How's life? Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD publishing.

  62. Ostermeier, M., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (1998). Wohneigentum und Ehescheidung: Eine Längsschnittanalyse über den Einfluß gekauften und geerbten Wohneigentums auf den Prozeß der Ehescheidung. Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft,23(1), 39–54.

  63. Özcan, B., & Breen, R. (2012). Marital instability and female labor supply. Annual Review of Sociology,38(1), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145457.

  64. Palisi, B. J. (1984). Household crowding and well-being: A cross-cultural analysis. International Journal of Sociology of the Family,14(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/23027760.

  65. Rapp, I., Klein, T., Fronk, S., & Stauder, J. (2015). Partner market opportunities and relationship stability. Comparative Population Studies Research on Divorce: Causes and Consequences,40(3), 229–250.

  66. Raz-Yurovich, L. (2012). Economic determinants of divorce among dual-earner couples: Jews in Israel. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie,28(2), 177–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9256-3.

  67. Regoeczi, W. C. (2008). Crowding in context: An examination of the differential responses of men and women to high-density living environments. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,49(3), 254–268.

  68. Roberts, L. J. (2000). Fire and ice in marital communication: Hostile and distancing behaviors as predictors of marital distress. Journal of Marriage and Family,62(3), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00693.x.

  69. Roos, M. W. M. (2006). Regional price levels in Germany. Applied Economics,38(13), 1553–1566. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500407207.

  70. Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move: a study in the social psychology of urban residential mobility. Glencoe: Free Press.

  71. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4.

  72. Rybkowska, A., & Schneider, M. (2011). Housing conditions in Europe in 2009: 30 million people in the EU suffered both lack of space and poor housing conditions: Eurostat Statistics in focus 4/2011. Population and social conditions. Luxemburg: Eurostat.

  73. Sayer, L. C., England, P., Allison, P. D., & Kangas, N. (2011). She left, he left: How employment and satisfaction affect women’s and men’s decisions to leave marriages. American Journal of Sociology,116(6), 1982–2018. https://doi.org/10.1086/658173.

  74. Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Rothert, K., Standish, N. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2002). Women's employment, marital happiness, and divorce. Social Forces,81(2), 643–662.

  75. South, S. J. (2001). Time-dependent effects of wives' employment on marital dissolution. American Sociological Review,66(2), 226–245.

  76. Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues,25(4), 496–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x03257797.

  77. Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review,79(3), 275–277.

  78. Stone, M. E. (2006). What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach. Housing Policy Debate,17(1), 151–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521564.

  79. Taylor, M. P., Pevalin, D. J., & Todd, J. (2007). The psychological costs of unsustainable housing commitments. Psychological Medicine,37(7), 1027–1036.

  80. van Buuren, S. (2012). Flexible imputation of missing data. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  81. van Damme, M. (2019). Overcrowded housing and relationship break-up. European Journal of Population,1, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-019-09523-2.

  82. Wagner, M., & Mulder, C. H. (2000). Wohneigentum im Lebenslauf: Kohortendynamik, Familiengründung und sozioökonomische Ressourcen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie,29(1), 44–59.

  83. Wagner, M., & Mulder, C. H. (2015). Spatial mobility, family dynamics, and housing transitions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie,67(Suppl), 111–135.

  84. Wagner, M., & Weiß, B. (2003). Bilanz der deutschen Scheidungsforschung. Versuch einer Meta-Analyse. Zeitschrift für Soziologie,32(1), 29–49.

  85. Wells, N. M., & Harris, J. D. (2007). Housing quality, psychological distress, and the mediating role of social withdrawal: A longitudinal study of low-income women. Journal of Environmental Psychology,27(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.11.002.

  86. Wiik, K. A., Bernhardt, E., & Noack, T. (2009). A study of commitment and relationship quality in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Marriage and Family,71(3), 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00613.x.

  87. Wijburg, G., & Aalbers, M. B. (2017). The alternative financialization of the German housing market. Housing Studies,32(7), 968–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2017.1291917.

  88. Yabiku, S. T., Gager, C. T., & Johnson, D. (2009). Sexual frequency and the stability of marital and cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family,71(4), 983–1000.

  89. Zavisca, J. R., & Gerber, T. P. (2016). The socioeconomic, demographic, and political effects of housing in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology,42(1), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074333.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Lisa Schmid, Philipp Lersch, Nicole Hiekel and the PartnerLife team members for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. This paper uses data from the German Family Panel pairfam, coordinated by Josef Brüderl, Sonja Drobnič, Karsten Hank, Bernhard Nauck, Franz Neyer und Sabine Walper. Pairfam is funded as a long-term project by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Funding

The research for this paper is part of the project “Partner relationships, residential relocations and housing in the life course” (PartnerLife). Principal investigators are Clara H. Mulder (University of Groningen), Michael Wagner (University of Cologne) and Hill Kulu (University of Liverpool). PartnerLife is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, Grant No. 464-13-148), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Grant No. WA1502/6-1) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC, Grant No. ES/L01663X/1) in the Open Research Area Plus scheme.

Author information

Correspondence to Sandra Krapf.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4, 5, 6 and Fig. 3.

Table 4 Discrete-time event-history models of union dissolution (average marginal effects). Complete cases.
Table 5 Discrete-time event-history models of union dissolution (odds ratios).
Table 6 Interaction effects (models 6, 7 and 11). Discrete-time event-history models of union dissolution (average marginal effects).
Fig. 3
figure3

Source: pairfam Waves 1–7. Authors’ own calculation. Multiply imputed data. Control variables: duration of coresidential union, duration squared, age of female partner, partnership status, region, number of children in the household, household density. Average marginal effects and significance levels are presented in Table 6 in “Appendix”

Interaction effect (Model 11). Average marginal effects of housing tenure on union dissolution for different levels of housing affordability (residual income after housing costs are deducted). Reference category: joint homeowners (dashed line).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krapf, S., Wagner, M. Housing Affordability, Housing Tenure Status and Household Density: Are Housing Characteristics Associated with Union Dissolution?. Eur J Population (2020) doi:10.1007/s10680-019-09549-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Housing cost
  • Household crowding
  • Homeownership
  • Separation
  • Socioeconomic
  • Situation