Macro‐scale stability with micro‐scale diversity: modelling changing ethnic minority residential segregation – London 2001–2011

Abstract

Most studies of ethnic residential segregation that address the issue of spatial scale make it implicitif not explicitthat segregation is greater at smaller than larger scales. Such studies, however, invariably measure segregation separately at those scales, and take no account of the fact that measures at the smaller scale necessarily incorporate that at any larger scales. The present paper rectifies that situation by, for the first time, modelling ethnic segregation in London at the 2001 and 2011 censuses within a Bayesian statistical framework at three scales, which allows for the statistical significance of any changes to be formally assessedsomething not possible before. It finds that for many of the groups studied segregation was as great, if not greater, at the macro-scale as at the micro-scale, with both measures larger than at the meso-scale, with significant reductions in segregation across the decade, especially at the micro-scale.

The complex geographies of ethnic residential segregation: Using spatial and local measures to explore scale‐dependency and spatial relationships

“…For the Bangladeshi group, pockets of segregation are small‐scale and geographically rare (and, as shown by Johnston et al. 's () analysis of London, declining at the micro‐scale), despite the comparatively high levels of segregation found for this group at the national level. These localised concentrations in areas with a long history of Bangladeshi settlement – such as Tower Hamlets in east London – might be the outcome of housing pressure and overcrowding (Finney & Lymperopoulou, ), or, more positively, reflections of strong neighbourhood attachment and belonging.…”

“…Yet the thresholds of segregation identified are not uniform across ethnic groups (as also demonstrated in allied research on London's changing ethnic segregation patterns by Johnston et al., ), and through this approach one is able to identify bespoke “cut‐offs” for which segregation might be observed (for example, for unevenness, around 1 km for the Bangladeshi group and 5 km for the Chinese group). This has important implications for how we understand the scale of ethnic interactions, reflecting what we might term “operational spaces”.…”

“…For both dimensions of segregation explored here – evenness and exposure – each ethnic group has higher levels of segregation at small “neighbourhood” scales, and less at large “regional” scales. It is no surprise that segregation levels are higher in small areas; neighbourhoods are more likely to share similar population characteristics than are regions (although for insight into the complexity of this relationship, see Johnston et al., ). However, the impact of scale is not uniform for each ethnic group.…”

“…The same can be said of the UK literature, where most studies are city‐focused (Harris, ; Johnston, Poulsen, & Forrest, ) and, with some notable exceptions (e.g. Johnston, Jones, Manley, & Owen, ), have ignored the scalar variations in residential segregation. Yet this is an issue which is arguably at its most timely.…”

Spatial scale and measuring segregation: illustrated by the formation of Chicago’s ghetto

“…An alternative approach that separates out the intensity of segregation at a number of scales has recently been developed and applied to studies of contemporary ethnic patterns in London Johnston et al, 2016c), Auckland and Sydney (Johnston et al, 2016a), as well as in growing spatial polarisation in the partisanship of the US electorate (Johnston et al, 2016b). It is a modification of the well-developed multilevel modelling framework, and produces estimates of the level of segregation at each scale, net of its level at any higher scale within which the areal units deployed are nested -in this case EDs within wards.…”