Patterns of population location in Auckland

Maré, David C.; Coleman, Andrew; Pinkerton, Ruth

doi:10.29310/wp.2011.06

Cited by 30 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Index of Dissimilarity (Duncan and Duncan 1955) is a measure of evenness that reflects the proportion of people in a population subgroup that would have to relocate in order to make their distribution identical to that of the reference group. When the same index is computed between one group and all other groups combined, the index is sometimes referred to as the Index of Segregation (Maré et al 2011), although in the literature the term 'segregation index' can also be the generic term that refers to any of the sorting measures. The Index of Dissimilarity and the Index of Segregation range between 0 (the two groups are identically distributed spatially) and 1 (in any area only one group or the other is represented but never both).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group-Size Bias in the Measurement of Residential Sorting

Mondal

Cameron

Poot

2021

New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we revisit a common issue with popular indices used for measuring residential sorting, that is, the extent to which a sub-group of the population is spatially distributed (sorted or segregated) differently from the remainder of the population. Specifically, we show that three common measures of residential sorting (namely, the Index of Segregation, the Index of Isolation and the Entropy Index of Segregation) are affected by group size, that is, the expected values of the indices are positive rather than zero under random sorting, and the size of this positive bias is related to group size. This is an important issue because it is common to compare sorting indices across groups of rather different sizes, both cross-sectionally and over time. Using New Zealand data, we demonstrate group-size impact on bias in measures of residential sorting by means of four methods: (1) plotting the relationship between group size and each residential sorting measure; (2) randomly allocating individuals across the area units, calculating the resulting residential sorting measures, and regressing these on group size; (3) showing that normalised/systematic indices of sorting are also related to group size; and (4) calculating the measurement bias for each index and plotting them against group size. Our empirical illustration uses microdata on the self-reported ethnicity of individuals (with multiple responses possible) from the New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings (1991-2013) for the Auckland region, selected due to its high ethnic diversity. Our results demonstrate that the Entropy Index of Systematic Segregation measure of residential sorting is the measure that is the least affected by group size variation. As a result, we strongly recommend using this index of sorting as a preferred measure.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group-Size Bias in the Measurement of Residential Sorting

Mondal

Cameron

Poot

2021

New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10 A more recent attempt to monitor spatial patterns of income concentration in New Zealand has drawn on records of individual households, under confidentiality, from the New Zealand census (1996, 2001 and 2006). Specifically, Maré et al applied a statistical measure of spatial concentration (within one kilometre) to three household income groups (below $20,000, $20-55,000 and above $55,000) in Auckland (Maré, Coleman and Pinkerton, 2011). Figure 1 reproduces their map.…”

Section: The Geography Of Affluencementioning

confidence: 99%

The inequality debate: the neglected role of residential sorting

Morrison¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the curious features of recent writing on income inequality is the scant attention paid to the geography of inequality, to the spatial separation of rich and poor. While it is recognised that social capital can be enhanced by residential sorting into more homogeneous groups, there is longstanding concern that this same residential sorting may exacerbate existing inequality by inhibiting the social mobility of the poor (Turner and Fortuny, 2009). The perspective I want to advance here differs from the standard ‘neighbourhood effects’ literature by focusing not on those living in poor neighbourhoods, but instead on the benefits residential sorting may yield for the rich – the way in which location decisions redistribute income to the upper end of the income distribution and hence further income (and wealth) inequality.

show abstract

“…Eighty percent of the employed Central Auckland residents worked in the central area, but only 30% of Northern, 43% of Western, and 36% of Southern residents worked centrally. The remaining workers were mainly employed in the zones in which they lived, suggesting that most people avoided cross-suburb commutes (Maré, Coleman, & Pinkerton, 2011). Auckland is the most ethnically diverse region in the country, experiencing a 300% increase in its Asian population and a 20% decline in Europeans (Goodyear & Fabian, 2014), while the 65+ age group is also expected to grow from 11.4% to 17.4% over -2033(Auckland Council, 2016b .…”

Section: Aucklandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living in the 'liveable' city: Housing, Neighbourhood, and Transport Preferences in New Zealand cities

Holmes¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This thesis investigates preferences for housing, neighbourhoods, and transport in Auckland, New Zealand, supplemented by a comparison with similar research in Wellington and Hamilton. The topic is significant for New Zealand as there is an increasingly urban population, and the interconnected areas of urban form and transport can help the country reduce carbon emissions and provide a healthier, more enjoyable lifestyle for its people. The influence of residents’ preferences and their relationship with urban form on achieving compact city development is investigated. Historical and current planning rules and policies provide context for an analysis of how urban planning, preferences, and location and travel choices interact. Auckland’s housing and transport policies show a pattern of path dependency: decisions favouring greenfield development, sprawling low-density suburbs, and car-centred transport have driven subsequent investments and influenced the ease of using alternative transport modes. Such rules have also reduced the availability of housing in accessible, medium- to high-density neighbourhoods and may have contributed to the rising costs of this type of housing. A stated choice survey of 3,285 Auckland households was conducted to investigate the extent to which there is an unmet demand for compact development and alternatives to car travel. Using the survey results, a multinomial latent class model was developed to examine the preferences of households and the trade-offs they may be willing to make when choosing where to live. This type of model allows for identification of preference groups as a means of understanding the heterogeneity of preferences across the population. There was an unmet demand for accessible, medium-density housing, with some households willing to trade off dwelling size and neighbourhood type for higher accessibility or lower prices. The study also found that more people currently drive than would prefer to, with long journey times, safety concerns, unreliable services, and a lack of infrastructure acting as barriers to active and public transport. Households preferring low density are more likely to occupy their preferred dwelling type and be able to use their preferred transport mode. In contrast, those preferring high accessibility or driven by price are more likely to experience a mismatch between their preferred and current dwelling type, and are less likely to be able to use their preferred transport mode.</p>

show abstract

Patterns of population location in Auckland

Cited by 30 publications

References 24 publications

Group-Size Bias in the Measurement of Residential Sorting

Group-Size Bias in the Measurement of Residential Sorting

The inequality debate: the neglected role of residential sorting

Living in the 'liveable' city: Housing, Neighbourhood, and Transport Preferences in New Zealand cities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About