7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ethnic-residential-segregation-in-new-zealand 1/14 Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006 Douglas Grbic a, * , Hiromi Ishizawa a , Charles Crothers b a Department of Sociology, George Washington University, 801 22nd Street, NW, Suite 409, Washington, DC 20052, USA b Department of Social Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, D-78, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand a r t i c l e i n f o Available online xxxx Keywords: New Zealand Residential segregation Immigration a b s t r a c t New Zealand has experienced a marked increase in immigration since the early 1990s, which has fostered greater ethnic diversity. However, little is known about the changing patterns of spatial differentiation among ethnic groups. Using the New Zealand Census data from 1991 to 2006, we examine the patterns of Asian, Maori, and Pacific people res- idential segregation from the majority European population. We then assess the effects of ethnic group and geographic level characteristics on the levels of segregation. The results reveal that Pacific people arethe most segregated group fromEuropeans. The levelsof seg- regation have declined only slightly for Maori and Pacific people over time, but increased gradually for Asians. While results show general support for spatial assimilation theory, different sets of factors were found to be associated with levels of segregation for each eth- nic minority group. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans, Louisiana. We thank Nissa Finney, Eric Fong, and Ian Pool for their comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to the staff at Statistics New Zealand for producing special census tabulations. 1. Introduction Ethnic residential segregation is a key aspect to understanding intergroup relations and processes of individual and ethnic group social mobility (Charles, 2003). The field of ethnic residential segregation has been enriched by studies of countries with varying immigration histories, such as Britain (Peach, 1999; Simpson, 2004), Canada (Fong and Wilkes, 1999, 2003), Netherlands (Logan, 2006), New Zealand (Johnston et al., 2008), and the U.S. (Iceland, 2004). Similar to other immigrant countries, New Zealand also experienced significant changes to its ethnic composition during the latter part of the 20thcen- tury. While Britain has been the traditional source of immigrants, immigration reforms in the late 1980s lead to a significant increase in the number of immigrants from non-traditional sources, such as Asia. In the mid-20th century, 94 percent of the population was European, primarily of British ancestry, and 6 percent was Maori, the indigenous population ( McLintock, 1966). By the beginning of the 21st century, 77 percent of the population was European, 14 percent Maori, 6 percent Asian, and 6 percent Pacific people 1 (Statistics New Zealand, 2008a ). While research has examined the levels of residential concentration of ethnic minority groups in the Aucklandmetropol- itan area (e.g., Johnston et al., 2005, 2008), we have yet to fully explore how ecological context (i.e., the structural and demo- graphic characteristics of a geographic area) and measures derived from spatial assimilation theory are associated with the 0049-089X/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003 * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected](D. Grbic), [email protected](H. Ishizawa), [email protected](C. Crothers). 1 Pacific people is one of the ethnic categories used by Statistics New Zealand and refers to individuals who claim ethnic heritage from one or more of the Pacific Island countries, such as the Cook Islands, Fiji, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau, and Tonga. Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Social Science Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand
Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006
Douglas Grbic a,*, Hiromi Ishizawa a, Charles Crothers b
a Department of Sociology, George Washington University, 801 22nd Street, NW, Suite 409, Washington, DC 20052, USAb Department of Social Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, D-78, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
a r t i c l e i n f o
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
New Zealand
Residential segregation
Immigration
a b s t r a c t
New Zealand has experienced a marked increase in immigration since the early 1990s,which has fostered greater ethnic diversity. However, little is known about the changing
patterns of spatial differentiation among ethnic groups. Using the New Zealand Census
data from 1991 to 2006, we examine the patterns of Asian, Maori, and Pacific people res-
idential segregation from the majority European population. We then assess the effects of
ethnic group and geographic level characteristics on the levels of segregation. The results
reveal that Pacific people are the most segregated group from Europeans. The levels of seg-
regation have declined only slightly for Maori and Pacific people over time, but increased
gradually for Asians. While results show general support for spatial assimilation theory,
different sets of factors were found to be associated with levels of segregation for each eth-
nic minority group.
2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Population Association of America, New
Orleans, Louisiana. We thank Nissa Finney, Eric Fong, and Ian Pool for their comments and suggestions. We are also grateful
to the staff at Statistics New Zealand for producing special census tabulations.
1. Introduction
Ethnic residential segregation is a key aspect to understanding intergroup relations and processes of individual and ethnic
group social mobility (Charles, 2003). The field of ethnic residential segregation has been enriched by studies of countries
with varying immigration histories, such as Britain (Peach, 1999; Simpson, 2004), Canada (Fong and Wilkes, 1999, 2003),
Netherlands (Logan, 2006), New Zealand ( Johnston et al., 2008), and the U.S. (Iceland, 2004). Similar to other immigrant
countries, New Zealand also experienced significant changes to its ethnic composition during the latter part of the 20th cen-
tury. While Britain has been the traditional source of immigrants, immigration reforms in the late 1980s lead to a significant
increase in the number of immigrants from non-traditional sources, such as Asia. In the mid-20th century, 94 percent of thepopulation was European, primarily of British ancestry, and 6 percent was Maori, the indigenous population ( McLintock,
1966). By the beginning of the 21st century, 77 percent of the population was European, 14 percent Maori, 6 percent Asian,
and 6 percent Pacific people1 (Statistics New Zealand, 2008a).
While research has examined the levels of residential concentration of ethnic minority groups in the Auckland metropol-
itan area (e.g., Johnston et al., 2005, 2008), we have yet to fully explore how ecological context (i.e., the structural and demo-
graphic characteristics of a geographic area) and measures derived from spatial assimilation theory are associated with the
0049-089X/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Grbic), [email protected] (H. Ishizawa), [email protected] (C. Crothers).1 Pacific people is one of the ethnic categories used by Statistics New Zealand and refers to individuals who claim ethnic heritage from one or more of the
Pacific Island countries, such as the Cook Islands, Fiji, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau, and Tonga.
Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Social Science Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a te / s s r e s e a r c h
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
levels of segregation between ethnic groups. An analysis of factors influencing ethnic residential segregation is important not
only for facilitating cross-national comparison but more specifically for better understanding intergroup relations in New
Zealand, especially since place of residence has an impact on individual’s well-being, such as health outcomes and access
to employment (Harris et al., 2006; Ho and Bedford, 2006; Kukutai, 2007; McIntosh, 2003; Pool, 1960; Pool et al.,
2005b,c). The uniqueness of the New Zealand context is the presence of a sizeable indigenous population, Maori. Since indig-
enous populations are closed to migration, their pathways to residential integration may differ from immigrant groups. Thus,
this study provides an insight into how the patterns of segregation for Maori differ from groups of immigrant origins, spe-
cifically Asians and Pacific people. With its indigenous population and increasing ethnic diversity, New Zealand provides a
rich context to study ethnic residential segregation.
The first aim of this study is to examine the levels of residential segregation for Asian, Maori, and Pacific people from the
majority European ethnic group using the 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006 New Zealand census data. Our second aim is to pro-
vide the first systematic multivariate analysis that examines the effects of ecological context and measures derived from spa-
tial assimilation theory on ethnic minority group–European segregation.
In the following section we provide a brief historical description of New Zealand’s indigenous population and immigra-
tion. We then outline the theoretical approaches and formulate hypotheses. A description of the data and methods, and an
examination of the patterns of residential segregation over time follow. Finally, multivariate regression results show what
factors influence residential segregation for each of the three ethnic minority groups.
2. New Zealand’s indigenous population and immigration
Until the early British settlers migrated during the later part of the 19th century, Maori occupied New Zealand for hun-dreds of years (Fleras and Spoonley, 1999; Pool, 1991). The Immigration Restriction Act of 1899 and its later amendments in
1910 and 1920, as well as various Acts directly targeting Chinese, ensured that non-white immigrants were kept to a small
proportion of the population until the 1950s.
From the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 between Maori and the British crown, Maori were considered subjects
of the British Empire and were to be assimilated into the ‘core culture’. However, structural assimilation (e.g., educational
and labor market integration) was slow to follow and therefore long-lasting socioeconomic inequalities have endured de-
spite government policies of social integration in the 1960s and the gradual institutionalization of a more positive/active
biculturalism in the 1980s (Crothers, 2003; Fleras and Spoonley, 1999). Maori currently continue to have lower income
and educational attainment, and a higher rate of unemployment compared to Europeans (see Appendix A for detailed
statistics).
The first major shift in migration flow occurred in the 1950s when immigration policies were directed at filling labor
shortages in expanding low-wage urban industries (Bedford et al., 2002; Gibson, 1983; Ongley and Pearson, 1995; Spoonley,
2006). As a result, the Pacific people population increased from around 8000 in the mid-1950s to around 66,000 in the 1970s(Bedford and Heenan, 1987, pp.139–141; Cook et al., 1999). The majority of the Pacific people concentrated in neighbor-
hoods within the central Auckland region,2 which is the country’s main port of entry. Studies have shown how communities
of the Pacific people, largely located in Manukau city, serve to integrate its members through churches and community halls and
ensure the maintenance of Pacific Island languages and ethnic identities (Macpherson, 1997; Melenaite et al., 2002).
From the 1990s the native-born Pacific people experienced noticeable upward economic mobility as indicated by higher
wage earnings and a greater proportion being employed in the retail, wholesale, and finance sectors compared to the foreign-
born Pacific people (Cook et al., 1999; Fleras and Spoonley, 1999, pp.203–208). However, the overall socioeconomic inequal-
ities between Europeans and the Pacific people are just as evident as those between Europeans and Maori (see Appendix A).
In particular, almost twice as many Pacific people are employed in secondary industry occupations compared to Europeans.
Although there has been upward economic mobility among native-born Pacific people, we still do not know the extent to
which nativity and socioeconomic status are associated with residential integration across New Zealand.
Another major shift in migration occurred as a result of the 1987 Immigration Act, which eliminated national origin pref-
erences and further increased ethnic diversity. The early 1990s witnessed a dramatic increase in immigrants from non-tra-ditional countries, particularly from northeast Asia. Fig. 2 illustrates the increase in the number of permanent long-term
arrivals by region from 1987 to 2006. Immigrants from Asia increased dramatically in the mid-1990s and again in the early
2000s. Similar to the Pacific people, the central Auckland region (Fig. 1) was the greatest recipient of the new arrivals from
Asia. However, while both Pacific people and Maori are found to concentrate residentially within this region, the Asian pop-
ulation dispersed across suburban areas of the region; although the extent of this dispersion and location of residence varies
by subgroup (e.g., Chinese, Indian, and Koreans) (Ho and Bedford, 2006; Johnston et al., 2008).
Because new immigration policies emphasized merits and skills-based criteria, the relative economic wealth of new arriv-
als from Asia may have facilitated the apparent spatial dispersion. However, while Asians as a whole have higher levels of
educational attainment compared to other ethnic groups, they also experience higher unemployment and have lower in-
come compared to Europeans (see Appendix A). The lower levels of income and employment are likely due to the barriers
that recent Asian immigrants face in gaining access to the labor market (Ho and Bedford, 2006).
2 The central Auckland region refers to the four most populous territorial authorities within the Auckland region (see Fig. 1).
2 D. Grbic et al. / Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand
Fig. 2. Number of permanent long-term arrivals by region, 1987–2006. Note: ‘‘Traditional-Other” refers to Australia, Canada, the U.S., and Europe. Source:Statistics New Zealand (2008b).
D. Grbic et al. / Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand
Previous research by Timms (1971, pp.77–78) on the patterns of segregation in Auckland city in 1966 showed that the
segregation of Maori and Pacific people was ‘‘closely associated with their disadvantaged position in the stratification hier-
archy.” More recent studies have largely focused on the spatial concentration of ethnic minority groups and their findings
have shown substantial concentrations of Pacific people, a moderate level of concentration for Maori, and the lowest level
of concentration for the Asian population (e.g., Johnston et al., 2002, 2005; Poulsen et al., 2000 ). In this study, our aim is
to extend past research by systematically examining the factors influencing the residential segregation of minority groups
from the majority European group.
3. Theoretical approaches for ethnic residential segregation
3.1. Spatial assimilation theory
Spatial assimilation theory (Massey, 1985; Massey and Denton, 1988) argues that residential location of immigrant
groups reflect levels of acculturation and socioeconomic mobility, and highlights two opposing spatial forces – concentration
and dispersion. On the one hand, concentration produces ethnic residential segregation and, on the other, dispersion pro-
duces the spatial assimilation of ethnic groups. The process of spatial assimilation, or ethnic residential integration, occurs
as minority groups acculturate and achieve socioeconomic mobility.
The theory predicts that gains in income for a minority group result in a lower level of residential segregation from the
majority group. Empirical evidence from Canada and the U.S. has provided some support for this hypothesis (Fong and
Wilkes, 2003; Logan et al., 2004). Similarly, Timms (1971) found that lower socioeconomic characteristics were associated
with the spatial concentration of Maori and Pacific people in Auckland, New Zealand in 1966. In this study, we test this asso-ciation by examining if there are lower levels of segregation where an ethnic minority group’s income is closer to that of
Europeans.
According to spatial assimilation theory, immigrant groups become residentially integrated across generations as they
acculturate. Studies of the U.S. have shown that greater English language fluency is associated with greater residential inte-
gration (Alba and Logan, 1991). In addition, foreign-born Asians, blacks, and Hispanics are more residentially segregated
from native-born whites compared to their native-born counterparts (Iceland and Scopilliti, 2008). We therefore examine
the relationship between nativity and residential segregation for the two immigrant-origin ethnic minority groups, Asians
and Pacific people. However, it is important to note that, as with patterns found in the U.S. ( Alba et al., 1999), the relatively
affluent recent immigrants from Asia have largely settled in the suburbs of the central Auckland region ( Johnston et al.,
2008). Although it is difficult to determine the effect of high levels of suburbanization among immigrants on residential seg-
regation in New Zealand, Logan et al. (2004) found that a higher level of suburbanization lowered the level of residential
segregation between Asians and whites in the U.S.
Prejudice and discrimination at the individual and institutional levels also play a role in shaping patterns of ethnic res-idential segregation. This is the central focus of the place stratification perspective (see Charles, 2003 for a detailed discus-
sion). For example, this perspective better explains residential segregation for the black population in the U.S. where blacks
receive less ‘return’ from their socioeconomic achievement compared to other minority groups regarding residential mobil-
ity (Freeman, 2002). In New Zealand, research has shown how discrimination in the housing and labor markets reinforce
economic disadvantages and limit the spatial mobility of ethnic minority groups (Davey and Kearns, 1994; Knight, 1991;
Thrupp, 2007). Using the 2002/3 New Zealand Health Survey comprising 12,500 individuals, Harris et al. (2006) showed that
one in ten Maori experience discrimination when buying or renting housing.3 As Timberlake and Iceland (2007) discussed,
proponents of the place stratification perspective argue that net of explanatory factors suggested by spatial assimilation theory,
residual racial/ethnic inequality can be interpreted as the effect of discrimination. However, they also noted that the residual
may be explained by other processes, such as preference to reside with co-ethnics. Since it is not possible to determine the pos-
sible effects of these processes in this study, our results should only be interpreted as the effect of factors suggested by spatial
assimilation theory.
3.2. Ecological context
Aside from spatial assimilation theory, the characteristics of a residential location shapes the extent of segregation among
racial/ethnic groups (Logan et al., 2004; Timberlake and Iceland, 2007; White et al., 2003 ). Both structural and demographic
characteristics of an area can constrain and facilitate residential mobility. Structural characteristics often include a geo-
graphic area’s employment profile, or functional specialization, and the percent of new housing built within a specific period
of time. An area’s functional specialization affects housing stock and the socioeconomic characteristics of residents, and
therefore it also impacts residential patterns (Farley and Frey, 1994).
3 The survey question was: Have you ever been treated unfairly when renting or buying housing because of your ethnicity in New Zealand? Harris et al. (2006, p.
1433) reported that 9.5% of Maori respondents reported that they had ever been exposed to discrimination compared 6.3% of Pacific people respondents, to 4.1%of Asian respondents, and .7% of European respondents.
4 D. Grbic et al. / Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand
It is therefore necessary to pay careful attention to multiple-ethnicity responses. In the U.S., as a result of recently intro-
duced federal policy mandating multiple-race responses in federal data collection, scholars have begun to incorporate multi-
ple-race responses into their research (Iceland and Scopilliti, 2008; Iceland et al., 2002; Liebler and Halpern-Manners, 2008;
Perlmann and Waters, 2002). Following Iceland and Scopilliti’s (2008) approach, we calculated the indices of dissimilarity
and exposure in two different ways in order to take multiple ethnicity responses into consideration: (1) we use non-mutu-
ally exclusive ethnic categories for all groups (e.g., an individual who claimed European and Maori ethnicities are included in
both groups), and (2) we use the mutual exclusive category for European while allowing ethnic minority groups to be non-
mutually exclusive.
It is important to note that the dramatic drop in the European population between 2001 and 2006 is largely attributable
to the addition of a new ethnic category, New Zealander. This ethnicity is not a separate category in any census question-
naires, but instead was created from write-in responses of those who claimed to be either a ‘New Zealander’ or a ‘Kiwi.’
In censuses before 2006, these write-in responses were aggregated into New Zealand European due to the small number
of responses (e.g., 2.4 percent in 2001). However, in 2006, 11 percent of the population wrote in ‘New Zealander’ largely
due to a public debate over having ‘New Zealander’ as a separate ethnic category in the census (see Callister, 2004b; Bascand,
2007 for a detailed discussion).
4.3. Measures for multivariate analysis
We use multivariate regression to examine factors associated with patterns of ethnic minority residential segregation
where the dependent variable is the index of dissimilarity. This analysis is only possible for the year 2006 due to data
availability.
We include the following two variables to test spatial assimilation theory. Economic status is measured as the ratio of the
ethnic minority group’s mean household income to European’s mean household income. 5 Nativity is measured as the per-
centage of foreign-born among an ethnic minority population. Although English language proficiency is often used as an indi-
cator of acculturation, the New Zealand census does not include a question on English language proficiency.
We include the following variables to examine the extent to which the characteristics of a residential area are associated
with segregation. For functional specialization we include one variable for the percent of adults employed in manufacturing
and construction, and another for the percent of adults employed in retail and wholesale. Industry data is based on the 17
Table 1
Ethnic Composition in New Zealand, 1991–2006.
All ethnic groups non-mutually exclusive Mutually exclusive for European
1991 1996 2001 2006 2006
European 82.49 79.57 76.83 64.79 56.75
Maori 12.89 14.46 14.08 14.04 7.41
Asian 2.96 4.80 6.37 8.80 8.01
Pacific people 4.95 5.59 6.20 6.60 4.63
New Zealander n/a n/a n/a 10.66 9.30
Other .20 .43 .66 .90 .73
No response .84 4.19 4.03 4.17 4.17
Maori-European 5.16
Maori-Pacific people .47
Pacific people-European .78
Asian-European .32
Maori-Pacific people-European .44
All other combinations 1.83
Multiple ethnicities as percent of population 4.31 9.05 8.19 9.95
Total (%) 104.31 109.05 108.19 109.95 100.00
Total population 3,373,929 3,618,300 3,737,277 4,027,947 4,027,947
Note: The category ‘New Zealander’ was only included in the 2006 census.
4 Of those people who claimed Maori ethnicity (N = 565,326), 37 percent (N = 207,912) claimed European ethnicity, 3.4 percent (N = 19,044) claimed Pacific
people ethnicity, and 3.1 percent (N = 17,715) claimed both European and Pacific people ethnicities. Of those who claimed Pacific people ethnicity
(N = 265,974), 12 percent (N = 31,482) claimed European ethnicity, 7.2 percent ( N = 19,044) claimed Maori ethnicity, and 6.7 percent (N = 17,715) claimed both
Maori and European ethnicities. Of those who claimed Asian ethnicity (N = 354,552), 9.1 percent (N = 13,056) claimed European ethnicity (Statistics New
Zealand, 2008a).5
Mean and median household income was obtained from special tabulations produced by Statistics New Zealand. There were no significant differences inthe regression results using either mean or median household income. All results are available from the first author upon request.
D. Grbic et al. / Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand
Note: D refers to the dissimilarity index and yPx refers to the exposure index. In the calculating the indices, all ethnic groups were treated as non-mutually
exclusive.
D. Grbic et al. / Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand
This study first examined the patterns of residential segregation, as measured by the indices of dissimilarity and expo-
sure, for the three ethnic minority groups, Asian, Maori, and Pacific people, from the majority European ethnic group be-
tween 1991 and 2006. We then examined how ecological context and measures derived from spatial assimilation theory
are associated with the patterns of segregation. Our results show that Pacific people continue to experience the highest levels
of segregation from Europeans among the three ethnic groups, particularly in the central Auckland region. On the other hand,
Asians and Maori experienced lower levels of segregation over time. The level of segregation decreased only slightly forMaori and Pacific people, but has gradually increased for the Asian population. The gradual increase of the national average
dissimilarity score and decrease of the national average exposure score for the Asian population were especially attributable
to an increase in the levels of segregation in the more populated territorial authorities, such as Auckland city.
While multivariate regression results show that for each of the three ethnic groups different sets of factors help explain
levels of segregation, the association between economic mobility and segregation was uniform for all three – the closer the
ethnic minority group’s mean household income to European’s mean household income, the lower the levels of segregation.
Supporting spatial assimilation theory, this result suggests that for all three groups comparable economic resources translate
into residential integration with Europeans. Also, the greater residential integration of immigrant populations across gener-
ations, as predicted by spatial assimilation theory, appears to best describe the pattern of residential location for the Asian
population – the higher the percent of Asians who are foreign-born, the higher the levels of segregation. On the other hand,
nativity has no association with the levels of Pacific people-European segregation. The lack of an association between nativ-
ity and segregation for Pacific people suggests that there are varied pathways to integration among Pacific people that re-
quire further examination.As for the ecological context, we found some support for hypotheses derived from previous research on Canada andthe U.S.
Both the labor and housing market play an important role in explaining the levels of segregation in New Zealand. For all three
ethnic minority groups, the percent employed in manufacturing andconstructionindustries increasesthe levels of segregation
fromEuropeans. ForMaori andPacificpeople,findingshere supportexisting researchthatshow a decreasein theaffordabilityof
state-owned housing has constrained residential mobility for low-income occupants (e.g., Cheer et al., 2002). Specifically, we
found the levels of segregation were higher in areas where there is a greater percent of rental dwellings that are state-owned.
There are two findings that are worth mentioning with regard to demographic factors relating to the Asian population.
First, the growth of the Asian population is found to be negatively associated with Asian-European segregation, contrary
to what was expected. This suggests that as New Zealand continues to receive immigration from Asia, the segregation of
the Asian population from Europeans may decline over time. Further research could examine whether this population
growth has had an impact on the levels of segregation between the Asian (e.g., Chinese) and Maori populations; thus adding
to research on the social distance between the indigenous and newcomer populations (e.g., Ip, 2003).
What was not tested in this study is the potential role of prejudice and discrimination on the patterns of segregation.While economic resources appear to facilitate residential integration, previous studies suggest that discrimination in the
housing and labor markets play a role in constraining residential mobility for ethnic minority groups (e.g., Bartley and
Spoonley, 2008; Ho and Bedford, 2008). In order to fully understand how ethnic groups are sorted across territorial author-
ities, future studies are needed to understand the effect that individuals’ preference to live with co-ethnics and the role of
ethnic/racial discrimination has on the patterns of residential location among ethnic groups.
The issue of multiple ethnicities was especially applicable to Maori since almost one half of Maori chose one or more addi-
tional ethnicities in 2006. While our multivariate results revealed only minor differences between Maori-only and all Maori,
past research has highlighted the importance of considering the heterogeneity within the Maori population when formulat-
ing social policy (Kukutai, 2004). Thus, future studies should further investigate the residential patterns of the Maori-only
population compared to those of the multiple-ethnicity Maori population, such as Maori-European.
Since the shift in the sources of immigration over the past few decades has posed significant challenges for intergroup
relations in New Zealand, more studies of the mechanisms explaining residential patterns among ethnic groups are needed.
An examination of these patterns is a fruitful approach to understanding how ethnic minority groups are integrating into amultiethnic society.
Appendix A
Socioeconomic characteristics of ethnic groups (%), 2006.
Total European Asian Maori Pacific people
Income and education
Personal income < $20,001 26.0 25.0 37.3 30.3 29.2
Personal income > $50,000 25.2 27.2 15.6 15.0 10.6
Post-high school education 25.3 25.5 37.2 13.1 10.6
Full-time study participation 10.6 8.9 26.4 12.9 15.3
(continued on next page)
D. Grbic et al. / Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand
Note: All data are for those aged 15 and over. Income data are for the ‘total employed’ population. Professional occupations include legislators, adminis-
trators, and managers; professionals; and technicians and associate professionals. Service occupations include Clerks, and Service and Sales Workers.
Secondary industries include trade workers; plant and machine operators and assemblers; and labors and elementary services workers.
Appendix B
Weighted regression results for ethnic minority group–European residential segregation (index of dissimilarity, all groups
mutually exclusive), 2006.
Maori-only Asian-only Pacific people-only
b se b se b se
Spatial assimilation theory
Minority-European income ratio 39.19 22.91 24.29* 9.87 52.93* 23.06
% Minority foreign-born na .92*** .20 .12 .51
Ecological context – structural
% Employed in manufacturing/construction .46 .34 .79** .26 1.61** .58
% Employed in retail/wholesale .74 .70 2.23*** .49 1.35 1.10
Average weighted dissimilarity index 36.67 32.53 58.43
Note: Results are weighted by ethnic minority group size. p < .10.* p < .05.**
p < .01.*** p < .001.
References
Alba, R.D., Logan, J.R., 1991. Variations on two themes: racial and ethnic patterns in the attainment of suburban residence. Demography 28, 431–
453.
Alba, R.D., Logan, J.R., Stults, B., Marzan, G., Zhang, W., 1999. Immigrant groups in the suburbs: a reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation.
American Sociological Review 64, 446–460.
Bartley, A., Spoonley, P., 2008. Intergenerational transnationalism: 1.5 generation Asian migrants in New Zealand. International Migration 46, 63–
84.
Bascand, G., 2007. Profile of New Zealander Responses, Ethnicity Question: 2006 Census. Statistics New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Bedford, R., Bedford, C., Ho, E., Lidgard, J., 2002. The globalisation of international migration in New Zealand: contribution to a debate. New Zealand
Population Review 28, 69–97.
Bedford, R., Heenan, L.D.B., 1987. The people of New Zealand: reflections on a revolution. In: Holland, P.G., Johnston, W.B. (Eds.), Southern Approaches:Geography in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographical Society, Christchurch, pp. 133–177.
12 D. Grbic et al. / Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003
7/23/2019 Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand
Callister, P., 2004a. Ethnicity measures, intermarriage and social policy. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 23, 109–140.
Callister, P., 2004b. Seeking an ethnic identity: is ‘‘New Zealander” a valid ethnic category? New Zealand Population Review 30, 5–22.
Charles, C.Z., 2003. The dynamics of racial residential segregation. Annual Review of Sociology 29, 167–207.
Cheer, T., Kearns, R., Murphy, L., 2002. Housing policy, poverty, and culture: ‘discounting’ decisions among Pacific peoples in Auckland, New Zealand.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 20, 497–516.
Cook, L., Didham, R., Khawaja, M., 1999. On the Demography of Pacific People in New Zealand. Statistics New Zealand, Wellington.
Crothers, C., 2003. Well-being and disparity in Tamaki-makaurau: report on the urban Mäori disparities research programme. New Zealand Population
Review 29, 111–129.
Davey, J.A., Kearns, R.A., 1994. Special needs versus the ‘level playing-field’: recent developments in housing policy for indigenous people in New Zealand.
Journal of Rural Studies 10, 73–82.
Farley, R., Frey, W.H., 1994. Changes in the segregation of whites from blacks during the 1980s: small steps toward a more integrated society. AmericanSociological Review 59, 23–45.
Fischer, C.S., 1975. Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American Journal of Sociology 80, 1319–1341.
Fleras, A., Spoonley, P., 1999. Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous Politics and Ethnic Relations in New Zealand. Oxford University Press, Auckland.
Fong, E., 1996. A comparative perspective on racial residential segregation: American and Canadian experiences. Sociological Quarterly 37,
199–226.
Fong, E., Wilkes, R., 1999. The spatial assimilation model reexamined: an assessment by Canadian data. International Migration Review 33, 594–620.
Fong, E., Wilkes, R., 2003. Racial and ethnic residential patterns in Canada. Sociological Forum 18, 577–602.
Freeman, L., 2002. Does spatial assimilation work for black immigrants in the US? Urban Studies 39, 1983–2003.
Gibson, K.D., 1983. Political economy and international labour migration: the case of Polynesians in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer 39,
29–42.
Harris, R., Tobias, M., Jeffreys, M., Waldegrave, K., Karlson, S., Nazroo, J., 2006. Effect of self-reported racial discrimination and deprivation on Maori health
and inequalities in New Zealand: cross-sectional study. Lancet 367, 2005–2009.
Ho, E., Bedford, R., 2006. The Chinese in Auckland: changing profiles in a more diverse society. In: Li, W. (Ed.), From Urban Enclave to Ethnic Suburb: New
Asian Communities in Pacific Rim Countries. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, pp. 203–230.
Ho, E., Bedford, R., 2008. Asian transnational families in New Zealand: dynamics and challenges. International Migration 46, 41–62.
Iceland, J., 2004. Beyond black and white metropolitan residential segregation in multi-ethnic America. Social Science Research 33, 248–271.
Iceland, J., Scopilliti, M., 2008. Immigrant residential segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1990–2000. Demography 45, 79–94.Iceland, J., Weinberg, D.H., Steinmetz, E., 2002. Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980–2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Series CENSR-
3. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Ip, M., 2003. Maori-Chinese encounters: indigine–immigrant interaction in New Zealand. Asian Studies Review 27, 227–252.
Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., Forrest, J., 2002. Rethinking the analysis of ethnic residential patterns: segregation, isolation, or concentration thresholds in
Auckland, New Zealand. Geographical Analysis 34, 245–261.
Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., Forrest, J., 2005. Ethnic residential segregation across an urban system: the Maori in New Zealand, 1991–2001. The Professional
Geographer 57, 115–129.
Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., Forrest, J., 2008. Asians, Pacific Islanders, and ethnoburbs in Auckland, New Zealand. Geographical Review 98, 214–241.
Knight, S., 1991. No Longer Available: A study of Racial Discrimination and Private Rental Accommodation. Race Relations Office, Auckland.
Kukutai, T., 2004. The problem of defining an ethnic group for public policy: who is Maori and why does it matter? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 23,
86–108.
Kukutai, T.H., 2007. White mothers, brown children: ethnic identification of Maori-European children in New Zealand. Journal of Marriage and Family 69,
1150–1161.
Langberg, M., Farley, R., 1985. Residential segregation of Asian Americans in 1980. Sociology and Social Research 70, 71–75.
Lieberson, S., 1981. An asymmetrical approach to segregation. In: Peach, C., Robinson, V., Smith, S. (Eds.), Ethnic Segregation in Cities. University of Georgia
Press, Athens, pp. 61–81.Liebler, C.A., Halpern-Manners, A., 2008. A practical approach to using multiple-race response data: a bridging method for public-use microdata.
Demography 45, 143–155.
Logan, J.R., 2006. Variations in immigrant incorporation in the neighborhoods of Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30, 485–
509.
Logan, J.R., Stults, B.J., Farley, R., 2004. Segregation of minorities in the metropolis: two decades of change. Demography 41, 1–22.
Macpherson, C., 1997. The Polynesian Diaspora: new communities and new questions. In: Sudo, K., Yoshida, S. (Eds.), Contemporary Migration in Oceania:
Diaspora and Network. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan.
Massey, D.S., 1985. Ethnic residential segregation: a theoretical synthesis and empirical review. Sociology and Social Research 69, 315–350.
Massey, D.S., Denton, N.A., 1988. The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces 67, 281–315.
Massey, D.S., White, M.J., Phua, V.-C., 1996. The dimensions of segregation revisited. Sociological Methods and Research 25, 172–206.
McIntosh, T., 2003. Kanohi ki te kanohi: face to face, local government and Maori. Research Paper No. 6, Local Partnerships and Governance Research Group,
University of Auckland, New Zealand.
McLintock, A.H., (Ed.), 1966. Te Ara: The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. Retrieved on March23, 2008 at <http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/1966/P/Population/en >.
Melenaite, T., Starks, D., Davis, K., Bell, A., 2002. Linguists and language maintenance. Pasifika languages in Manukau, New Zealand. Oceanic Linguistics 41,
15–27.
Morrison, P.S., 1995. The geography of rental housing and the restructuring of housing assistance in New Zealand. Housing Studies 10, 39–56.
Musterd, S., 2005. Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: levels, causes and effects. Journal of Urban Affairs 27, 331–348.Ongley, P., Pearson, D., 1995. Post-1945 international migration: New Zealand, Australia, and Canada compared. International Migration Review 29, 765–
793.
Peach, C., 1999. London and New York: contrasts in British and American models of segregation. International Journal of Population Geography 5, 319–351.
Perlmann, J., Waters, M.C. (Eds.), 2002. The New Race Question: How the Census Counts Multiracial Individuals. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Pool, I., 1960. A method for the social grading of areas. Pacific Viewpoint 1, 225–237.
Pool, I., 1991. Te Iwi Maori: A New Zealand Population, Past, Present and Projected. Auckland University Press, Auckland.
Pool, I., Baxendine, S., Cochrane, W., Lindop, J., 2005a. New Zealand regions, 1986–2001: population geography. Discussion Paper No. 54, Population Studies
Centre, University of Waikato.
Pool, I., Baxendine, S., Cochrane, W., Lindop, J., 2005b. New Zealand regions, 1986–2001: education and qualifications. Discussion Paper No. 56, Population
Studies Centre, University of Waikato.
Pool, I., Baxendine, S., Cochrane, W., Lindop, J., 2005c. New Zealand regions, 1986–2001: industries and occupations. Discussion Paper No. 59, Population
Studies Centre, University of Waikato.
Poulsen, M., Johnston, R., Forrest, J., 2000. Ethnic enclaves in New Zealand. International Journal of Population Geography 6, 325–347.
Simpson, L., 2004. Statistics of racial segregation: measures, evidence and policy. Urban Studies 41, 661–681.
Spoonley, P., 2006. A contemporary political economy of labour migration in New Zealand. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 97, 17–25.
Statistics New Zealand, 2004. New Zealand: A Rural/Urban Profile. Available from: <http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A2FDF8E9-32AD-487D-AEE7-
040F513EE777/0/NZUrbanRuralProfile2.pdf >.
D. Grbic et al./ Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009),
Statistics New Zealand, 2008a. New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings: Table Builder. Retrieved on various dates at: <http://www.stats.govt.nz/
products-and-services/table-builder >.
Statistics New Zealand, 2008b. Tourism and Migration 2007. Retrieved at: <http://www.stats.govt.nz/tables/tourism-and-migration-2007.htm >.
Thorns, D.C., 2000. Housing policy in the 1990s: New Zealand a decade of change. Housing Studies 15, 129–138.
Thrupp, M., 2007. School admission and the segregation of school intakes in New Zealand cities. Urban Studies 44, 1393–1404.
Timberlake, J.M., Iceland, J., 2007. Change in racial and ethnic residential inequality in American cities, 1970–2000. City & Community 6, 335–365.
Timms, D.G.W., 1971. The Urban Mosaic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
White, M., Fong, R., Cai, Q., 2003. The segregation of Asian-origin groups in the United States and Canada. Social Science Research 32, 148–167.
14 D. Grbic et al. / Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Grbic D et al Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand 1991–2006 Social Sci Res (2009)