Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand

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, 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),

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X






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


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



Auckland City

PapakuraDistrict

Franklin District

Manukau City

Waitakere City

Rodney District

North Shore City

0 105 MilesCentral Auckland Region

Territorial Authority

Fig. 1. Central Auckland region.

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

40.000

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 8

1 9 8 9

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

Year

N u m b e r o f A r r i v a l s

Pacific people UK & Ireland Traditional-Other

Asia Other

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


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



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.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



Regarding housing, findings for Canada and the U.S. showed that higher rates of new housing built is associated with low-

er levels of segregation for some ethnic groups (Fong and Wilkes, 2003; Logan et al., 2004). Specific to the New Zealand con-

text, significant changes to housing policy during the 1990s were brought about by economic reforms aimed at privatizing

many public sector resources. Studies show that there was a decrease in the affordability of state-owned housing designed to

assist the low-income population (Cheer et al., 2002; Morrison, 1995; Thorns, 2000). Cheer et al. (2002, p. 502) note that the

spatial clustering of low-income state-owned housing, the financial costs of moving, and the disruption to community social

networks meant that tenants faced significant constraints on their residential mobility.

The demographic characteristics of an areaalso shape patternsof residential segregation. These often include an area’s pop-

ulation size, theproportion of ethnic minoritypopulation, andthe growth rateof an ethnic minority population.Areas withlar-

ger populations tend to create greater structural differentiation and therefore larger cities tend to have greater residential

segregation(Fischer,1975). Researchon theU.S. hasshownhow theabsolute population sizeof a metropolitanarea is positively

associated withthe segregationof minoritygroupsfrom whites(Logan et al., 2004). Concerning thepresenceof ethnic minority

groups, Farley and Frey (1994) showed that the percent of the non-black minority population lowers the level of black-white

segregation. This suggests that the minority non-black population serves as a buffer in integrating blacks and whites.

As for the growth rate of a specific ethnic minority population, a higher growth rate may increase or decrease segregation

(Fong and Wilkes, 2003). New immigrants often utilize their social networks to decide their first residential location, which

may increase segregation from other ethnic groups. On the other hand, if existing ethnic neighborhoods are unable to accom-

modate new arrivals, then newcomers will move into areas adjacent to those neighborhoods that have smaller proportions

of residents who are of the same ethnicity. As a result, a higher growth rate may decrease segregation.

The applicability of factors found to be associated with residential segregation in Canada and the U.S. need to be exam-

ined for the New Zealand context. Therefore, we have drawn the following hypotheses.

Spatial assimilation theory

1. The closer an ethnic minority group’s income to European’s income, the lower the levels of segregation.

2. The higher the percent of foreign-born among an ethnic minority group, the higher the levels of segregation. This hypoth-

esis applies to Asians and Pacific people.

Ecological context

3. The higher the percent of individuals employed in manufacturing and construction industries, the higher the levels of

segregation.

4. The higher the percent of rental dwellings that are state-owned, the higher the levels of segregation.

5. The higher the population growth rate for a co-ethnic group, the higher the levels of segregation.

4. Data and methods

We use the 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006 New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings data. These data were obtained

from Statistics New Zealand’s online Table Builder program (Statistics New Zealand, 2008a) and special tabulations from Sta-

tistic New Zealand. The patterns of residential segregation for the three ethnic minority groups, Asian, Maori, and Pacific peo-

ple, from the majority European ethnic group are examined across territorial authorities (N = 73). Territorial authorities are

administrative units that cover the entire country, as shown in Fig. 3, and therefore include all individuals. We use area units

to examine the distribution of ethnic groups across neighborhoods within territorial authorities. Area units are non-admin-

istrative geographic areas. For all four census-years, each territorial authority contained an average of 26 area units. Statistics

New Zealand ensures that geographic boundaries for the first three census years are concordant with those for 2006.

We excluded territorial authorities with less than five area units, which reduced the number of territorial authorities from

73 to 68. Territorial authorities had an average population of 48,802, 50,590, 52,384, and 56,401 for each of the four years,

respectively. There are 1870 area units with an average of 1786, 1852, 1917, and 2064 people for each of the four years,

respectively. Since small group size can result in imprecise measures of segregation, for each ethnic minority group we se-

lected territorial authorities where the group’s population size was at least 10 times the number of area units within the

territorial authority (Fong and Wilkes, 2003; Langberg and Farley, 1985).

An alternative geographic boundaryto territorial authority is urban area, which wasdeveloped by Statistics New Zealand in

2001 in order to make a distinction between urban versus rural locations (Pool et al., 2005a; Statistics New Zealand, 2004). Ur-

banareas include 70 percent of the total area units and 83 percent of the country’s total population. Since there were no signif-

icant differences in our results for the segregation indices using either boundary classification, we use territorial authority for

this study. This is because the necessary data for multivariate analysis are readily available at the territorial authority level.

4.1. Segregation indices

We examine residential segregation using the indices of dissimilarity and exposure. The dissimilarity index measures the

segregation of one group from another across a territorial authority (Massey and Denton, 1988; Massey et al., 1996). The

index of dissimilarity is calculated as follows:


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



D ¼ 1=2X J j¼1

x j X

y jY

!100

where x j is the number of a ethnic minority group in an area unit j, y j is the number of Europeans in an area unit j, X is the

total number of a ethnic minority group in a territorial authority, Y is the total number of Europeans in a territorial authority,

and J is the number of area units in a territorial authority.

The value of the index of dissimilarity ranges from 0 to 100, and is interpreted as the percentage of a group that would

have to move from a neighborhood (area unit) to another in order to produce an even distribution of two groups within a

territorial authority. When the value of the dissimilarity index for a territorial authority equals zero, all area units in a ter-

ritorial authority would have the same composition of the two groups. For example, in a territorial authority where 15 per-

cent are Asian and 85 percent are European, the Asian-European index of dissimilarity would be 0 if all area units within the

territorial authority also contain 15 percent Asians and 85 percent Europeans. If, however, the two groups are unevenly dis-

tributed across the area units and the dissimilarity index equals to 35, then 35 percent of either group would have to transfer

from one area unit to another in order to produce an even distribution across all area units.

While the dissimilarity index is a measure of evenness, the exposure index measures the minority group’s potential con-

tact with the majority group (Lieberson, 1981; Massey and Denton, 1988, p.287). Unlike the dissimilarity index, the exposure

index takes into account the relative size of the minority and majority groups. For instance, although a minority group might

not be evenly distributed across a territorial authority, the minority group might also experience a high degree of exposure to

the majority group due to its relatively small population size. The exposure index is calculated as follows:

yP

x ¼X J j¼1

x j X

y jt j

!100

where x j, X , y j are the same as those for the dissimilarity index, and t j is the total population of area unit j. The index ranges

from 0 (complete isolation) to 100 (complete exposure) and can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn

member of ethnic minority group x share a neighborhood (area unit) with a member of the European group.

4.2. Multiple-ethnicity responses

Table 1 shows the ethnic composition of New Zealand’s population from 1991 to 2006. With the exception of 2006, the

publically available data do not permit us to separate individuals of single ethnicity (e.g., Maori only) from those of multiple

ethnicities (e.g., European and Maori). The first four columns show the percentages for non-mutually exclusive ethnic

groups, and therefore the total percent of the population exceeds 100. A unique aspect of the New Zealand context is the

relatively high percent of individuals claiming multiple ethnicities compared to the U.S., where only one in forty claimed

multiple races in the 2000 census (Lee and Bean, 2004). Those claiming multiple ethnicities in New Zealand increased from

Christchurch

Wellington

Dunedin

Hamilton

0 10050 Miles

Lower Hutt

Tauranga

North Island South Island

Central Auckland Region

Territorial Authority

Fig. 3. Territorial authority boundaries in New Zealand.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



four percent in 1991 to 10 percent in 2006. In fact, almost one half of Maori and one third of Pacific people claim at least one

additional ethnic affiliation (Callister, 2004a; Bascand, 2007; Kukutai, 2007).4

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.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



aggregate Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classifications. We include two variables for housing. The first is

the percent change in the total number of housing units between 2001 and 2006 in a territorial authority. Unfortunately, a

more direct measure for the percentage of new housing built was not readily available. The second housing variable is the

percent of rented occupied dwellings that are state-owned. This included dwellings owned by Housing Corporation of New

Zealand, a local authority or city council, or some other state-owned housing entity or government ministry.

Population size is measured as the log of total population residing in a territorial authority. Due to multicolinearity we

could not include variables for the percent of each ethnic minority group population in the regression analyses. We therefore

include a variable for ethnic minority representation measured as the percent of the non-European population in a territorial

authority. Ethnic minority population growth is calculated as the growth rate of the ethnic minority population between

2001 and 2006 (e.g., [[2006 Asian population 2001 Asian population]/2001 Asian population] 100). Finally, multi-ethnic-

ity is measured as the percent of individuals who have two or more ethnic affiliations.

4.4. Findings

The levels of ethnic minority group-European segregation over time are presented in Table 2. The first four columns show

the average dissimilarity and exposure indices for each ethnic minority group by year. The averages are weighted by ethnic

minority group size, and therefore the levels of segregation are those experienced by the average individual as opposed to

the segregation experienced by the average territorial authority. The bottom panel shows the number of territorial author-

ities included in the analysis for each group by year.

Pacific people is the most segregated group from Europeans with a dissimilarity score above 45 and an exposure

score below 60 between 1991 and 2006. The Maori dissimilarity score declined slightly from 30 to 27 between 1991

and 1996 and then remained at roughly 27 for the following decade. The exposure index, however, remained at roughly

71 between 1991 and 2001, and then declined to 61 in 2006. The Asian population is the least segregated from Euro-

peans, but the dissimilarity score increased from 24 in 1991 to 30 in 2006. A closer examination of the indices over time

shows that the gradual increase of the national average dissimilarity score for the Asian population can be attributed to

the more populated territorial authorities, such as Auckland city and Christchurch city (see Table 3). However, despite an

increase in the level of residential segregation in some territorial authorities, the Asian population continues to have a

high probability of interaction with Europeans due to the relatively small size of the Asian population, such as in Dun-

edin city in the South Island.

While the levels of segregation have increased for Asians over time, there has been a decrease in the Asian-European

exposure index. However, it should be noted that the decline in the exposure index between 2001 and 2006 is likely due

to a sudden decline in the proportion of Europeans as a result of the increase in the number of individuals claiming ‘New

Zealander’ ethnicity (Table 1). Therefore, a comparison of the exposure indices should be interpreted with caution since

the exposure index takes into account the relative size of a group.

Placing our results within a cross-national perspective, the levels of segregation are relatively low for all three groups

compared to the levels of segregation in the U.S. The dissimilarity indices for black-white, Hispanic-white, and Asian-

white segregation in the U.S. in 2000 were 65, 52, and 42, respectively (Logan et al., 2004). The levels of New Zealand’s

Table 2

Average weighted dissimilarity and exposure indices for territorial authorities, 1991–2006.

All ethnic groups non-mutually exclusive Mutually exclusive for European

1991 1996 2001 2006 2006

Dissimilarity indexMaori 30.2 26.6 27.6 26.6 29.7

Asian 23.8 24.7 27.3 29.8 30.8

Pacific people 48.1 45.4 47.7 46.9 51.0

New Zealander 6.0 5.7

Exposure index

Maori 70.8 74.1 71.1 61.3 50.5

Asian 77.4 76.0 70.1 56.5 49.2

Pacific people 56.5 58.4 52.1 43.7 34.3

New Zealander 72.5 64.7

Number of territorial authorities

Maori 68 68 68 68 68

Asian 46 57 58 61 61

Pacific people 43 53 53 58 58

New Zealander 68 68

Note: Averages for each index are weighted by ethnic minority group size. The category ‘New Zealander’ was only included in the 2006 census.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



minority-majority group segregation are roughly comparable to those in Canada where the dissimilarity indices for black-

white and Asian-white segregation in 1986 were 37 and 32, respectively (Fong, 1996).

We conducted two additional calculations specific to the year 2006: (1) segregation indices for the ‘New Zealander’

ethnic category and (2) segregation indices using a mutually exclusive category for Europeans while allowing ethnic

minority groups to be non-mutually exclusive. As discussed above, the 2006 census data provided a separate ‘New

Zealander’ ethnic group and therefore Table 2 includes the indices for New Zealander-European segregation. The dissim-

ilarity score was the lowest at just 6.0 while the exposure score was the highest at 73. This very low level of segregation

from the European population is consistent with the finding that the vast majority of ‘New Zealanders’ are Europeans

(Bascand, 2007).

The fifth column of Table 2 presents the dissimilarity scores using the mutually exclusive category for Europeans. Not

surprisingly, the levels of the dissimilarity index are higher and the levels of the exposure index are lower for all three ethnic

minority groups compared to those using non-mutually exclusive ethnic categories. In fact, a similar pattern was observed

using multiple-race responses for the 2000 U.S. census data (Iceland et al., 2002). Since the differences between the two ways

of treating multiple ethnicities were minimal, the dissimilarity index using the mutually exclusive category for Europeans is

used in the multivariate regression analyses.

In order to illustrate territorial authority-specific patterns, Table 3 shows the levels of segregation for the 10 largest ter-

ritorial authorities in 1991 and 2006. Both Maori and Pacific people were most segregated in Manukau city and Auckland city

(see Fig. 1 for map), as shown by the high dissimilarity scores and low exposure scores in 1991 and 2006. The Pacific people

dissimilarity score was 62, which is generally considered to be a high level of segregation (Charles, 2003; Massey and Den-

ton, 1988). From a cross-national perspective, this level of segregation is roughly equivalent to Bangladeshi-white segrega-

tion in London (Musterd, 2005) and Hispanic-white segregation in Los Angeles/Long Beach (Charles, 2003). Asians

experienced the highest levels of segregation in Dunedin (37) and Auckland city (35). These levels of segregation are roughly

equivalent to Asian-white segregation in Seattle/Bellevue/Everett in the U.S. (Charles, 2003) and minority-white segregation

in Amsterdam (Musterd, 2005).

Table 3

Dissimilarity and exposure indices for 10 territorial authorities with the largest populations, 1991–2006.

Total pop. 2006 % Pop. 2006 % Pop. growth 91–06 D 1991 D 2006 DD 91–06 yPx 1991 yPx 2006 D yPx 91–06

Asian

Auckland 93,519 24.4 271.6 23.0 34.8 11.7 70.8 47.6 23.2

Christchurch 26,637 7.9 329.6 24.1 33.4 9.4 92.1 71.1 21.0

Manukau 66,714 21.5 395.6 24.6 30.2 5.6 65.4 42.6 22.8

North Shore 37,209 18.6 581.9 24.9 30.9 6.0 89.6 61.8 27.8

Waitakere 28,320 16.2 413.9 23.1 29.2 6.0 76.3 52.8 23.4Wellington 22,851 13.2 89.7 22.7 23.5 0.8 79.9 67.0 12.9

Hamilton 13,050 10.6 318.3 17.0 23.9 6.9 83.6 63.5 20.0

Dunedin 6129 5.3 143.2 28.9 36.9 8.0 92.5 75.0 17.5

Tauranga 3435 3.4 464.0 19.3 16.5 2.7 88.3 74.4 13.9

Lower Hutt 8361 8.8 83.8 22.7 21.4 1.3 78.2 64.1 14.1

Maori

Auckland 29,838 7.8 9.6 34.8 31.4 3.5 64.0 49.3 14.7

Christchurch 25,725 7.6 62.9 27.9 21.9 6.0 90.5 74.5 15.9

Manukau 47,343 15.3 27.0 49.3 46.8 2.6 45.5 32.8 12.7

North Shore 12,528 6.3 48.1 25.8 24.5 1.3 88.1 66.3 21.8

Waitakere 22,881 13.1 47.7 23.4 20.8 2.6 76.0 56.7 19.2

Wellington 13,344 7.7 36.4 22.2 17.9 4.3 79.5 68.1 11.3

Hamilton 24,576 19.9 61.4 25.5 22.4 3.1 79.2 63.1 16.2

Dunedin 7359 6.4 59.9 17.3 14.8 2.5 93.3 78.4 14.9

Tauranga 16,578 16.5 86.1 25.9 18.9 7.0 83.2 71.5 11.7

Lower Hutt 16,284 17.1 40.2 32.2 29.7 2.5 74.0 60.3 13.7

Pacific people

Auckland 50,169 13.1 19.1 44.8 50.9 6.0 60.7 41.0 19.6

Christchurch 9462 2.8 79.5 40.6 37.0 3.6 88.5 72.1 16.4

Manukau 86,601 27.9 79.8 64.8 61.7 3.1 32.0 22.2 9.8

North Shore 6540 3.3 80.0 38.3 38.7 0.3 86.7 63.7 22.9

Waitakere 26,817 15.3 86.2 33.7 31.3 2.4 72.4 52.7 19.7

Wellington 8919 5.2 22.0 37.4 33.7 3.7 74.9 65.0 9.9

Hamilton 5145 4.2 145.4 26.7 26.3 0.4 79.2 62.0 17.1

Dunedin 2541 2.2 30.1 34.5 29.7 4.8 91.5 77.4 14.1

Tauranga 1848 1.8 219.2 26.4 21.3 5.1 85.2 72.2 13.0

Lower Hutt 10,098 10.6 56.8 39.4 37.6 1.7 71.3 56.6 14.8

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.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



4.5. Multivariate regression results

Table 4 presents the multivariate regression results for the 2006 data. The dependent variable is the index of dissimilarity

measured with the mutually exclusive category for Europeans while allowing ethnic minority groups to be non-mutually

exclusive. These results were weighted by ethnic minority group size. Since almost one in two Maori, one in three Pacific

people, and one in 10 Asians claim two or more ethnicities (see Table 1), regression analysis using a dissimilarity index

where both ethnic minority group and Europeans are mutually exclusive (e.g., Maori-only–European-only segregation) were

conducted. The results did not differ significantly from those results presented in Table 4 (please see Appendix B).

The regression results show that there are similarities and differences in the factors influencing the levels of segregation

among the three ethnic minority groups. Firstly, the results support spatial assimilation theory for all three ethnic minority

groups with respect to economic mobility. The ratio of an ethnic minority group’s mean household income to that of Euro-

pean’s is negatively associated with segregation, which suggests that an improvement in socioeconomic status leads to lower

levels of segregation. The results show that an increase in the income ratio of .1 is associated with a 5 point decrease in the

dissimilarity score for Maori and a roughly 4 point decrease in the dissimilarity score for both Asians and Pacific people.

The findings are mixed with respect to nativity. Spatial assimilation theory predicts groups of immigrant origin become

residentially integrated with the majority group across generations as they acculturate. The results here show that, indeed,

the percent of Asians who are foreign-born was positively associated with segregation. However, the percent of Pacific peo-

ple who are foreign-born was not associated with segregation, which suggests that, net of other factors, there are no differ-

ences in residential patterns between foreign- and native-born Pacific people.

The findings for the characteristics of a residential area show some support for the hypotheses stated earlier. For all three

ethnic minority groups, the percent employed in manufacturing and construction was positively associated with the level of

segregation. The percent employed in retail and wholesale sectors was negatively associated with segregation, but only for

Asians. As expected, the percent of rental dwellings that are state-owned was positively associated with the levels of segre-

gation for Maori and Pacific people. On the other hand, the percent increase in housing between 2001 and 2006 was asso-

ciated with a decrease in Pacific people-European segregation and an increase in Asian-European segregation. Although this

variable is a crude measure for percent increase in the construction of new housing, it does suggest that in territorial author-

ities where there was residential development in the five years prior to 2006 the levels of segregation decreased for Pacific

people but increased for Asians.

Contrary to what was expected, the population growth rate of the Asian population was negatively associated with Asian-

European segregation. This finding may be due to the heterogeneity within the Asian population, in terms of both immigra-

tion histories and patterns of residential settlement. For example, Chinese have been migrating to New Zealand for more

than a century while Koreans are one of the many immigrant groups who largely arrived after 1987. As Johnston et al.

(2008) suggest, Asian ethnic groups do not necessarily reside in close proximity to each other (e.g., Vietnamese and Koreans).

Therefore, the growth of the Asian population may not lead to increasing levels of segregation from Europeans. Finally, a high

percent of the ethnic minority population is positively associated with segregation for all three ethnic groups, but especially

for Maori and Pacific people.

Table 4

Weighted regression results for ethnic minority group–European residential segregation (index of dissimilarity), 2006.

Maori Asian Pacific people

b se b se b se


Minority-European income ratio 51.83* 20.69 39.14*** 9.87 36.49* 14.37

% Minority foreign-born na .37* .17 .48 .29

Ecological context – structural% Employed in manufacturing/construction .50 .28 .71** .23 1.17** .39

% Employed in retail/wholesale .62 .59 1.48** .50 .55 .73

% Rental dwellings state-owned .24 .14 .03 .14 .54** .17

% Growth in housing, 2001–2006 .05 .15 .22 .12 .50* .25

Ecological context – demographic

Population size (log) 1.36 1.44 1.04 1.26 .72 2.37

% All ethnic minority population .41** .15 .20 .10 .89*** .16

% Claiming multiple ethnicities .02 .30 .23 .27 .95* .43

% Growth of ethnic minority population, 2001–2006 .04 .09 .05 .03 .06 .05

Constant 19.85 25.18 32.14 20.41 24.91 23.68

Adjusted R2 .66 .66 .90

N 68 61 58

Note: Results are weighted by ethnic minority group size. p < .10.* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



5. Conclusion

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)


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



Table 1 (continued)

Total European Asian Maori Pacific people

Employment

Professional 43.6 44.7 45.4 31.4 27.4

Services 26.0 25.7 33.1 26.5 29.4

Agriculture/fisheries 6.9 7.5 2.4 6.9 2.6

Secondary industries 23.5 22.1 19.1 35.2 40.7Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unemployed 5.1 4.0 8.5 11.0 10.7

Source: Statistics New Zealand (2008a).

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


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

% Rental dwellings state-owned .25 .16 .05 .14 .68** .19

% Growth in housing, 2001–2006 .03 .18 .35** .13 .45 .33

Ecological context – demographic Population size (log) 2.95 1.78 1.78 1.24 .43 2.95

% All ethnic minority population .32 .16 .30** .10 .89** .26

% Claiming multiple ethnicities .06 .35 .54 .29 1.40* .64

% Growth of ethnic minority population, 2001–2006 .19 .18 .18** .05 .04 .05

Constant 4.12 27.45 20.84 24.64 63.80 42.28

Adjusted R2 .55 .64 .87

N 67 56 37

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.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003



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.

Lee, J., Bean, F.D.,2004. America’s changing colorlines: immigration, race/ethnicity, andmulticultural identification. Annual Review of Sociology30, 221–242.

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


doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003

http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/P/Population/en

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A2FDF8E9-32AD-487D-AEE7-040F513EE777/0/NZUrbanRuralProfile2.pdf




http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/P/Population/en



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.


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)

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/table-builder


http://www.stats.govt.nz/tables/tourism-and-migration-2007.htm

http://www.stats.govt.nz/tables/tourism-and-migration-2007.htm



Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand

Documents

Transcript of Ethnic Residential Segregation in New Zealand