natives opinions on ethnic residential segregation and ... · housing studies, 2016 natives’...
TRANSCRIPT
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=chos20
Download by: [81.224.176.121] Date: 23 August 2016, At: 13:37
Housing Studies
ISSN: 0267-3037 (Print) 1466-1810 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chos20
Natives’ opinions on ethnic residential segregationand neighbourhood diversity in Helsinki, Oslo andStockholm
Roger Andersson, Ingar Brattbakk & Mari Vaattovaara
To cite this article: Roger Andersson, Ingar Brattbakk & Mari Vaattovaara (2016): Natives’opinions on ethnic residential segregation and neighbourhood diversity in Helsinki, Oslo andStockholm, Housing Studies, DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2016.1219332
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2016.1219332
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup
Published online: 16 Aug 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 26
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Housing studies, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2016.1219332
Natives’ opinions on ethnic residential segregation and neighbourhood diversity in Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm
Roger Anderssona, Ingar Brattbakkb and Mari Vaattovaarac
ainstitute for Housing and urban Research (iBF), uppsala university, uppsala, sweden; bWork Research institute (WRi), oslo and Akershus university College of Applied sciences, oslo, norway; cdepartment of geography, university of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
ABSTRACTNordic countries rank high on measures indicating tolerant views on immigrants. Yet, ethnic residential segregation is stated as being a major social problem in these countries. Neighbourhood flight and avoidance behaviour among the native born could be a sign of less tolerant views on minorities, but could of course be restricted to native-born residents in areas of high-ethnic concentration. So far, no research in these countries has explicitly focused on the majority population’s view on segregation, and we know little about how native-born residents in different neighbourhood contexts view ethnic segregation or how own residential experience shapes decisions on staying or leaving; this paper aims to help fill this research lacuna. In a survey targeting 9000 native-born residents in three Nordic capital cities—stratified into neighbourhood movers and stayers and into neighbourhoods having different proportions of non-Nordic-born residents—we answer three questions: do native-born respondents prefer a neighbourhood ethnic mix? Do they see ethnic segregation as a problem? Do they prefer lower, current or higher shares of ethnic minorities in their own neighbourhoods?
Introduction
Ordinary residents collectively shape neighbourhood population mix and the future of segregation by taking decisions regarding where to move to and from. This is true for all residents, majority and minority people alike, but the behaviour of the former normally has a much greater impact on residential patterns: they are more numerous, have on average better information and more economic resources and can thus make freer residential choices. If majority populations judge the quality and characteristics of residential areas by taking their ethnic composition into account, for instance, by exercising flight or avoidance behaviour in relation to areas of immigrant concentration, segregation might be difficult to combat by means of urban and housing policy. This is one reason for our choice to approach native-born residents with questions concerning their opinions on ethnic residential segregation. Is it a problem, and if so, for whom? We think it is reasonable to assume that people’s views
KEYWORDSethnic segregation; majority population; opinions; Helsinki; oslo; stockholm
ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 4 september 2015 Accepted 8 July 2016
© 2016 the Author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group.this is an open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-nonCommercial-noderivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Roger Andersson [email protected]
OPEN ACCESS
2 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
on this issue are directly related to their own residential experience and to whether or not they prefer that neighbourhoods be ethnically mixed. Is it the case that natives who reside in immigrant-dense neighbourhoods are more pro-mix than those living elsewhere, or are they in fact dissatisfied with the actual level of minority residents in own neighbourhoods? This paper deals with these issues in the context of Nordic capital cities.
Neither of these questions has – as far as we can ascertain – been much researched in Europe and certainly not in northern Europe. Surveys carried out in some countries, such as by the Dutch Social and Cultural Planning Office (2004), repeated studies by Westin (e.g. 1984, 1987; Westin & Lange, 1993) and the Swedish Diversity Barometer (Mella & Palm, 2005) often include questions regarding tolerance for immigrant neighbours but do not analyse responses taking the respondents’ neighbourhood context into account. Until recently, existing research bringing in this local contextual dimension was heavily dominated by US experiences and focuses to a great extent on the black-white ethnic dichotomy (see, for instance, Farley et al., 1978, 1997). Later, attempts were made to broaden the perspective to include composition preferences in a multiethnic setting (see Zubrinsky Charles, 2000, for a study on Los Angeles), a situation at least to some extent more similar to the European one.
Besides surveying new aspects, we also intend to contribute to the research field of ethnic residential segregation, by focusing our attention not on ethnic minority residents but on the native-born majority. We share the position emphasized by Crowder et al. (2011, p. 41): ‘While scholarly attention continues to focus on immigrants’ residential attainment pro-cesses, we call for additional attention to native-born populations’ mobility reactions to these immigrant settlement patterns’. Some scholars choose to make such contributions by using register/census-based (Andersson, 2013; Kaufmann & Harris, 2015) or other secondary statistical sources (like the US panel data used by Crowder et al.), while the study presented here is based on a large-scale survey conducted in Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm. Three thousand native-born neighbourhood movers and stayers in child-rearing ages (25–50) were sampled from the population registers and targeted in each city by a jointly developed questionnaire sent out by respective statistical authorities in the three countries.
The following section presents some earlier findings concerning the role that neighbour-hood and segregation might have for people’s opinions and attitudes towards immigrants and neighbourhood diversity. The subsequent section outlines the empirical study with focus on sample design and data collection. Following that, we present results and deal with three main issues: whether or not respondents living in different diversity contexts prefer a neighbourhood ethnic mix, whether or not they see ethnic segregation as a prob-lem and whether they favour lower, current or higher shares of ethnic minorities in their own neighbourhoods. Most data are presented using descriptive techniques (tables and diagrams), but we employ multivariate regression models for estimating which individual and neighbourhood characteristics contribute to explaining differences in stated prefer-ences for the share of ethnic minority residents in one’s own neighbourhood. Section 5 summarizes the findings.
The role of neighbourhood in affecting attitudes, tolerance and trust
There is a long scholarly tradition, particularly based on intergroup contact reasoning, which theorizes the geography of tolerance. In American political science research on vot-ing, the term racial threat refers to the association between white people’s propensity to
HouSINg StuDIeS 3
vote for racial conservatives and the proportion of African-Americans living in their local area (Blalock, 1967; Key, 1949). This idea takes its point of departure in the fact that white racial attitudes and discriminatory behaviour are associated with the relative size of minority groups in a community. The idea that people’s social relations and behaviour are affected by racial/ethnic composition has much later taken centre stage in much of the ongoing social science research on social cohesion, trust and participation (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2000, 2002; Putnam, 2007), and it has been stated that ethnic diversity in communities and neighbourhoods undermines trust between people. In a series of papers (summarized in Uslaner, 2012), Uslaner argues that it is not diversity but social isolation produced by residential segregation that drives such results: ‘The problem is not diversity, but residential segregation. Living in segregated neighborhoods reinforces in-group trust at the expense of out-group (generalized) trust’ (p. 36).
In a recently published critical re-examination of Putnam’s study of diversity and trust, Abascal & Baldassari (2015) argue that his conclusion is a compositional artefact and that separate analyses need to be conducted according to ethnoracial groups. After having done so, they conclude: ‘Only for whites does living among outgroup members – not in diverse communities per se – negatively predict trust’ (p. 722). Other types of methodological criticism have also been launched in this Putnam-related debate, such as the Laurence & Bentley (2016) argument that cross-sectional research is inadequate if causal claims about the relationship are to be made. They call for a longitudinal test of the impact of diversity on social cohesion and attitudes towards neighbours, and they decompose residents along the stayer–mover dimension (see also Kaufmann & Harris, 2015). By splitting our respondents along the mover–stayer dimension (see next section), we are able to cast further light on this issue.
Reading the literature on attitudes towards ethnic minorities and some of the other partly related bodies of literature around issues of tolerance and trust, as well as literature on neighbourhood satisfaction, it is clear that the actual neighbourhood context of individuals matters, and so does ethnic residential segregation. In social psychology, Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact hypothesis has spurred hundreds of papers (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). It contends that intergroup contact typically diminishes intergroup prejudice. In a meta- analysis of more than 500 papers, Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) find that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower levels of intergroup prejudice, and in their 2008 follow-up paper they show that it is not so much increasing knowledge about the outgroup that matters, but rather reducing anxiety and increasing empathy that mediate the negative relationship between contact and prejudice.
In an attempt to reconcile the contradiction found in previous research, that is, that the contextual contact literature finds that increasing the proportion of minority residents brings out negative majority attitudes toward minorities while the personal contact liter-ature shows the reversed relationship, Stein et al. (2000) are able to identify a curvilinear relationship between the two dimensions: ‘Ironically, our findings suggest that the very conditions [increasing minority density] that give rise to white hostility toward minority group members set in motion a corrective for this hostility: inter-group contact’ (p. 299). For intergroup contact to occur, geographical proximity is necessary – be it in workplaces, neighbourhoods or elsewhere, where people may interact face to face.
Geographical proximity promotes intergroup contact, but it could also promote racial hostility. According to Quillian (1996), group threat theory proposes ‘that prejudice is in
4 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
part a response to feelings that certain prerogatives believed to belong to the dominant racial group are under threat by members of the subordinate group. The central idea is that attitudes toward the other race are influenced by individual fears that their own race will be put at systematic disadvantage to the other race – it is thus group threat toward the racial group, not individual threat, that this theory emphasizes as a source of racial hostility’ (Quillian, 1996, p. 820).
Our research is not aiming to measure majority intergroup attitudes toward minorities per se but people’s view on ethnic segregation and diverse neighbourhoods, and the share of immigrants in one’s own neighbourhood might of course correlate with such attitudes. Furthermore, we do not engage in studying the role of direct intergroup contact but rather in studying the role of context in the way discussed by Stein et al. (2000) and Quillian (1996).
The neighbourhood satisfaction literature provides some further guidelines for how we approached our research questions and designed our survey. This research shows that per-ceptions of housing and neighbourhood rather than ‘objective’ neighbourhood characteristics are keys for understanding whether people are satisfied or not and whether they tend to stay put or move away (Lu, 1999; Permentier et al., 2011). Whether dissatisfaction with neigh-bourhood ethnic composition is an issue in this respect is a relevant question, but evidence on the effect of ethnicity on neighbourhood satisfaction is certainly mixed. Some studies show that neighbourhood satisfaction is strongly related to ethnicity (Campbell et al., 1976; Lu, 1999), while other studies find no effect (Harris, 2001; Parkes et al., 2002). Some studies (see Ellen, 2000) conclude that growing ethnic minority presence in a neighbourhood is associated with perceptions of structural decline, making it difficult to know whether ethnic composition in itself drives migration decisions.
Drawing upon the notion of residential stress, Feijten & Van Ham (2009) studied whether neighbourhood change – including increasing presence of non-Western immigrants – in the Netherlands affected the probability that residents wished to leave their neighbour-hood. They found that ethnic change played a role, but the relationship turned statistically insignificant after they controlled for the residents’ subjective opinions about such change.
Existing research from the tolerance and social cohesion literature as well as from the neighbourhood satisfaction literature – albeit focusing on different issues and emanat-ing from different social science disciplines – agrees that segregation and neighbourhood composition play a role in shaping people’s experiences and perceptions, which in turn might affect residential sorting across neighbourhoods. We summarize our reading and preunderstanding of segregation in the Nordic context to generate a set of expectations concerning results from our own study. These relate to the three research questions stated in the introduction.
(1) Given the prominent position but negative connotations that ethnic residential segregation has in each Nordic country’s political and cultural debate (Andersson, R., et al., 2010), we expected that most of our native-born respondents in all three capital cities would regard ethnic segregation as a problem. We think it is natural to expect that people living in the most immigrant-dense neighbourhoods would regard the problem to be greater, not least because they would potentially face territorial stigmatization, that is, that their neighbourhood would have a bad reputation and be regarded as unattractive. Such a stigma would not only affect immigrants residing there, but native-born residents as well. Another reason for
HouSINg StuDIeS 5
hypothesizing this involves selection effects due to sorting: natives staying in immigrant-dense neighbourhoods tend to have individual characteristics that are often found to co-vary with less positive views on immigrants, that is, they have on average less education and lower income (Quillian, 1996). People having recently left an immigrant-dense area have neighbourhood experiences similar to those of the stayers, but studies analysing selective migration in Swedish neighbour-hoods show that out-movers have higher employment rates and higher incomes (Andersson & Bråmå, 2004; Andersson & Hedman, 2016). And while native avoidance behaviour gets support in housing mobility studies, native flight gets less support (Andersson 2013). We have no strong indication that the out-movers from immigrant-dense areas would have left simply because of a more critical view of diverse neighbourhoods, but our sample stratification design allows us to study this issue.
(2) It is likely the case that a person’s own exposure to immigrants affects his or her view on ethnic residential segregation. However, without good network data on interpersonal contacts, hypothesizing precisely how is difficult. If the Swedes’ overall more positive attitudes towards immigration and immigrants are due to higher exposure to immigrants, we would expect Swedes to be more posi-tive in relation to, for instance, neighbourhood ethnic mix. Analogous with this, we could expect respondents living in immigrant-dense neighbourhoods to be more favourable than others to neighbourhood ethnic mix. However, group threat theory and US studies focusing on the role of ethnic/racial context for attitudes toward minorities suggest the opposite outcome.
(3) We expect one’s own neighbourhood’s ethnic composition to affect not only one’s view on whether segregation is a problem but also whether one wishes to see changes in the neighbourhood’s ethnic composition. Drawing upon research on intergroup contextual contact, we find it reasonable to hypothesize that natives residing in the most immigrant-dense areas are more inclined to state that they prefer a lower share than those residing elsewhere. Whether this is a linear rela-tionship is also of great interest: is it that the ‘ethnic component’ (either directly, or indirectly if used as a proxy for structural problems; see Ellen, 2000; Laurence, 2016) only is relevant in areas having a very high share of immigrants, or is it rather that the proportion of respondents stating they would prefer fewer immigrants in their neighbourhood increases in a linear fashion from low- to high-density neighbourhoods? Is it the case that Helsinki – having low to modest immigrant density even in high density areas compared to Oslo and Stockholm – will come out very different in this regard? Based on the available literature, we had no clear preunderstanding of these relationships, but our tentative guess was that the reference point for most people is ‘normality’, and that normality is one’s own city.
Data collection and sample design
The surveys targeted native-born residents in child-rearing ages in the Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm regions. They were carried out as postal surveys, with an optional possibility for Helsinki respondents to respond online (web-based questionnaire). We found no differences
6 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
in the Helsinki material between those responding online and others. The questionnaires used in the three cities were more or less identical, but each research team could also add questions that seemed to be important in one context but maybe not in the other two. Questions were developed in English in the spring and summer of 2011, and they were later translated into the respective languages (Norwegian for Oslo, Swedish for Stockholm, and Finnish and Swedish for Helsinki, officially a bilingual city). The design of the ques-tionnaires was conducted in dialogue with the respective statistical authorities, which were also commissioned to carry out the following tasks.
(1) Identify the population and draw the sample from the complete population registry.
(2) Send out the questionnaires and reminders (three reminders for Helsinki and Stockholm; two for Oslo). At least one reminder contained a new questionnaire.
(3) Collect questionnaires and transform data into electronic form.(4) Add register data for each individual respondent.(5) Merge survey and register data into one single data file.(6) Carry out the non-response analysis and produce sample weights to be used in
the analyses.(7) Produce the technical report and deliver the completed data file.
Questionnaires were sent out in September 2011 (Helsinki and Stockholm) and October 2011 (Oslo). The collection of questionnaires went on until around Christmas (January for Oslo), and the final data-sets were delivered in January to March 2012.
Four strata
The sample design is defined by (a) movers versus stayers, and (b) the share of non-Nordic immigrants in the neighbourhood (i.e. the proportion born outside of the Nordic countries). The samples were drawn from four subpopulations (in the complete population registries) residing in each capital region 1 January 2008 and still living there at the time the sample was drawn (summer 2011). In all three cities, 750 native-born residents aged 25–50 in 2008 in each of the following four strata received the questionnaire:
Stratum 1: ‘Stayers’ in the most immigrant-dense neighbourhoods. This subpopulation lived in any of the neighbourhoods belonging to the upper decile in terms of percentage of non-Nordic born residents (equal number of neighbourhoods in each decile). We labelled these neighbourhoods ‘Decile 10 neighbourhoods’, and Stratum 1 residents were labelled Decile 10 stayers. People in this category had lived in the same Decile 10 neighbourhood during 2008 and 2009 (two years) and were still living there at the time of the survey.
Stratum 2: ‘Movers’ out of a Decile 10 neighbourhood. A mover was defined as a resi-dent who had lived in the same Decile 10 neighbourhood during 2008 and 2009 but had moved to another neighbourhood within the region in 2010 (and had not moved again thereafter). We labelled this subpopulation Decile 10 movers. A Decile 10 mover normally left this neighbourhood segment but could still be residing in high immigrant local density if moving into – for example – a Decile 9 neighbourhood.
Stratum 3: ‘Stayers’ in other types of neighbourhoods within the region (i.e. Decile 1 to 9 neighbourhoods). The basic definition of a stayer is the same as for Stratum 1. This category was labelled ‘Other stayers’.
HouSINg StuDIeS 7
Stratum 4: ‘Movers’ out of other neighbourhoods (i.e. Decile 1 to 9 neighbourhoods). We applied the same basic definition of a mover as for (2), and we labelled this category ‘Other movers’.
Table 1 shows some key data on the density of non-Nordic residents across deciles in the three cities. Although the overall immigrant density in the metropolitan region is highest in Stockholm, selection criteria differed with respect to whether second-generation immigrants were included (Oslo) or not (Helsinki and Stockholm) in the calculations. At the time of the study, Statistics Norway normally applied a wider definition of immigrants (including children of immigrants born in Norway) compared to Sweden and Finland but has recently changed into a more strict country of birth definition, The geographical definition also dif-fered somewhat. In Helsinki, the targeted population lived in three municipalities (Helsinki, Vantaa and Espo); in Stockholm we applied Stockholm County (26 municipalities) as our geographical delimitation, while in Oslo we used Oslo and 12 surrounding municipalities in the county of Akershus. Altogether, this resulted in a higher proportion of non-Nordic residents in Oslo, with a neighbourhood average of 19.3 per cent, compared with 13.8 per cent in Stockholm and 6 per cent in Helsinki.
In all cities, we furthermore excluded neighbourhoods having few residents (pop. under 500 in Oslo, 300 in Helsinki and 100 in Stockholm). The difference here has primarily to do with the size of the statistical areas, these being larger in Oslo (average size 5400 residents) and Helsinki (3900) compared to Stockholm (2100). When the questionnaires were sent out, it transpired that a few individuals in all three cities did not actually meet the basic criteria of being part of a subpopulation; they might have died, left the region or left the country. This ‘over-coverage’ reduces some of the samples somewhat; see Table 2.
As can be seen in Table 2, response rates were somewhat higher in Oslo than in Stockholm and Helsinki but we found response rates across the three cities and the four strata in each city to be acceptable, or even good by contemporary survey standards. We also have a good picture of the non-responses. To summarize: in all surveys, targeted participants in some categories are less inclined to respond. Broadly speaking, males, young people, people of low income and those having a low level of education have lower response rates than their
Table 1. Proportion of non-nordic residents in neighbourhoods in Helsinki, oslo and stockholm.a
athe oslo values include second-generation immigrants, while Helsinki and stockholm values are based on country of birth (first generation only). As a rule of thumb, the proportion of immigrants born in Africa and in Muslim countries increases in all three cities as the proportion non-nordic residents grow.
Abbreviations: n’hood – neighbourhood; std. dev. – standard deviation.
Deciles of per cent non-Nordic in n’hoods Helsinki oslo Stockholm10 10.9–20.9 39.4–64.2 24.3–66.79 8.3–10.8 27.0–39.0 17.5–23.98 7.0 –8.3 21.0–26.5 13.0–17.47 5.9–7.0 17.1–20.6 11.1–13.06 5.0–5.8 14.2–16.9 9.5–11.15 4.4–5.0 12.5–14.1 8.0–9.54 3.6–4.4 10.8–12.4 6.7–8.03 3.2–3.6 9.6–10.8 5.5–6.62 2.5–3.2 8.3–9.4 4.2–5.51 0.5–2.5 5.2–8.3 1.3–4.1n’hood mean 6.0 19.3 13.8n’hood median 5.0 14.1 9.5std. dev. 3.6 13.2 14.6N 243 184 816
8 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
demographic and socioeconomic opposites. This was the case in this survey, and such differences also explain most of the differences in response rates across the four strata in each city. The order for Helsinki and Stockholm was that ‘Other stayers’ had the highest response rate, followed by ‘Other movers’, ‘Decile 10 movers’ and finally, ‘Decile 10 stayers’. Oslo showed the highest response rates for the two stayer categories.
We mentioned above that the statistical authorities carrying out the data collection also added register data to the respondent files. We therefore did not have to ask about the respondents’ age, gender, family type, income and education (education was not included for Stockholm). In the Stockholm and Oslo cases, we also had the specific neighbourhood codes for 2008 to 2011, which made it possible to add other neighbourhood characteristics in the multivariate models for these two cities. When responding to the questionnaire, the participants agreed to register information being used in the analyses.
For most parts of the following data analyses we kept the three data-sets apart, carrying out identical but separate analyses for each city. However, to make full use of the comparative potential, we merged the three data-sets into one when carrying out one final multivariate analysis. The unweighted combined material comprises 4276 respondents. They represent more than 900 000 Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm residents in the selected age group. We used the city-specific post-stratified weights provided by the statistical authorities (taking account of differences in response rates), and when applying these in descriptive analyses reported in tables and figures, there is no need to present confidence intervals (very narrow confidence spans).
Table 2. subpopulations, sample size and response rates for the survey.
Abbreviation: n’hood – neighbourhood.
City
Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Stratum 4
totalDecile 10 n’hood stayers Decile 10 movers other stayers other movers
Oslo
Population 14 728 2931 2 03 199 33 954 2 54 812original sample 750 750 750 750 3000over-coverage 0 2 0 0 2net sample 750 748 750 750 2998Responses 409 362 410 385 1566Response rate 54.4 48.4 54.7 51.3 52.2
Helsinki
Population 29 102 2909 1 95 195 20 490 2 47 696original sample 750 750 750 750 3000over-coverage 1 3 0 1 5net sample 749 747 750 749 2.995Responses 309 335 350 345 1339Response rate 41.2 44.7 46.7 46.0 44.6
Stockholm
Population 24 826 346 3 51 158 37 794 4 17 238original sample 750 750 750 750 3000over-coverage 2 5 1 4 12net sample 748 745 749 746 2.988Responses 298 321 396 356 1371Response rate 39.8 43.1 52.9 47.7 45.9
HouSINg StuDIeS 9
Key features of neighbourhoods in the three cities
It is far beyond the scope of this paper to give a comprehensive account of the historical and geographical dimensions of immigration and housing development in the three cities under study. Other parts of our comparative Nordic project provide such overviews (see, for example, country overviews in Andersson, R., et al., 2010; Skifter Andersen et al., 2016; Wessel et al., 2016). This section provides some basic data concerning the demographic and socio-economic structure of neighbourhoods having different proportions of non-Nordic immigrants.
As can be seen in Table 3, Helsinki has the lowest proportion of non-Nordic residents but also experienced the highest relative increase in the 2000s (comprising in particular immigrants from Russia, Estonia and Somalia), a fact that has triggered substantial interest among politicians and planners regarding the development of ethnic residential segregation. Such an interest has a longer history in Oslo (where the largest non-Nordic countries of origin are Poland, Lithuania, Pakistan, Somalia and Iraq), and especially in Stockholm (the largest groups being from Iraq, Poland, Iran, Turkey and Chile). Both these cities have also experienced substantial growth in the non-Nordic population and have launched area-based urban programmes with the aim to combat segregation and make immigrant-dense areas more attractive (Andersson 2006; Andersson, R., et al., 2010; Ruud et al., 2011).
Stockholm has the biggest difference between low and high immigrant-dense areas: while the Deciles 1–3 versus Decile 10 mean proportion is around 1 to 5 in Oslo and Helsinki, it is more than 1 to 8 in Stockholm. It should also be noted that the composi-tion of non-Nordic residents in neighbourhoods changes in all three cities as the overall proportion of non-Nordic residents increases. A higher proportion of non-Nordic popu-lation typically means an even higher concentration of people originating in Muslim and African countries. This reflects an ethnic hierarchy in majority attitudes, labour market status and housing conditions, where those population segments run a much higher risk of being stigmatized and discriminated against. It could also be added that the variety of ethnic groups is high in Decile 10 neighbourhoods in all three cities (‘multi-cultural’) but due to fewer migrant groups represented in Helsinki, variety is less in this city. In all three cities, the most immigrant-dense areas have a very high proportion of children aged 0–17 with non-Nordic background, a fact that certainly indicates that school-related issues are an integrated part of the ethnic segregation debate in the cities (Andersson, E., et al., 2010; Trumberg, 2011). The proportion of highly educated residents (15 years or more of schooling) is generally higher in Oslo and Helsinki, but in each city the proportion is much lower in the Decile 10 neighbourhoods. It is normally the case that especially natives living in immigrant-dense areas have on average a low level of education. Finally, there are big differences between the cities when it comes to housing tenure structures. While Oslo, including the Decile 10 neighbourhoods, is heavily dominated by market-priced housing (ownership and cooperative housing), rental housing and especially social/public housing, is a key characteristic of immigrant-dense neighbourhoods in Stockholm and Helsinki. It is reasonable to expect these housing tenure differences to affect how residents view ethnic mix in neighbourhoods. Other studies have confirmed that owners are more sensitive to changes in ethnic composition and that they, earlier than renters, tend to exercise flight and avoidance behaviour in relation to increasing proportions of ethnic minorities (Bråmå, 2006; Ellen, 1997; Goering, 1978).
10 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
Tabl
e 3.
ove
rvie
w o
f nei
ghbo
urho
od g
roup
cha
ract
eris
tics
in o
slo,
sto
ckho
lm a
nd H
elsi
nki (
grou
ps a
ccor
ding
to d
ecile
s of
nei
ghbo
urho
ods
base
d on
the
prop
ortio
n of
non
-nor
dic
resi
dent
s).
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 1
to 3
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 4
to 6
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 7
to 9
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 1
0to
tal
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 1
to 9
Mea
nM
ean
Mea
nM
ean
Mea
nSt
d. d
ev.
Mea
nSt
d. d
ev.
Oslo
Aver
age
popu
latio
n44
0050
0457
2159
7051
2920
199
5038
20 4
53%
non
-nor
dic
pop
in n
’hoo
d (o
nly
1st g
ener
atio
n)9.
012
.722
.145
.917
.611
.314
.66.
4%
Chan
ge in
non
-nor
dic
pop
2000
to 2
008
72.0
61.2
60.8
65.1
64.7
42.0
64.7
42.8
%n
on-n
ordi
c ch
ildre
n ag
e 0
to 1
710
.414
.831
.163
.023
.016
.818
.710
.6%
Hig
h ed
ucat
ion
36.9
45.4
39.5
21.9
38.8
13.1
40.6
12.3
%Lo
w e
duca
tion
22.6
18.4
22.4
35.4
22.5
7.7
21.1
6.5
%Pu
blic
rent
al h
ousi
ng1.
91.
95.
66.
43.
54.
13.
13.
7%
tota
l ren
tal
13.3
15.8
26.9
20.8
18.8
10.9
18.6
10.7
%H
omeo
wne
rshi
p77
.468
.340
.030
.858
.926
.162
24.8
%Co
oper
ativ
e ho
usin
g9.
215
.832
.747
.922
.023
.319
.221
.3
Stockholm
Aver
age
popu
latio
n12
4326
3928
1042
4824
2627
718
2225
2 60
930
%n
on-n
ordi
c po
p in
n’h
ood
(onl
y 1s
t gen
erat
ion)
4.6
8.8
15.8
39.0
12.6
10.6
9.7
5.22
%Ch
ange
in n
on-n
ordi
c po
p 20
00 to
200
836
.936
.245
.640
.839
.662
.039
.564
.57
%n
on-n
ordi
c ch
ildre
n ag
e 0
to 1
73.
68.
320
.362
.315
.918
.610
.79.
45%
Hig
h ed
ucat
ion
22.0
30.6
25.5
15.4
24.9
12.3
26.0
12.3
0%
Low
edu
catio
n40
.830
.035
.850
.937
.113
.635
.613
.04
%Pu
blic
rent
al h
ousi
ng1.
06.
516
.843
.011
.521
.78.
016
.88
%to
tal r
enta
l3.
014
.634
.261
.721
.528
.717
.124
.28
%H
omeo
wne
rshi
p90
.960
.228
.612
.955
.641
.760
.340
.26
%Co
oper
ativ
e ho
usin
g6.
125
.237
.225
.422
.928
.222
.628
.02
Helsin
ki
Aver
age
popu
latio
n23
4641
5348
4260
8740
1332
155
3775
31 7
30%
non
-nor
dic
pop
in n
’hoo
d (o
nly
1st g
ener
atio
n)2.
84.
77.
814
.46.
03.
65.
12.
20%
Chan
ge in
non
-nor
dic
pop
1999
to 2
010
125.
611
8.4
118.
610
6.9
118.
910
1.5
120.
610
7.27
%n
on-n
ordi
c ch
ildre
n ag
e 0
to 1
72.
14.
610
.723
.17.
57.
25.
84.
72%
Hig
h ed
ucat
ion
48.2
45.8
37.3
25.8
41.8
11.9
43.7
10.9
2%
Low
edu
catio
n17
.717
.922
.732
.720
.96.
819
.55.
47
(Con
tinued)
HouSINg StuDIeS 11
a the
Finn
ish
data
refe
r eith
er to
the
year
200
8 (e
nd o
f yea
r 200
7 si
tuat
ion)
or r
esid
ency
31
dec
embe
r 200
7 (c
hang
e in
non
-nor
dic
popu
latio
n ha
s be
en c
alcu
late
d fr
om 3
1 d
ecem
ber 1
999
to 3
1 d
ecem
ber 2
010)
.n
otes
: All
perc
enta
ges a
re c
alcu
late
d w
ith to
tal p
opul
atio
n in
nei
ghbo
urho
od a
s a b
asis
, or p
eopl
e ag
ed 2
0 to
64
(edu
catio
n, w
ork)
, and
peo
ple
over
15
(inco
me)
.st
uden
t cam
puse
s of V
iikin
tied
epui
sto
and
ota
niem
i, an
d al
l nei
ghbo
urho
ods w
ith le
ss th
an 3
00 re
side
nts (
31 d
ecem
ber 2
007)
hav
e be
en e
xclu
ded
from
the
tabl
e.
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 1
to 3
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 4
to 6
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 7
to 9
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 1
0to
tal
Non
-Nor
dic
deci
le 1
to 9
Mea
nM
ean
Mea
nM
ean
Mea
nSt
d. d
ev.
Mea
nSt
d. d
ev.
%Pu
blic
rent
al h
ousi
ng6.
814
.028
.541
.919
.017
.416
.415
.95
%to
tal r
enta
l17
.030
.345
.653
.233
.218
.630
.918
.08
%H
omeo
wne
rshi
p72
.358
.642
.638
.655
.919
.657
.919
.48
%Co
oper
ativ
e ho
usin
g1.
72.
44.
14.
52.
95.
32.
75.
09
Tabl
e 3.
(Continued)
.
12 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
Results
Do native residents prefer neighbourhood ethnic mix?
In Stockholm, two-thirds of all respondents stated that they completely agree or agree to some extent with this proposition. The corresponding proportion for Helsinki is 43 per cent and for Oslo 53 per cent. The differences between the four basic strata within the cities are small, so at least when not controlling for other individual attributes, the pref-erences for ethnically mixed neighbourhoods seem not to depend much on people’s own residential context. This is apparent also if we apply more precise ethnic information to the respondents’ current neighbourhoods (i.e. post-migration for the two mover strata). Figure 1 shows the percentage stating a preference for ethnic mix by city and current (2011) neighbourhood decile of the proportion of non-Nordic residents. Firstly, the chart could be read as an illustration of the fact that Swedes (Stockholmers) in general report more positive attitudes towards immigrants and ethnic minorities. The proportion agreeing that ethnic mix is positive was higher in Stockholm in each of the 10 deciles, but the discrep-ancy is most pronounced in the bottom decile segments, that is, among those that reside in high-density ‘native areas’. Secondly, in Helsinki, less than half of the respondents seem to be pro-ethnic mix.
Thirdly, in Oslo we discern a tendency for the ethnic mix idea to get somewhat more support in higher immigrant density than in low immigrant density neighbourhoods. Expressed in another way but without arguing direction of causality: Oslo residents having
Figure 1. Proportion (in per cent) of residents stating a preference for ethnic mix in their neighbourhood (by current non-nordic immigrant density in neighbourhood). neighbourhood ethnic diversity increases from left to right.
Table 4. Proportion of respondents per city that state different combinations of attitudes towards ethnic mix and willingness to live close to certain ethnic groups.
Helsinki oslo Stockholm
Agree that certain groups
should be avoided
Agree that certain groups
should be avoided
Agree that certain groups
should be avoided
Yes No total Yes No total Yes No totalPrefer ethnic mix Yes 16.4 26.7 43.1 14.4 32.3 46.7 17.2 49.5 66.8
no 44.2 12.7 56.9 37.2 16.1 53.3 19.9 13.3 33.2total 60.6 39.4 100 51.6 48.4 100 37.1 62.8 100
HouSINg StuDIeS 13
more experience of immigrants in their own neighbourhoods are more inclined to voice pro-ethnic-mix attitudes.
Even though the preference for neighbourhood ethnic mix seems to be widespread in Stockholm and is relatively common also in the other cities, many respondents also state that they prefer not to live close to certain ethnic groups. Here also, more – in fact a majority – of the Helsinki (61 per cent) and Oslo (53 per cent) respondents state this preference, while in Stockholm the proportion is below 40 per cent. In Table 4 we have combined this information by cross-tabulating statements concerning ethnic mix in neighbourhoods with the expressed reluctance to live close to certain minority groups. The relation between the cities is that Stockholm respondents are more likely than Helsinki respondents to favour a mix and to show tolerance of all groups. Oslo has an in-between position in this regard.
Is ethnic residential segregation a problem or not and for whom?
Is ethnic segregation a problem? We asked our respondents their opinions on this issue. Table 5 shows clearly that an overwhelming majority of native Oslo and Stockholm respond-ents found ethnic residential segregation to be a problem, and a problem for natives as well as immigrants. The Helsinki outcome is slightly different, but very few stated that it is no problem or that they do not know whether it is a problem. For Oslo and Stockholm residents, the ‘two-sided problem’ opinion was slightly more common among those having left the most immigrant-dense areas (Stratum 2) than it was among the stayers in immigrant-dense
Table 5. is ethnic residential segregation a problem? Answers by city and stratum.
Abbreviation: deC – decile.
Is ethnic residential segregation a problem?DeC10 stayers
DeC10 movers
DeC1–9 stayers
DeC1–9 movers total
Helsinki
no 4.8 4.5 4.0 4.9 4.2Yes, a problem for immigrants 1.1 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.6Yes, a problem for Finns, but not for immigrants 12.4 11.0 6.9 4.0 7.4Yes, a problem for both groups 36.1 36.8 36.1 38.9 36.4sometimes a problem, sometimes not 40.2 39.6 43.2 41.8 42.7do not know 5.5 5.5 6.9 8.2 6.9total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oslo
no 3.6 2.8 2.8 4.8 3.0Yes, a problem for immigrants 5.4 4.0 5.6 7.2 5.7Yes, a problem for norwegians, but not for
immigrants7.8 4.0 4.7 3.4 4.8
Yes, a problem for both groups 59.7 64.1 58.0 56.1 58.0sometimes a problem, sometimes not 18.2 21.3 22.4 22.4 22.2do not know 5.3 3.7 6.5 6.2 6.4total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Stockholm
no 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.7 4.0Yes, a problem for immigrants 6.0 5.9 4.5 4.3 4.5Yes, a problem for swedes but not for immi-
grants5.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.7
Yes, a problem for both groups 48.8 55.9 59.7 61.6 59.2sometimes a problem, sometimes not 28.3 28.4 24.4 26.2 24.8do not know 6.9 4.8 5.9 2.7 5.7total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
14 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
areas. In all three cities, it was the case that stayers in the immigrant-dense neighbourhoods (‘Decile 10 stayers’) more often stated that ethnic segregation is a problem for natives. We cannot be sure this is not a result of selection of residents, but this tentatively confirms our
0102030405060708090
100
Percentage wantinghigher share
Percentage wantingcurrent share
Percentage wantinglower share
Not important or donot know
HelsinkiDEC10 stayers DEC10 movers DEC1-9 stayers DEC1-9 movers
0102030405060708090
100
Percentage wantinghigher share
Percentage wantingcurrent share
Percentage wantinglower share
Not important or donot know
OsloDEC10 stayers DEC10 movers DEC1-9 stayers DEC1-9 movers
0102030405060708090
100
Percentage wantinghigher share
Percentage wantingcurrent share
Percentage wantinglower share
Not important or donot know
StockholmDEC10 stayers DEC10 movers DEC1-9 stayers DEC1-9 movers
Figure 2. Respondents according to subsample who prefer higher, lower or current share of immigrants in neighbourhood.note: deC = decile.
HouSINg StuDIeS 15
expectation that people’s own local experience affects their views on segregation, including informing the way they perceive for whom it is a problem.
Most of the segregation discussion in the media tends to focus attention on specific city districts and neighbourhoods, that is, localizing the segregation issue to particular areas and disregarding the fact that spatial concentration of a particular group is possible only if other areas have less representation of the same group. The focus on ‘immigrant-dense neighbourhoods’ is also produced by actual policies. It is common for central governments and municipalities to launch area-based urban policies, a type of intervention that most often targets precisely these types of neighbourhoods (see Andersson, 2006; Andersson &
(a)
(b)
(b)
Figure 3. Respondents according to current neighbourhood immigrant density who would prefer higher, lower or current share of immigrants in neighbourhood.
16 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
Musterd, 2005). It is therefore not surprising that around one out of four respondents in Stockholm, one out of five in Oslo and two out of five in Helsinki mentioned this aspect when asked about segregation as a problem (‘segregation a problem in some areas but not in others’). One possible explanation for the high share in Helsinki could be that ethnic minorities are more concentrated-albeit at lower levels of concentration – in Helsinki (fewer areas connected to the notion of immigrant-dense areas) and that more people therefore tend to localize the phenomenon.
Are people satisfied with own neighbourhood’s ethnic composition?
Expressing a preference for a lower share of immigrants is the plurality category only for those residing in a Decile 10 neighbourhood. Overall, Oslo residents voiced more concern over the immigrant presence in their own neighbourhoods, and this was especially true of those living in Decile 10 neighbourhoods (see Figure 2). Two out of three (66 per cent) of these residents stated they would prefer lower immigrant presence in their neighbour-hood. The corresponding value for Stockholm Decile 10 residents was 47 per cent and for Helsinki 41 per cent. Furthermore, in Stockholm a relatively big proportion of non-Decile 10 respondents declared that they would prefer a higher share, and although most said they preferred the current level, many more stated higher compared to lower. In Oslo, and even more clearly in Helsinki, those wanting a higher proportion of immigrants were less common among our respondents.
It is important to note that the stated preference of Decile 10 movers should be seen in relation to the post-migration situation (i.e. when responding to this question most no longer lived in a Decile 10 neighbourhood). We have therefore calculated also the immi-grant density of the respondents’ current (2011) neighbourhood, and in analogy with the definition of our samples, we have re-sorted them into their current non-Nordic deciles. Figure 3(a)–(c) displays the proportion of people by current decile position who preferred lower, current and higher presence of immigrants in their neighbourhood.
A couple of clear messages emerge from Figure 3. Most respondents preferred the current share of immigrants, irrespective of their own current neighbourhood context. There was, however, one exception, and that was those residing in a Decile 10 neighbourhood. Here, the plurality category comprises those preferring a lower share. Furthermore, the proportion of respondents wanting to see a higher share is inversely related to immigrant density: The higher the proportion of immigrants, the lower the proportion of respondents wanting a higher share. Finally, and not least notable, there seems to exist a threshold over which the proportion of respondents stating a preference for a lower share of immigrants starts to increase rapidly. That threshold is around the 7th decile in Stockholm, and the 8th decile in Helsinki and Oslo. In all three cities, this breakpoint is around the city average level of percentage of non-Nordic immigrants (see Table 1), confirming our tentative expectation that one’s frame of reference is the normality of one’s own city.
It seems obvious that the view on immigrant density is context dependent, confirming not only the general relevance of the intergroup contextual contact theory but also the need to acknowledge intercity variations in proportion of immigrants. Not only does the actual level of immigrant presence affect people’s preferences but it is also the case that the profiles across the three cities seem to vary much less than one might expect. While, for example, Decile 8 means about 7 to 8 per cent non-Nordic immigrants in a Helsinki neighbourhood
HouSINg StuDIeS 17
(see Table 1), it means twice as many in Stockholm and (including second generation) three times as many in Oslo. Still, about 20 per cent of the Decile 8 respondents in all three cities stated that they want to see a lower share of immigrants in their neighbourhood. We believe this to be an important result. People seem to view low and high shares in relation to the city context. A high level by Helsinki standards therefore triggers similar sentiments and opinions regarding immigrant density as it does in Oslo and Stockholm. Increasing the share of immigrants in Helsinki or lowering the share in Oslo and Stockholm will probably not affect this preference structure.
Multivariate modellingOf course, a person’s neighbourhood context is but one of many factors that may affect his or her view regarding lower/higher share of immigrants in one’s own neighbourhood. The literature referred to earlier in this paper suggests that social background influences people’s perceptions of immigrants; residents with high social and economic capital can be expected to be more tolerant, irrespective of their neighbourhood location. To get a clearer picture of such more complex associations, we have modelled one of the preferred alterations in neighbourhood composition stated by the respondents: those wanting a lower share of immigrants in their neighbourhood.
We employed a set of control variables intended to capture variations in demographic attributes (gender, age and household composition) and socio-economic attributes (income and employment), as well as the individuals’ current neighbourhood context and tenure. Our primary contextual variable of interest was the proportion of non-Nordic residents in one’s own neighbourhood, but for Oslo and Stockholm we included three other (but partly dif-ferent) contextual control variables: proportion employed/unemployed, proportion highly educated and income (proportion low or mean values). We also add some self-reported data (on the respondent’s view on safety, his/her social interactions with neighbours and participation in neighbourhood work/associations). US studies have repeatedly reported on and confirmed the close relationship between real or perceived feelings of safety and a neighbourhood’s racial and ethnic composition (Emerson et al., 2001; Quillian & Pager, 2001; Sampson & Raudenbusch, 2004). Research on participation in relation to European large housing estates – which in the Nordic context often means high levels of non-native-born residents – finds that differences in local activity levels have national, neighbourhood and individual determinants and that this could affect people’s views on issues related to neighbourhood satisfaction (Dekker & Van Kempen, 2008; Dekker et al., 2011).
Table 6 displays the mean and standard deviation values per city for all variables included in the regression model. The model was run both in SPSS, using the Complex Sample logistic regression option with city-scaled post-stratified weights as the plan scheme, and in Stata, using logistic regression with robust standard errors clustered on neighbourhoods. Results were very similar, and we report the Stata output.
The descriptives presented in Table 6 show that variations across the cities were relatively small for most variables, but some deviations from this pattern should be noted. Families with children made up a bigger share of the Stockholm population, people with high income composed a bigger share in Oslo and Helsinki compared to Stockholm and renters were few in Oslo. With respect to the self-reported statements, participating in neighbourhood work, speaking with neighbours and reporting neighbourhood safety concerns were of similar magnitude across the cities, while visiting neighbours on a regular basis seemed
18 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
Tabl
e 6.
des
crip
tives
of v
aria
bles
use
d in
the
logi
stic
regr
essi
on m
odel
.
Des
crip
tives
, pos
t-st
ratifi
ed w
eigh
ts
Stoc
khol
mo
slo
Hel
sink
ito
tal
Inde
pend
ent v
aria
ble
Mea
nN
Std.
de
v.M
ean
NSt
d.
dev.
Mea
nN
Std.
dev
.M
ean
NSt
d. d
ev.
Mal
e.5
113
71.5
0.4
915
66.5
0.4
813
39.5
0.4
942
76.5
0u
nder
35
.18
1371
.38
.15
1566
.36
.18
1339
.39
.17
4276
.37
Fam
ily w
ith c
hild
(ren
).6
913
71.4
6.5
315
66.5
0.4
613
39.5
0.6
042
76.5
0d
ispo
sabl
e ho
useh
old
inco
me
quin
tile
1 (lo
wes
t 20%
).2
013
71.4
0.0
815
66.2
7.1
013
39.3
0.1
342
76.3
3
dis
posa
ble
hous
ehol
d in
com
e qu
intil
e 2
.21
1371
.41
.21
1566
.41
.10
1339
.30
.18
4276
.38
dis
posa
ble
hous
ehol
d in
com
e qu
intil
e 3
.19
1371
.40
.18
1566
.38
.18
1339
.38
.18
4276
.39
dis
posa
ble
hous
ehol
d in
com
e qu
intil
e 4
.20
1371
.40
.26
1566
.44
.26
1339
.44
.24
4276
.43
dis
posa
ble
hous
ehol
d in
com
e qu
intil
e 5
(hig
hest
20%
).2
013
71.4
0.2
715
66.4
4.3
613
39.4
8.2
742
76.4
5
Wor
ks fu
ll tim
e.8
013
71.4
0.8
115
66.3
9.8
213
39.3
9.8
142
76.3
9Li
ves i
n re
ntal
hou
sing
.22
1371
.41
.05
1566
.22
.24
1339
.43
.17
4276
.37
dis
cont
ent w
ith sa
fety
in c
urre
nt n
eigh
bour
-ho
od.0
613
71.2
3.0
615
66.2
4.0
913
39.2
8.0
742
76.2
5
spea
ks to
nei
ghbo
urs a
t lea
st m
onth
ly.8
913
71.3
1.8
815
66.3
2.8
813
39.3
3.8
842
76.3
2Vi
sits
at l
east
mon
thly
.60
1371
.49
.59
1566
.49
.40
1339
.49
.54
4276
.50
Assi
sts n
eigb
ours
at l
east
mon
thly
.36
1371
.48
.40
1566
.49
.36
1339
.48
.37
4276
.48
Part
icip
ates
in n
’bou
rhoo
d w
ork
.12
1371
.30
.15
1566
.36
.13
1339
.33
.14
4276
.34
Mov
er.4
913
71.5
0.4
815
66.5
0.5
113
39.5
0.4
942
76.5
0Li
ves i
n n
on-n
ordi
c d
ecile
1–2
in 2
011
.11
1371
.31
.17
1566
.37
.11
1339
.32
.13
4276
.34
Live
s in
non
-nor
dic
dec
ile 3
–7 in
201
1.6
413
71.4
8.5
515
66.5
0.5
213
39.5
0.5
742
76.5
0Li
ves i
n n
on-n
ordi
c d
ecile
8–9
in 2
011
.19
1371
.39
.22
1566
.42
.24
1339
.43
.22
4276
.41
Live
s in
non
-nor
dic
dec
ile 1
0 in
201
4.0
613
71.2
4.0
615
66.2
5.1
313
39.3
3.0
842
76.2
8Pe
rcen
tage
(age
d 20
to 6
4) e
mpl
oyed
in n
’hoo
d in
201
0.7
713
71.0
9
Perc
enta
ge u
nem
ploy
ed in
n’h
ood
2010
.0
515
66.0
1
Pe
rcen
tage
(age
d 20
to 6
4) h
ighl
y ed
ucat
ed in
n’
hood
in 2
010
.28
1371
.12
.35
1566
.13
Perc
enta
ge (a
ged
20 to
64)
with
low
inco
me
in
n’ho
od 2
010
.29
1371
.10
Aver
age
neig
hbou
rhoo
d in
com
e in
200
9 (1
000
no
K)
281.
015
6644
.9
dep
ende
nt v
aria
ble:
pre
fer l
ower
imm
igra
nt
dens
ity in
nei
ghbo
urho
od.1
013
71.3
0.1
615
66.3
7.1
913
39.3
9.1
542
76.3
6
HouSINg StuDIeS 19
Tabl
e 7.
Log
istic
regr
essi
on o
utpu
ts. d
epen
dent
var
iabl
e: p
refe
r low
er sh
are
of im
mig
rant
s in
own
neig
hbou
rhoo
d.
Dep
ende
nt v
aria
ble:
pre
fer l
ower
sha
re o
f im
mig
rant
s in
nei
ghbo
urho
od
osl
oSt
ockh
olm
Hel
sink
iA
ll th
ree
citie
s
Varia
ble
type
Robu
st s
tand
ard
erro
rs c
lust
ered
on
nei
ghbo
urho
ods
Robu
st s
tand
ard
erro
rs
clus
tere
d on
nei
ghbo
urho
ods
Robu
st s
tand
ard
erro
rsRo
bust
sta
ndar
d er
rors
Inde
pend
ent v
aria
bles
BP
> |z
|o
dds
Ratio
BP
> |z
|o
dds
Ratio
BP
> |z
|o
dds
Ratio
BP
> |z
|o
dds
Ratio
sex
Mal
es.4
16.0
891.
516*
.793
.013
2.20
9**
.309
.194
1.36
2.4
93.0
021.
638*
**Fe
mal
es (R
ef.)
Age
Age
unde
r 35
−.9
99.0
150.
368*
*.9
37.0
512.
553*
−.2
28.5
29.7
96−
.145
.557
.865
Age
over
34
(Ref
.)
Fa
mily
Fam
ily w
ith c
hild
ren
aged
0–1
7−
.160
.578
.852
.366
.290
1.44
2−
.050
.846
.951
.120
.462
1.12
8
Fam
ily w
ithou
t chi
ldre
n ag
ed
0–17
(Ref
.)
inco
me
dis
posa
ble
inco
me,
low
est
quin
tile
(Ref
.)
dis
posa
ble
inco
me,
qui
ntile
2.2
44.5
76.5
76.2
82.5
451.
326
.415
.333
1.51
4.2
03.4
271.
226
dis
posa
ble
inco
me,
qui
ntile
3.1
73.7
35.7
35.6
47.1
551.
909
.820
.048
2.28
4**
.443
.080
1.55
7*d
ispo
sabl
e in
com
e, q
uint
ile 4
−.0
74.8
77.8
77.7
17.1
802.
048
.561
.180
1.75
2.2
47.3
301.
280
d
ispo
sabl
e in
com
e, h
ighe
st
quin
tile
−.2
26.6
67.6
67.6
16.3
181.
851
.271
.548
1.31
1−
.040
.888
.961
empl
oym
ent
Wor
k fu
ll tim
e−
.709
.048
.492
**.5
57.1
801.
746
.527
.139
1.69
4.1
18.5
801.
125
d
oes n
ot w
ork
full
time
(Ref
.)
te
nure
Rent
al−
.568
.295
.566
.576
.138
1.77
8.1
91.5
221.
211
.164
.415
1.17
9
not
rent
al (R
ef.)
self-
repo
rted
st
atem
ents
spea
k w
ith n
’bou
rs a
t lea
st
mon
thly
−.6
06.1
32.5
45−
.387
.418
.679
.797
.038
2.21
8**
−.1
66.4
74.8
47
spea
k w
ith n
’bou
rs m
ore
seld
om
(Ref
.)
Visi
t nei
ghbo
urs a
t lea
st
mon
thly
−.1
20.6
89.8
87.4
08.2
601.
504
−.0
98.6
93.9
06.0
19.9
121.
019
Visi
t n’b
ours
mor
e se
ldom
(Ref
.)
As
sist
s or i
s ass
iste
d by
nei
gh-
bour
at l
east
mon
thly
−.5
62.1
21.5
70−
.688
.065
0.50
3*−
.283
.291
.754
−.4
68.0
070.
626*
**
doe
s not
ass
ist n
eigh
bour
s m
ontly
(Ref
.)
Part
icip
ate
mon
thly
in n
eigh
-bo
urho
od a
ssoc
iatio
ns−
.038
.931
.963
−.0
66.9
20.9
36.4
79.1
581.
614
.107
.647
1.11
3
20 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
doe
s not
par
ticip
ate
mon
thly
(R
ef.)
dis
cont
ent w
ith sa
fety
1.95
7.0
007.
081*
**1.
729
.000
5.63
2***
1.53
1.0
004.
620*
**1.
617
.000
5.04
0***
doe
s not
stat
e di
scon
tent
with
sa
fety
stay
er/m
over
stay
er (R
ef.)
M
over
.303
.196
1.35
5.0
22.9
451.
022
−.2
13.3
37.8
08−
.213
.158
.808
nei
ghbo
ur-
hood
et
hnic
co
ntex
t
non
-nor
dic
dec
ile 1
–2 (R
ef.)
non
-nor
dic
deci
le 3
to 7
1.42
3.1
484.
151
1.81
3.1
226.
127
.023
.960
1.02
4.5
77.1
11.
781
non
-nor
dic
deci
le 8
–92.
487
.016
12.0
23**
2.27
2.0
519.
698*
.975
.047
2.65
0**
1.74
8.0
005.
746*
**
non
-nor
dic
deci
le 1
03.
744
.001
42.2
76**
*3.
000
.016
20.0
87**
*1.
434
.001
4.19
6***
2.54
9.0
0012
.790
***
extr
a ne
igh-
bour
-hoo
d co
ntro
ls fo
r o
slo
and
stoc
khol
m
% e
mpl
oyed
in n
’hoo
d ag
ed 2
0 to
64
(sto
ckho
lm)
−
.125
.495
.883
% u
nem
ploy
ed in
n’h
ood
(osl
o)−
.040
.820
.960
%
Hig
hly
educ
ated
(15
year
s or
mor
e)−
.038
.034
0.96
3**
−.0
96.0
000.
908*
**
% L
ow in
com
e (lo
wes
t 3 w
ork
inco
me
deci
les)
sto
ckho
lm
−.1
11.4
98.8
95
M
ean
inco
me
in n
’hoo
d (1
000
no
K).0
02.8
081.
000
City
stoc
khol
m (R
ef.)
Hel
sink
i
.625
.001
1.86
8***
o
slo
.6
68.0
001.
951*
**Co
nsta
nt−
2.49
3.0
02.0
83**
*−
5.38
10.
000
.005
***
−3.
879
.000
.021
***
−3.
800
.000
.022
***
Pseu
do R
2
.263
.335
.137
.191
no.
of n
eigh
-bo
urho
ods
178
47
3
not
e: P
> |z
|.* p
<0.
10.
**p
< 0
.05.
*** p
< 0
.01.
HouSINg StuDIeS 21
to be more common in Stockholm and Oslo than it is in Helsinki. When it comes to the dependent variable (expressing preference for lower share of immigrants in one’s own neigh-bourhood), we have already reported above that the Stockholm residents less frequently stated this preference.
For Oslo and Stockholm, where we had neighbourhood codes, we ran the models with robust standard errors clustered on neighbourhoods. This was not possible for Helsinki and therefore not included in the joint model run, but it should be said that we did test run Oslo and Stockholm without the clustering on neighbourhood option and with almost identical outputs (likely because of few respondents per individual neighbourhood, so clustering means little).
Table 7 displays odds ratios for model runs per city, and in the final column for the joint run. The joint run contained a city control, and this confirms that it was almost twice as likely that an Oslo or a Helsinki respondent stated a preference for a lower share of immi-grants compared to a Stockholm respondent.
Furthermore, Table 7 shows that some demographic and socio-economic characteristics included in the models are not in a statistically significant way related to stating a preference for a lower share of immigrants. While gender and age are significant in Oslo and Stockholm but not in Helsinki, and not in the joint model, having children or not, renting or not and having a high or low income seem not to matter for expressing this preference. Moreover, we found no difference between movers and stayers in any of the three cities. We do not know why this is the case but it confirms earlier studies that ‘white flight’ (the ‘ethnic component’) is not a strong driver for out-migration from immigrant-dense neighbourhoods but rather socioeconomic factors (Andersson 2013). Working full time is negatively related to stating a preference for a lower share of immigrants in Oslo but not in Stockholm or Helsinki or in the joint city run. The safety issue is strongly related to a preference for a lower share of immigrants: voicing concern regarding safety (reporting feeling unsafe) in one’s own neighbourhood strongly predicts a preference for a lower share of immigrants (five times more likely compared to not feeling unsafe).
The odds quotas for neighbourhood ethnic context in Table 7 are all related to the respec-tive cities’ respondents living in low immigrant-dense neighbourhoods (Deciles 1 and 2). We found no statistically significant difference between people residing in low (Deciles 1 and 2) and other low to medium immigrant concentration (Deciles 3 to 7) neighbourhoods in any of the three cities. However, the earlier finding that Deciles 8 and 9, and especially Decile 10, residents were far more inclined to state a preference for a lower share of immigrants is very robust even after controlling for other individual characteristics, and in the case of Oslo and Stockholm also after controlling for some other key neighbourhood characteristics.
We can summarize these findings in a few words. Firstly, our literature-derived expec-tation that the neighbourhood location of individuals matters for their stated preferences was confirmed. Secondly, irrespective of neighbourhood ethnic context, we found that Stockholm respondents reported more positive attitudes vis-à-vis having immigrant neigh-bours. Finally, we found that people seem to view low and high shares of immigrants in rela-tion to the city context. Despite the fact that high immigrant density represents a relatively low concentration in Helsinki compared to Stockholm and Oslo, a high level in Helsinki triggers sentiments and opinions regarding immigrant density similar to those found in the other cities. This relational dimension is important to acknowledge for achieving a better understanding of popular imaginations and preferences.
22 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
Conclusions
International comparative research has repeatedly found that the Nordic countries score high on welfare indicators. Class differences are relatively modest, the living standard is high and the universal approach to public service delivery provides people with a high degree of safety when falling sick or being unemployed or retired. The countries come out as ‘high trust societies’ measured as both in- and outgroup trust (Delhey & Welzel, 2012). Studies of tolerance for ethnic minorities also rank the Nordic countries high, but with more variation. Normally, surveys indicate that Swedes are the most tolerant and also most pro-immigration.
We do not dispute these findings, but following arguments provided by proponents of intergroup contextual contact theory (Quillian 1996; Stein et al., 2000), we have emphasized the importance of studying interethnic relationships and tolerance issues not only in a mac-rocontextual setting (comparing countries) but also by taking geographical microcontexts into account. As pointed out by Alesina & La Ferrara (2000), Putnam (2007), Feijten & Van Ham (2009), Uslaner (2012) and others, issues concerning social cohesion, trust and tolerance need to be understood in a community-oriented way, focusing on the reality that people face in their daily lives. In particular, Uslaner stresses the importance of ethnic residential segregation for understanding how in- and outgroup trust develops.
Besides taking these insights on board and following arguments put forward by Crowder et al. (2011) and by many scholars studying racism and discrimination (see, for instance, Andersson & Molina, 2003), we emphasize the role of the native majority population for understanding segregation processes and intergroup relations. Our study is relatively unique in a European context because it (a) surveys natives’ experiences of and perspectives on ethnic segregation, (b) provides a basic sample stratification that allows us to differenti-ate between neighbourhood stayers and movers and between those residing in different native/immigrant contexts and (c) surveys three Nordic capital regions, using the same questionnaire.
In the introductory part, we raised three research questions: Is ethnic residential segre-gation a problem, and if so, for whom? Are natives who reside in immigrant-dense neigh-bourhoods more pro-mix compared to those living elsewhere, or are they in fact dissatisfied with the actual level of minority residents in their neighbourhood? Do they prefer lower levels? This paper has tried to answer these questions in the Nordic capital city contexts of Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm.
With reference to the negative connotations that ethnic residential segregation has in each Nordic country’s political and cultural debate, we expected most of our respondents in all three capital cities to view ethnic segregation as a problem. This expectation is confirmed by our study. Around 90 per cent of the respondents agreed that it is a problem, and most tended to view it as a problem for immigrants as well as natives. Respondents in Helsinki had a stronger tendency to locate the segregation problem in specific parts of the city than did the respondents in Oslo and Stockholm. We think that this has to do with not only the short immigration history but also the fact that – given the much lower overall pres-ence of immigrants in Helsinki – many fewer neighbourhoods are affected by immigrant concentration, so it might be easier to relate ethnic segregation to a more narrow set of neighbourhoods or city districts.
We furthermore expected that people living in the most immigrant-dense neighbour-hoods would regard the problem to be bigger, not least because they would potentially face
HouSINg StuDIeS 23
territorial stigmatization, that is, that their neighbourhood would have a bad reputation and be regarded as unattractive. We did not find clear support for this hypothesis, and the reason might be that ethnic residential segregation is an established political and media issue. As such, people’s opinions regarding the phenomenon are less dependent on their own experience but rather are informed by these more general public discourses.
With respect to people’s views on ethnic mix in neighbourhoods, we hypothesized that one’s own exposure to immigrants would affect how one responded. Just as earlier studies have documented that Swedes are more pro-immigration, our study confirmed that the Stockholm respondents, despite living in a more segregated city, were clearly more positive towards ethnic mix than are their fellow Nordic capital residents in Helsinki and Oslo. We cannot know whether this has to do with longer or greater exposure to immigrants or whether it has to do with more fundamental historical social factors. At least, it does not seem to relate to one’s own neighbourhood ethnic conditions, as the pro-mix attitude was at a similar level across different immigrant densities in Stockholm. In Oslo on the other hand, respondents living in immigrant-dense neighbourhoods reported more positive attitudes towards ethnic mix compared to those living in lower concentrations. Whether this result is driven by selection of pro-ethnic-mix natives into these areas or with their experience of non-Nordic neighbours is unclear.
We expected the ethnic composition of people’s own neighbourhoods to affect not only their views on whether segregation is a problem, but also whether they wished to see changes in the neighbourhood’s ethnic composition. We expected respondents living in neighbourhoods having a high share of non-Nordic immigrants to be more in favour of reducing the immigrant presence than those living elsewhere, given not least the fact that the public debate identifies immigrant-dense neighbourhoods as problematic, which could influence the native-born residents’ views on the ethnic composition as such. We studied this relationship both descriptively and by employing a logistic regression model. Both approaches showed a very strong but non-linear relationship between immigrant density in one’s own neighbourhood and a preference for a lower share of immigrants. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, this had nothing to do with real migration behaviour: recent native-born neighbourhood movers did not differ from stayers in their views on neighbourhood diversity in general or their preference for share of immigrants in their own neighbourhood (see also Kaufmann & Harris, 2015). However, a couple of things should be added. Firstly, those wanting a higher share of immigrants dropped in a more or less linear fashion from low to high immigrant-dense areas. This category was small in Helsinki but quite noticeable in Oslo and Stockholm. Secondly, if we combine those who preferred the current level with those who preferred a higher level, that combined category outnumbers those wanting a lower share in all but the highest non-Nordic deciles. So, generalizing to the entire population in the three cities, people did not favour less immigrant presence.
This said, we indeed found a relative tipping point: those living in the upper deciles were much more likely in all three cities to state a preference for a lower share of immigrants in their neighbourhood. After controlling for the respondents’ individual characteristics, the clearest difference is, on the one hand, the difference between Stockholm/Oslo and Helsinki among those residing in low immigrant-dense neighbourhoods (less pro-mix in Helsinki), and on the other hand, between Stockholm/Helsinki and Oslo concerning those residing in high immigrant-dense neighbourhoods (more pro-mix in Oslo). We also underscored above that people seemed to view low and high shares of immigrants in relation to the city
24 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
context. Despite the fact that high immigrant density represented relatively low concen-tration in Helsinki compared to Stockholm and Oslo, a high level in the Helsinki context triggered sentiments and opinions regarding immigrant density similar to those in the other cities. This relational dimension is important to acknowledge to better understand popular imaginations and preferences. And this finding certainly needs to be explored further in comparative research on ethnic segregation.
In terms of policy implications, we found fairly strong support for accepting immigra-tion into the cities and for living in ethnically mixed neighbourhoods, but our results also indicate that high levels of immigrant concentration should be avoided, at least if support from native-born residents is to be maintained.
Acknowledgements
We would also like to extend sincere thanks to the three reviewers who provided constructive com-ments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Norface program on Migration in Europe – Social, Economic, Cultural and Policy Dynamics [project number 399].
References
Abascal, M. & Baldassari, D. (2015) Love thy neighbor? Ethnoracial diversity and trust reexamined, American Journal of Sociology, 121(3), pp. 722–782.
Alesina, A. & La Ferrara, E. (2000) Participation in heterogenous communities, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, pp. 847–904.
Alesina, A. & La Ferrara, E. (2002) Who trusts others?, Journal of Public Economics, 85, pp. 207–234.Allport, G. W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).Andersson, R. (2006) ‘Breaking segregation’ – Rhetorical construct or effective policy? The case of
the Metropolitan Development Initiative in Sweden, Urban Studies, 43(4), pp. 787–799.Andersson, R. (2013) Reproducing and reshaping ethnic residential segregation in Stockholm: The role
of selective migration moves, Geografiska Annaler Series B Human Geography, 95(2), pp. 163–187. doi: 10.1111/geob.12015.
Andersson, R. & Bråmå, Å. (2004) Selective migration in Swedish distressed neighbourhoods: Can area‐based urban policies counteract segregation processes?, Housing Studies, 19(4), pp. 517–539.
Andersson, R. & Hedman, L. (2016) Economic decline and residential segregation: A Swedish study with focus on Malmö, Urban Geography. doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1133993
Andersson, R. & Molina, I. (2003) Racialization and migration in urban segregation processes: Key issues for critical geographers, in: K. Simonsen & J. Öhman (Eds) Voices from the North, pp. 261–282 (Aldershot: Ashgate).
Andersson, R. & Musterd, S. (2005) Area-based policies: A critical appraisal, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(4), pp. 377–389.
Andersson, E., Östh, J. & Malmberg, B. (2010) Ethnic segregation and performance inequality in the Swedish school system: A regional perspective, Environment and Planning A, 42, pp. 2674–2686.
HouSINg StuDIeS 25
Andersson, R., Dhalmann, H., Holmqvist, E., Kauppinen, T.M., Magnusson Turner, L., Skifter Andersen, H., Söholt, S., Vaattovaara, M., Vilkama, K., Wessel, T. & Yousfi, S. (2010) Immigration, Housing and Segregation in the Nordic Welfare States, Research Report, Helsinki: Department of Geosciences and Geography C2, University of Helsinki.
Blalock, H. M. (1967) Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations (New York: Wiley).Bråmå, Å. (2006) ‘White flight’? The production and reproduction of immigrant concentration areas
in Swedish cities, 1990–2000, Urban Studies, 43(7), pp. 1127–1146.Campbell, A., Converse, P. E. & Rodgers, W. L. (1976) The Quality of American Life (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation).Crowder, K., Hall, M. & Tolnay, S. E. (2011) Neighborhood immigration and native out-migration,
American Sociological Review, 76(1), pp. 25–47. doi:10.1177/0003122410396197.Dekker, K., de Vos S., Musterd, S. & Van Kempen, R. (2011) Residential satisfaction in housing
estates in European cities: A multi-level research approach, Housing Studies, 26(4), pp. 479–499.Dekker, K. & Van Kempen, R. (2008) Places and participation: Comparing resident participation in
post-wwii neighborhoods in northwest, central and southern Europe, Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(1), pp. 63–86.
Delhey, J. & Welzel, C. (2012) Generalizing trust: How outgroup-trust grows beyond ingroup-trust, World Values Research, 5(3), pp. 46–69.
Ellen, I. G. (1997) Welcome neighbors? New evidence on the possibility of stable racial integration. The Brookings Review, Winter, pp. 18–21.
Ellen, I. G. (2000) Race-based neighbourhood projection: A proposed framework for understanding new data on racial integration, Urban Studies, 37(9), pp. 1513–1533.
Emerson, M. O., Chai, K. J. & Yancey, G. (2001) Does race matter in residential segregation? Exploring the preferences of white Americans, American Sociological Review, 66(6), pp. 922–935.
Farley, R., et al. (1978) ‘Chocolate city, vanilla suburbs:’ Will the trend toward racially separate communities continue?, Social Science Research, 7, pp. 319–344.
Farley, R., Fielding, E. L. & Krysan, M. (1997) The residential preferences of blacks and whites: A four-metropolis analysis, Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), pp. 763–800.
Feijten, P. & Van Ham, M. (2009) Neighbourhood change... reason to leave?, Urban Studies, 46(10), pp. 2103–2122. doi:10.1177/0042098009339430.
Goering, J. (1978) Neighborhood tipping and racial transition: A review of social science evidence, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44(1), pp. 68–78. doi: 10.1080/01944367808976879
Harris, D. (2001) Why are whites and blacks averse to black neighbors?, Social Science Research, 30, pp. 110–116.
Kaufmann, E. & Harris, G. (2015) ‘White flight’ or positive contact? Local diversity and attitudes to immigration in Britain. Comparative Political Studies, 48(12), pp. 1563–1590. doi: 10.1177/0010414015581684
Key, V. O., Jr. (1949) Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Random House).Laurence, J. (2016) Wider-community segregation and the effect of neighbourhood ethnic diversity on social
capital: An investigation into intra-neighbourhood trust in Great Britain and London, Sociology. doi: 10.1177/0038038516641867
Laurence, J. & Bentley, L. (2016) Does ethnic diversity have a negative effect on attitudes towards the community? A longitudinal analysis of the causal claims within the ethnic diversity and social cohesion debate, European Sociological Review, 32(1), pp. 54–67. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcv081
Lu, M. (1999) Do people move when they say they will? Inconsistencies in individual migration behavior, Population and Environment, 20, pp. 467–488.
Mella, O. & Palm, I. (2005) Mångfaldsbarometern (Uppsala: Department of Sociology, Uppsala University).
Parkes, A., Kearns, A. & Atkinson, R. (2002) What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods?, Urban Studies, 39, pp. 2413–2438.
Permentier, M., Bolt, G. & van Ham, M. (2011) Determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of neighbourhood reputation, Urban Studies, 48(5), pp. 977–996.
26 R. ANDeRSSoN et Al.
Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), pp. 751–783.
Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2008) How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators, European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, pp. 922–934.
Putnam, R. D. (2007) E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), pp. 137–174.
Quillian, L. (1996) Group threat and regional change in attitudes toward African-Americans, American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), pp. 816–860.
Quillian, L. & Pager, D. (2001) Black neighbors, higher crime? The role of racial stereotypes in evaluations of neighborhood crime, American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), pp. 717–767.
Ruud, M. E., Holm-Hansen, J., Nenseth, V. & Tønnesen A. (2011) Midtveisevaluering av Groruddalssatsningen, NIBR/TØI-report [Mid-term evaluation of the area-based intervention in Groruddalen, Oslo].
Sampson, R. J. & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004) Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of ‘broken windows’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(4), pp. 319–342.
Skifter Andersen, H., Andersson, R., Wessel, T. & Vilkama, K. (2016) The impact of housing policies and housing markets on ethnic spatial segregation: Comparing the capital cities of four Nordic welfare states, International Journal for Housing Policy, 16(1), pp. 1–30. doi: 10.1080/14616718.2015.1110375
Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) (2004) Ethnic Minorities and Integration: Outlook for the Future (Den Haag: Social and Cultural Planning Office).
Stein, R. M., Post, S. S. & Rinden, A. L. (2000) Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes, Political Research Quarterly, 53(2), pp. 285–303.
Trumberg, A. (2011) Den delade skolan. Segregationsprocesser i det svenska skolsystemet [Divided schools. Processes of segregation in the Swedish school system] (Örebro: Örebro Studies in Human Geography 6).
Uslaner, E. M. (2012) Segregation and mistrust (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press)).Wessel, T., Andersson, R., Kauppinen, T. & Skifter Andersen, H. (2016) Spatial integration of
immigrants in Nordic cities: The relevance of spatial assimilation theory in a welfare state context, Urban Affairs Review. doi:10.1177/1078087416638448
Westin, C. (1984) Majoritet om minoritet [Majority on minority] (Stockholm: Liber).Westin, C. (1987) Den toleranta opinionen [The tolerant public opinion] (Stockholm: DEIFO).Westin, C. & Lange, A. (1993) Den mångtydiga toleransen. Förhållningssätt till invandring och
invandrare 1993 [The many faces of intolerance. Attitudes towards immigration and immigrants] (Stockholm: CEIFO).
Zubrinsky Charles, C. (2000) Neighborhood racial-composition preferences: Evidence from a multiethnic metropolis, Social Problems, 47(3), pp. 379–407.