The Measurement of Ethnic Segregation in the Netherlands: Differences Between Administrative and Individualized Neighbourhoods.

The debate on residential segregation often focuses on the concentration of migrant groups in specific neighbourhoods and its presumed effects on, e.g. personal life chances and social inclusion. However, cross-regional and international comparisons of segregation are hampered by differences in the size and delineation of the spatial units that are used for its measurement: the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. This paper therefore measures segregation for scalable 'individualized neighbourhoods', defined by a predefined number of closest neighbours instead of by administrative or statistical boundaries. This approach allows for measuring segregation levels and patterns across different spatial scales, ranging from the micro-scale (50 neighbours) to larger spatial areas (51,200 neighbours). Using population register data from the Netherlands, we study the segregation of four different migrant origin groups across individualized neighbourhoods at eleven spatial scales. Outcomes are compared to those found using administrative neighbourhoods. We are especially interested in how levels and patterns of segregation change with an increase in scale level. Our findings indicate that segregation levels and patterns are different across various spatial scales, and the most relevant spatial scale is also group-specific. Measuring segregation while using scalable individualized neighbourhoods seems an appropriate way to deal with both the multiscalar nature of segregation and the large within-district variety associated with it.

A Comparative Study of Segregation Patterns in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden: Neighbourhood Concentration and Representation of Non-European Migrants.

In this paper, we use geo-coded, individual-level register data on four European countries to compute comparative measures of segregation that are independent of existing geographical sub-divisions. The focus is on non-European migrants, for whom aggregates of egocentric neighbourhoods (with different population counts) are used to assess small-scale, medium-scale, and large-scale segregation patterns. At the smallest scale level, corresponding to neighbourhoods with 200 persons, patterns of over- and under-representation are strikingly similar. At larger-scale levels, Belgium stands out as having relatively strong over- and under-representation. More than 55% of the Belgian population lives in large-scale neighbourhoods with moderate under- or over-representation of non-European migrants. In the other countries, the corresponding figures are between 30 and 40%. Possible explanations for the variation across countries are differences in housing policies and refugee placement policies. Sweden has the largest and Denmark the smallest non-European migrant population, in relative terms. Thus, in both migrant-dense and native-born-dense areas, Swedish neighbourhoods have a higher concentration and Denmark a lower concentration of non-European migrants than the other countries. For large-scale, migrant-dense neighbourhoods, however, levels of concentration are similar in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Thus, to the extent that such concentrations contribute to spatial inequalities, these countries are facing similar policy challenges.