You are on page 1of 16

Ethnic Residential Segregation Across an Urban System:

The Maori in New Zealand, 19912001


Ron Johnston
University of Bristol
Michael Poulsen
Macquarie University
James Forrest
Macquarie University
In New Zealand there are substantial variations across the urban system in the degree of residential segregation
of those claiming Maori ethnicity. Analyses of those variations, using measures particularly relevant to comparative study, show that Maori segregation was greatest in both 1991 and 2001 in larger urban areas and,
especially, in those with relatively large Maori populations. A major deviation from this general pattern was in
Auckland; further analysis suggests that this was because of considerable sharing of residential space involving
Maori and Pacific Islanders. If the total population claiming a Polynesian identity is studied, the relationships
between segregation and both size and Polynesian population share are clarified. Key Words: ethnic segregation, interurban variation, New Zealand, Maori, Polynesian.

lthough much work has been done on the


residential segregation of ethnic groups in
the urban areas of many countries, very little of it
has been rigorously comparative, including within countries where problems of data consistency
are less likely to arise than in cross-national
comparisons. Even in the classic studies of the
hypersegregation of blacks in U.S. urban areas,
for example (Massey and Denton 1993), although comparative data across many centers are
provided, these are not analyzed in any formal
sense (as in their comparison of black-white segregation in northern and southern urban areas;
see p. 223). And yet descriptive statistical analyses do suggest substantial differences across
the urban systemas in Iceland, Weinberg, and
Steinmetz (2002a, b)that call for detailed analysis (see also Frey and Farley 1996).
One urban system for which no such detailed
comparative analysis has been undertaken is
New Zealands. Urban society there has become
increasingly multiethnic and multicultural in
recent decades as a consequence of both inmigration to the towns of the native Maori

(associated with high levels of natural increase)


and immigration from a number of both Pacific
Island and Asian countries. Much of the latter
has been focused on the countrys dominant urban areaAucklandbut the Maori and, to a
lesser extent, Pacific Islanders are widely distributed across the countrys urban areas, especially in the North Island, where 71 percent of
the countrys population lives. In this article, we
analyze variations across New Zealands urban
areas in both 1991 and 2001, using a method
specifically designed to measure absolute levels
of residential segregation in a comparative context ( Poulsen, Johnston, and Forrest 2002).

The Setting
The study of ethnic group segregation in New
Zealands urban areas is affected by two main
concerns. One is social, having to do with degree of propinquity, intermarriage, and sociospatial assimilation; the other is technical,
having to do with census definitions of ethnic,
especially Maori, identity.

The Professional Geographer, 57(1) 2005, pages 115129 r Copyright 2005 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, June 2003; revised submission, November 2003; final acceptance, February 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, U.K.

116

Volume 57, Number 1, February 2005

Intermarriage between ethnic groups and


members of the host society has long been
used as an indicator of social assimilation and/or
acculturation. In New Zealand, intermarriage
between Maori and Pakeha (the Maori term for
non-Maori, usually applied to New Zealand
Europeans) has traditionally been quite high,
with some 42 percent of Maori intermarrying,
according to one early study (Harre 1968).
More contemporary figures are hard to come by
(Callister 2003), but level of education is an important variable in the facilitation of intermarriage (Mare 1991). In other words, the lower the
social status, the lower the levels of intermarriage and, therefore, acculturation ( Pool 1991).
Of several preconditions to intermarriage
identified by Lieberson and Waters (1988, 164
65) in their U.S. work, one in particular relates
to degree of residential segregation or concentration. This influences the relative availability
of partners from within and outwith the group,
which was reflected in their study by group size
relative to the total population, by the distribution of ethnic and host society groups geographically, and by the degree of segregation or
contact that particular ethnic groups have with
each other. In New Zealand, the process is
compounded by the disproportionate cultural
disadvantage experienced by those who identify
as Maori, many of whom lack educational
qualifications and live outside the major metropolitan areas (Chapple 2000, 101). More intragroup marriage might be anticipated among
the less educated, therefore, and in places where
they suffer significant economic and cultural
disadvantage.
Regarding technical issues, in all censusbased studies of ethnic group segregation a
crucial issue is how ethnicity is identified. In
some, birthplace data are employed; in others,
self-assessed ethnic identity. If the former are
used in segregation studies (usually because
they are the best available), then there is a risk
of both including within a group those who do
not identify with it and excluding those who
do, but were not born in a country from which
the group originates. These problems are especially severe where one or more of the ethnic
groups being considered have been established
in the country over several (at least) generations,
and, as a result, almost all of their members have
been born there. The New Zealand census uses
self-defined ethnicity, however; recent censuses

have asked all respondents their ethnic identity


by providing them with the following definition:
Ethnicity is the ethnic group or groups that people identify with or feel they belong to. Thus,
ethnicity is self-perceived and people can belong
to more than one ethnic group. Ethnicity is a
measure of cultural affiliation, as opposed to
race, ancestry, nationality or citizenship.
An ethnic group is a social group whose members have the following four characteristics:
 share a sense of common origins
 claim a common and distinctive history and
destiny
 possess one or more dimensions of collective
cultural individuality
 feel a sense of unique collective solidarity.

Because individuals are able to claim multiple


identities, e.g., they can claim to be both New
Zealand European and Samoan, the total population enumerated is less than the number
identified by summing all ethnic identities,
since if individuals claim a multiple identity
these are counted equally. In 1991, 4.3 percent
did so (i.e., the ethnicity total is 4.3 percent larger than the enumerated population),
as did 9.1 percent in 1996 and 8.2 percent in
2001levels that are substantially higher than
those recorded in the 2000 U.S. Census, when 2
to 4 percent only reported dual identities. The
1996 question was slightly different from that
used in 1991 and 2001 (in order to encourage
multiple identities), so that comparisons with
either of those dates and 1996 are difficult. Only
the 1991 and 2001 data are used here to explore
trends in New Zealands ethnic geography over
the decade, therefore. (Ethnicity is, of course, a
contested construction, to some extent created by census and other bodies who deploy itas
discussed for New Zealand in Kukutai 2003 and
for the United States in Robbin 1999, 2000.
Census definitions are also invariably coarse
simplifications of a complex reality and frequently fail to reflect the details of specific situations and intergroup relationshipsas
discussed for New Zealand by Gould 2000;
Friesen 2000; and Callister 2003.)
Although the census data on ethnicity are
published for some thirty-six separate groups at
relatively large spatial scales, because of confidentiality considerations, these were combined
into just sixshown in Table 1for the small

Ethnic Residential Segregation Across an Urban System: The Maori in New Zealand, 19912001
areas that we use for analyzing residential segregation here. The largest ethnic minority is the
Maori population, which forms some 13 percent of the national population and grew by over
17 percent during the decade 19912001its
most rapid decade of growth during the twentieth century. The Pacific Islander population is
less than half the size of the Maori component,
but grew by over 38 percent during the decade.
The population claiming an Asian ethnic identity is now slightly larger than the Pacific Islander component, having grown by nearly 150
percent over the decade, most of that through
immigration. Most of the members of all three
groups live in the North Island: 87.5 percent of
the Maori in 2001, 93.9 percent of the Pacific
Islanders, and 88.3 percent of the Asians. Just
under 20 percent of the Maori live in rural areas;
almost all of the Pacific Islanders and Asians
(over 96 percent) live in the towns and cities.
Two-thirds of the Pacific Islanders lived in
Auckland in 2001, as did 63 percent of Asians.
Maori, on the other hand, were much more
widely distributed across the urban system, with
only 22 percent living in Auckland and a further
12 percent living in the next two largest urban
areas (Christchurch and Wellington). Eight
other urban areas with populations exceeding
5,000 in 2001 had more than 30 percent of their
number claiming Maori identity, with a further
eight having 20 to 30 percent. (For further
details on New Zealands changing population over the decade, see Johnston, Poulsen, and
Forrest 2003). As this article focuses on variations in segregation across New Zealands urban
areas, there is no analysis of the Asian pattern,
and most attention is paid to the Maori situation.

Reasons for Interurban Variations


The residential segregation of members of ethnic minorities has received a great deal of attention from social science researchers over the
last century or more. Explanations for it have
stressed combinations of negative and positive
factors (see, for example, Peach 1996). Among
the negative factors, the most commonly cited
have been disadvantage and discrimination.
Disadvantage leads to segregation because the
economic situation of members of relevant
groups (or a large proportion of their members), itself in part a function of their human
capital, means that they are unable to compete

117

Table 1 The Ethnic Composition of New Zealands


Population
1991

New Zealand European


New Zealand Maori
Pacific Peoples
Asian
Other
Not Specified

2001

Number

Number

2,780,619
434,472
167,010
98,394
6,966
28,230

78.4
12.3
4.7
2.8
0.2
0.8

2,868,771
525,942
231,681
237,657
25,023
150,147

71.0
13.0
5.7
5.9
0.6
3.7

in large sections of the labor market; they are


only able to earn below-average wages and,
consequently, cannot aspire to live in many parts
of the urban area where housing costs are beyond their means and where most of the better schools are located. Discrimination leads to
segregation when members of relevant groups
are prevented from entering certain occupations and living in particular areas, through both
formal and informal processes that, in effect,
close off many parts of the city to them. Even
where active discrimination is absent, disadvantage may be exacerbated by a combination of
spatial processes in the operation of labor and
housing markets and the manipulation of school
catchment areas (as argued for the United States
by Goldberg 1998: on the New Zealand context, see Morrison, Callister, and Rigby 2002).
Among the positive factorssome of which
reinforce those in the negative groupare the
desire for both physical and cultural security in a
(relatively) alien context; members of minority
ethnic groups, especially those with different
cultural traditions and practices from their host
society (in language and religion, for example,
and in the importance of kinship in social networks), may choose to live in relatively segregated areas in order to sustain those practices
and promote their communal well-being (as
suggested by Waldinger 2001). With New Zealands Maori and other Polynesian groups, in
particular, a desire to live in relatively separate
areas may reflect the dominance of communal
property ownership in their cultures, as against
the individualistic culture of the New Zealand
Europeans (though it may be that in the largest
centers, a greater proportion of the Maori have
adopted the individualist norms of Pakeha capitalism than is the case in smaller towns).
Furthermore, researchers have also identified
processes whereby the larger and more spatially
concentrated a minority cultural group becomes,

118

Volume 57, Number 1, February 2005

the more likely it is to remain segregatedeven


in the absence of any substantial labor and
housing market disadvantage. For example, de
Vries (1974) found for Swedes in Finland that
the density of a group affects propensity to
marry outside it: the more other Swedes there
are in a district, the lower the probability of a
cross-ethnic marriage. For Australian cities,
too, Hugo (1992) found that larger immigrant
groups were more likely to have their own social
infrastructure resources and, as a consequence,
be more socially segregated than smaller groups.
In this sense, geography helps to create, or at
least maintain, ethnic group segregation.
Both sets of factors have been adduced in discussions of observed patterns of ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand urban areas
(Friesen et al. 2000), with the negative factors
related to economic disadvantage being especially prominent in the case of Maori and Pacific
Islanders. A considerable proportion of New
Zealands Asian population do not suffer similar
disadvantages, and their concentration into particular areas can more readily be associated with
the positive factors related to cultural differences, including the desire for intracommunity
social and cultural cohesion (Ho and Bedford
2003; Ip 2003).
Such arguments can account for patterns of
residential segregation in general, but not as
readily for variations in the degree of segregation for the same ethnic group across an urban
system. Why do such variations occur? Initial

explorations reported below suggest that Maori


segregation was highest in those centers where
they formed the largest proportions of the total
population, rather than in the largest places that
had more Maori residents in absolute terms. In
addition, there was a suggestion, especially from
the data for the four largest centers, that Maori
segregation was greater in North than South
Island centers (compare Christchurch to Wellington in Figure 1, discussed below), which
may reflect the smaller Maori population of the
latter island and the consequent lower potential
tension generated by interethnic relationships.
The case that segregation levels might be
higher in larger urban places links to arguments
regarding the problems of assimilation into a
(relatively, at least) alien urban society. In larger
places, those from cultural backgrounds that
differ markedly from that of the majority of the
residents may feel a greater need for close ties
with their coethnics that involve spatial proximity than would be the case in smaller towns
where such ties are easier to sustain without
concentration into shared spaces (an extension
of Zelinsky and Lees 1998 arguments on
heterolocalism). In big cities, therefore, ethnic
minority groups, especially those dominated by
recent arrivals to the city (or country), should be
more segregated than they are in smaller places.
In addition, it may be that larger proportions of
the ethnic group attracted to such places suffer
considerable economic disadvantage than those
who live in smaller centers. There is clear

100

% above Threshold

80

60

40
Auckland
Hamilton
20
Wellington
Christchurch
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Threshold

70

80

90

100

Figure 1 Concentration profiles


for Maori in four of the largest
urban areas, 1991.

Ethnic Residential Segregation Across an Urban System: The Maori in New Zealand, 19912001
evidence that both Maori and Pacific Islanders
in New Zealand suffer from disadvantage in the
labor market. Indeed, the wage differentials
between them and Pakeha are greater than
expected given the niches they occupy in the
occupational division of labor, suggesting discrimination as well as disadvantage (Alexander,
Genc, and Jaforullah 2003; Sutherland and Alexander 2003), but not that this varies spatially.
A further influence on the degree of residential segregation (as already suggested) may be
the size of the ethnic group relative to the total
urban population. Where the group is relatively
small, it may be less visible and potentially less
susceptible to disadvantage and discrimination
in the labor and housing markets than in places
where it forms a substantial competitor for
scarce resources. A relatively small ethnic minority (or at least substantial parts of it) may be
quite readily assimilated into those markets; a
larger one may be more distinct, more disadvantaged in the labor market (especially if its
skills base is poor and there are limited opportunities for it there), and therefore more likely to
feel the need for concentration into certain segments of the residential space in order to sustain
its cultural identity and promote its economic
and social welfare. Thus, we hypothesize that
the larger the group as a percentage of the urban
area total, the more residentially segregated it
will be.
Finally, individual cities and towns should not
be considered in isolation; their sociospatial
structure may reflect wider influences that affect
a number of places in similar contexts. Many
countries have clear cultural regions, for example, which differ on key traits, such as attitudes
to ethnic groups. (The difference between the
South and other parts of the United States is a
salient example of this.) In regions where ethnic
and racial minorities have traditionally been less
important, there may be fewer constraints on
their activities in the labor and housing markets,
and in cultural life more generally, than in regions with long histories of interethnic tensions
involving substantial numbers of minority residents. Thus, we hypothesize that there may be
regional variations in the degree of segregation
in addition to those associated with the two influences discussed above.
In analyzing variations in ethnic residential
segregation across New Zealands urban system,
the first two of the three influences just dis-

119

cussed are readily investigated using urban size


and the proportion of the population in the relevant ethnic group(s) as independent variables.
Regarding regional variations, the main difference suggested here is between the two islands.
The North Island has always housed the majority of the countrys Maori, and its cities
notably Aucklandhave attracted many more
Pacific Island migrants than have South Island
cities. The latter, therefore, are situated within a
region where there have been low densities of
such ethnic minorities. As a consequence, in addition to the interurban differences associated
with urban size and minority group proportion,
we also anticipate lower levels of segregation in
South than North Island urban areas.

Interurban Variations in Maori


Residential Segregation
To measure the degree of residential segregation instead of one of the frequently deployed
indices (notably, the indices of dissimilarity, isolation, and segregation), all of which refer to the
average situation in an urban area for members
of a defined group and so fail to reveal much of
the detail regarding the degree of concentration, we use a recently developed procedure that
is particularly useful in comparative studies, especially where the spatial scale of the measurement units is constant. In this, we derive a
concentration profile for each ethnic group in
each urban area, according to the percentage of
its total who live in areas where that group exceeds a given threshold ( Poulsen, Johnston, and
Forrest 2002). Thus, for example, of the 96,111
Maori in the Auckland urban area in 1991, some
77 percent lived in areas where 10 percent or
more of their population identified as Maori, 47
percent lived in areas that were 20 percent or
more Maori, 21 percent in areas that were at
least 30 percent Maori, and so on. With these
data, a concentration profile can be constructed,
as illustrated below.
For these analyses, we use the smallest spatial
units available from the New Zealand Census,
the meshblocks. These averaged just 107 residents in 1991. The same blocks were used in
each of the 1991, 1996, and 2001 censuses, thus
further enabling detailed comparative study
over time and place.

120

Volume 57, Number 1, February 2005

The concentration profiles for Maori in four


of New Zealands largest urban areas in 1991 are
given in Figure 1 and show considerable differences among them. By far, the greatest level of
segregation, as indicated by the highest profile,
is for Hamilton, the smallest of the four centers,
with a total population of 126,150, of whom 15
percent were Maori. Nearly 20 percent of Hamiltons Maori lived in meshblocks that were at
least 50 percent Maori in their ethnic composition, and some 44 percent lived in areas that
were at least 30 percent Maori. By comparison,
the two largest centersAuckland and Wellington ( populations of 922,823 and 338,784
respectively)had very similar profiles, but
much less apparent spatial concentration than
Hamilton. In Auckland, for example, where
some 10 percent of the population identified as
Maori in 1991, virtually none of them lived in
areas that were at least 50 percent Maori in their
composition, and some 21 percent lived in areas
that were 30 percent or more Maori. Finally, the
largest South Island center (Christchurch, population 310,548) had an even shallower concentration profile, indicating less residential
segregation of its (relatively small) Maori population. (Maori comprised only 5 percent of
Christchurchs 1991 population.)
Figure 1 suggests very considerable variation
in the degree of Maori residential concentration
across these four centers, as indicated by the gap
between the profiles on the vertical axis. At the
30 percent threshold, for example, the degree of

Maori concentration (the percentage of the


group living in areas with at least that percentage of Maori among their total population)
varied from virtually zero in Christchurch
to 44 percent in Hamilton. Hamilton is a
much smaller center than Christchurch, but its
Maori population is some three times larger in
relative terms, and it may be that the latter
characteristic is a more important influence on
the degree of concentration than urban size
alone.
This last argument is supported by Figure 2,
which contains comparable 1991 Maori concentration profiles for four smaller centers, all
with relatively large Maori populations: Rotorua ( population 54,771, Maori 30 percent), Gisborne (33,219, 32 percent), Pukekohe (16,143,
21 percent), and Taumaranui (6,585, 36 percent). The degree of segregation is clearly much
higher in these centers than in the countrys
largest cities, with between 17 and 48 percent of
the Maori population living in areas at least half
of whose population identified as Maori and
over 70 percent in every place living in areas that
were at least 20 percent Maori in their ethnic composition. Interestingly, there is some
crossing-over of the concentration profiles
for three of these townssomething that a simple index of dissimilarity or isolation would not
identify. Maori are more segregated in Taumaranui than any of the other centers at the
lower thresholds, but less so than in either Gisborne or Pukekohe at the higher levels. Some 80

100

% above Threshold

80

60

40
Rotorua
Gisborne
20
Pukekohe
Taumaranui
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Threshold

70

80

90

100

Figure 2 Concentration profiles


for Maori in four North Island
towns, 1991.

Ethnic Residential Segregation Across an Urban System: The Maori in New Zealand, 19912001
percent of Taumarunuis Maori lived in meshblocks where Maori formed at least 30 percent
of the population, for example, whereas the
comparable figure for Pukekohe was just over
60 percent; at the 70 percent threshold, on the
other hand, whereas 22 percent of Pukekohes
Maori lived in meshblocks that were at or above
that threshold, this was the case for only 9 percent of Taumarunuis Maori.
Because of the continuous nature of the concentration profiles, conducting analyses with
these as the dependent variables, i.e., analyzing
interurban differences in segregation levelsis
not straightforward. After some exploration
(including a number of different regression
analyses, as discussed below), we selected two
thresholds as indicative of segregation levels
across the urban system30 percent and 50
percent. Some Maori were living in meshblocks
exceeding the first of these thresholds in most of
the countrys towns and cities; many fewer had
substantial numbers living in areas above the 50
percent threshold. Analyzing both, therefore,
provided insights to spatial variations at both
an average and a relatively extreme level of
segregation.1
Summary descriptive data for the fifty-six urban areas with populations of 5,000 or more at
one or both of the census dates indicate the extent of the interurban differences at these two
thresholds. The percentage of an urban areas
Maori population living in meshblocks where
Maori comprised 30 percent or more of the
population ranged from 0 to 94 in 1991, with a
mean of 33 and a standard deviation of 29; for
2001 the figures were 0, 98, 32, and 29, respectively. Turning to the percentage living in meshblocks that were 50 percent or more Maori, the
range in 1991 was from 0 to 59, with a mean of
12 and standard deviation of 17; in 2001 the
range was 064, the mean 11 and the standard
deviation 17. Clearly, there was much interurban variation in the degree of segregation of this
ethnic minority.

Interurban Variations in Residential


Concentration: Multiple Regressions
To test our arguments regarding the crosssystem variations in degree of segregation, we
regressed two dependent variables representing
the concentration profilesthe percentage of

121

the Maori population living in areas above the


30 and 50 percent thresholdsagainst both
population size (logged to counter heteroscedasticity2) and the Maori percentage of
the total population, for each of New Zealands
fifty-six defined urban areas with a population in
either 1991 or 2001 of greater than 5,000: a
dummy variable for island location was also
included. The ordinary least-squares (OLR) regressions were run for both 1991 and 2001.
The results of these regressions strongly support the general hypotheses (Table 2). In each
case, there is a significant and positive relationship with both urban size and the relative size of
the Maori population, with the latter having by
far the largest t value in all four regressions.
There was a significant difference between centers in the two islands in only two of the four
regressions, however, with one of them having
an unexpected sign. The R2 values were extremely high, indicating a very good overall fit
between observed and expected patterns.

Table 2 OLS Regressions of Maori Residential


Segregation 1991 and 2001
Coefficient b (b) SE

Percentage Maori in blocks where Maori 30%o of population,


1991
Constant
23.1
11.1 2.09**
Urban population (lg10)
6.1 (0.11)
2.1 2.86***
Maori % total
2.4 (0.92)
0.1 19.70***
Island (north 0, south 1)
7.2 (0.11)
0.1 2.34**
R2
0.92
Percentage Maori in blocks where Maori 50%o of population,
1991
Constant
36.2
11.5 3.16**
Urban population (lg10)
4.3 (0.13)
2.2 1.95*
Maori % total
1.5 (0.97)
0.1 11.81***
Island (north 0, south 1)
4.9 (0.12)
3.2 1.54
R2
0.76
Percentage Maori in blocks where Maori 30%o of population,
2001
Constant
28.2
7.9 3.54**
Urban population (lg10)
4.7 (0.09)
1.7 2.84***
Maori % total
2.2 (0.94)
0.1 27.31***
Island (north 0, south 1)
1.3 (0.02)
2.5 0.52
R2
0.88
Percentage Maori in blocks where Maori 50% o of population,
2001
Constant
46.6
10.3 4.52***
Urban population (lg10)
4.1 (0.13)
1.9 2.12**
Maori % total
1.6 (1.05)
0.1 14.42***
Island (north 0, south 1)
8.9 (0.22)
2.7 3.25**
R2
0.82
***significant at the 0.001 level or better.
**significant at the 0.05 level or better.
*significant at the 0.10 level or better.

122

Volume 57, Number 1, February 2005

The dominant relationship in all four regressions, shown by the t values and partial (b) regression coefficients, is that involving the
relative size of an urban areas Maori population. Thus in 1991, for every 1 percentage point
increase in the Maori share of the total population, the percentage of Maori living in meshblocks that were at least 30 percent Maori in
their ethnic composition increased by 2.4 percentage points, and by 2.2 points in 2001: the
comparable figures for Maori living in areas that
were at least 50 percent Maori were 1.5 and 1.6
points respectively. Residential segregation of
New Zealands Maori was greatest in the urban
areas where they were relatively most numerous
within the population; the groups relative size
was associated with its relative spatial separation. In addition, segregation was greater in the
larger cities, holding Maori percentage constant. At the 30 percent threshold, segregation
was lower in South than North Island centers as
expectedthough the difference was significant in 1991 only. At the 50 percent threshold, it
was higher in South Island centers, though the
difference was from a very low base.
One problem of interpreting these regressionsand, in particular, of identifying the
major residuals (deviations from the general
trend)was the potential for producing estimated segregation values that were either below
0.0 or above 100.0. To avoid this incongruity,
the regressions were rerun with a logit transformation of the dependent variable. This
meant eliminating from each regression those
centers for which the original value on the dependent variable was 0.0 so that, as indicated in
Table 3, the Ns for the four regressions were less
than 56, especially for those involving the 50
percent threshold.
The results in Table 3 very largely replicate
those in Table 2 in their overall import, although the goodness-of-fit is somewhat smaller.
The major difference between the OLS results
in Table 2 and the logit results in Table 3 concerns the role of urban size as an influence on
ethnic residential segregation. Basically, it disappears, being significant in only one of the four
cases (and then only at the marginal 0.10 level).3
On the other hand, the inter-island difference
now comes into sharper focus, with a significant
negative coefficient in three of the four regressions (the exception is for segregation above the
50 percent threshold in 2001, where the sign is

Table 3 Logit Regressions of Maori Residential


Segregation 1991 and 2001
Coefficient b (b) SE

Percentage Maori in blocks where Maori 30% o of population,


1991
Constant
2.45
1.01 2.34**
Urban population (lg10)
0.34 (0.09)
0.20 1.71*
Maori % total
0.13 (0.71)
0.01 12.06***
Island (north 0, south 1)
1.98 (0.38)
0.29 6.77***
R2
0.89
N
52
Percentage Maori in blocks where Maori 50% o of population,
1991
Constant
2.76
1.85 1.49
Urban population (lg10)
0.07 (0.02)
0.34 0.20
Maori % total
0.1 (0.65)
0.02 6.10***
Island (north 0, south 1)
1.45 (0.29)
0.50 2.94***
2
R
0.70
N
45
Percentage Maori in blocks where Maori 30% o of population,
2001
Constant
3.14
1.05 2.99**
Urban population (lg10)
0.14 (0.04)
0.19 0.73
Maori % total
0.15 (0.83)
0.01 13.26***
Island (north 0, south 1)
1.06 (0.22)
0.28 3.74***
R2
0.88
N
50
Percentage Maori in blocks where Maori 50% o of population,
2001
Constant
3.53
2.82 1.25
Urban population (lg10)
0.27 (0.07)
0.49 0.55
Maori % total
0.13 (0.67)
0.03 4.81***
Island (north 0, south 1)
0.89 (0.15)
0.73 1.23
2
0.59
R
N
40
***significant at the 0.001 level or better.
**significant at the 0.05 level or better.
*significant at the 0.10 level or better.

as expected but the difference is not statistically


significant, largely because most of the South
Island centers have been excluded from this regression). The predominant finding remains as
identified from the OLS regressions, as indicated again by the b coefficients. The larger the
Maori component as a percentage of the urban
population, the greater the degree of its residential segregation there.

Maori and Polynesian


An interesting aspect of the regressions is that
when the residuals from the general trends are
examined, one of the centers with the largest
negative deviationsi.e., much less segregation
than expectedis Auckland, New Zealands
largest urban area with, by far, its largest absolute concentration of non-European ethnic

Ethnic Residential Segregation Across an Urban System: The Maori in New Zealand, 19912001
groups. Why does Auckland stand out in this
way?
One possible explanation might be that, as
Auckland has become more multicultural in its
ethnic make-up, some of the groups might come
together in residential space, reflecting common cultural bonds and economic disadvantage. In particular, it may well be that the various
Pacific Island groups from the Cook Islands,
Fiji, Niue, Samoa, the Tokelau Islands, and
Tonga share residential areas with the Maori,
though not with Asians, the other major migrant group that increased substantially in
Auckland over the decade. Whether this is the
case can be tested using a modification of
the concentration profile. In this, the threshold
is provided by one group and the percentage
living above that threshold in those areas by
another; the profile indicates the degree of exposure of one group to the other at the meshblock scale. Figure 3 shows the profiles for
Maori relative to Pacific Islanders and for Pacific Islanders relative to Maori in 2001. For the
first (where the base population is the Pacific
Islanders), the solid line shows, for example,
that over 20 percent of Maori lived in meshblocks that were at least 40 percent Pacific Islander in their population composition, whereas
some 25 percent of Pacific Islanders lived in
meshblocks that were at least 30 percent Maori
in their composition. There is, thus, some sharing of residential space by the two groups. This
is confirmed by Figure 4, which shows concentration profiles for Maori, Pacific Islanders, and

123

for all Polynesians (i.e., Maori and Pacific


Islanders combined). The profile for Pacific Islanders is much higher than that for Maori (the
former are more segregated); that for all Polynesians is even higher because of sharing of
space. Thus, whereas very few Maori lived in
areas where at least 50 percent of the population
were Maori, compared to 30 percent of Pacific
Islanders living in areas where 50 percent or
more of the population claimed a Pacific Island
identity, when the two are combined into a single Polynesian group, the percentage living at or
above the 50 percent threshold is over 40. Maori
and Pacific islanders tended to be concentrated
in the same areas. Indeed, some 20 percent of all
Polynesians in Auckland in 2001 lived in meshblocks that were at least 70 percent Polynesian
in their population composition, compared to
figures of 0 and 10 for Maori and Pacific Islanders separately.
These findings regarding shared spaces suggested that the regressions should be rerun, using
data for the Polynesian population as the dependent variable. For most urban centers, which
have very few Pacific Island residents, the values
would be little different from those for Maori
alone. For Auckland and a few other centers,
however, they are substantially different.
The results of the OLS regressions are in
Table 4. Compared to those in Table 2, the
clearest difference between the two is the significance of urban population size in all four
equations. Although the b values indicate that
the relative size of an urban areas Polynesian

Figure 3 Residential exposure of


Maori and Pacific Islander groups to
each other: Concentration profiles,
Auckland, 2001.

Percentage of Group above Threshold

100

80

60

40

20
Maori to Pacific Is
Pacific Is to Maori

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Other Groups Threshold

80

90 100

124

Volume 57, Number 1, February 2005

100

% above Threshold

80

60

Figure 4 Concentration profiles


for Maori, Pacific Islanders, and all
Polynesians, Auckland, 2001.

40

Maori
20
Pacific Islanders
Polynesian
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Threshold

population remains the dominant influence on


the degree of segregation, size is also of substantial importance. Residential segregation of
Polynesians in New Zealands urban areas inTable 4 OLS Regressions of Polynesian
Residential Segregation 1991 and 2001
Coefficient b (b) SE

Percentage Polynesians in blocks where Polynesians 30% o of


population, 1991
Constant
34.9
18.5 1.89*
Urban population (lg10)
14.3 (0.23)
3.7 3.86***
Polynesian % total
2.2 (0.79)
0.2 11.21***
Island (north 0, south 1)
16.4 (0.21)
5.5 2.99**
R2
0.82
Percentage Polynesians in blocks where Polynesians 50% o of
population, 1991
Constant
64.1
14.4 4.45***
Urban population (lg10)
12.1 (0.29)
2.9 4.21***
Polynesian % total
1.7 (0.89)
0.2 10.89***
Island (north 0, south 1)
0.8 (0.02)
4.2 0.2
R2
0.75
Percentage Polynesians in blocks where Polynesians 30% o of
population, 2001
Constant
47.6
11.0 4.34***
Urban population (lg10)
9.8 (0.18)
2.1 4.67***
Polynesian % total
2.4 (0.95)
0.1 21.01***
Island (north 0, south 1)
4.5 (0.06)
3.2 1.43
R2
0.93
Percentage Polynesians in blocks where Polynesians 30% o of
population, 2001
Constant
63.8
11.6 5.51***
Urban population (lg10)
9.0 (0.24)
2.2 4.06***
Polynesian % total
1.7 (0.99)
0.1 14.03***
Island (north 0, south 1)
5.6 (0.12)
3.3 1.67
R2
0.82
***significant at the 0.001 level or better.
**significant at the 0.05 level or better.
*significant at the 0.10 level or better.

creased in both 1991 and 2001; the larger the


place, the larger the proportion of its population
who claimed a Polynesian ethnic identity.
Again, however, in part, this may be because of
zero segregation, especially at the 50 percent
threshold, in many smaller centers. The rerun
logit regressions (Table 5) show that although
urban size is significant in all four regressions
though not at the 0.001 level or better in any of
themit has less impact on the degree of Polynesian segregation than the inter-island differences, as shown by the b coefficients.4 In
general, segregation of Polynesians is greatest
in the bigger places, especially in those urban
areas where the Polynesian population is relatively large, and more so in the North than the
South Island.

Refining the Profile


One difficulty in comparing concentration profiles across urban areasand thus of comparing
percentages above certain thresholds, as in the
above regressionsis that, with only a random
process allocating individuals to constituent
areas, the larger the group size (in relative
terms), the greater the observed concentration.
For example, if an urban area had 50 percent of
its population Maori, then, with no segregation
processes operating other than a random allocation, half of them should live in meshblocks
that were at least 50 percent Maori in their
composition and the other half in meshblocks

Ethnic Residential Segregation Across an Urban System: The Maori in New Zealand, 19912001
Table 5 Logit Regressions of Polynesian
Residential Segregation 1991 and 2001
Coefficient b (b) SE

Percentage Polynesians in blocks where Polynesians 30% o of


population, 1991
Constant
4.12
1.19 3.44***
Urban population (lg10)
0.69 (0.19)
0.24 2.86**
Polynesian % total
0.13 (0.78)
0.01 10.20***
Island (north 0, south 1)
1.13 (0.23)
0.36 3.01**
R2
0.79
N
52
Percentage Polynesians in blocks where Polynesians 50% o of
population, 1991
Constant
5.51
2.29 2.41**
Urban population (lg10)
0.76 (0.19)
0.43 1.76*
Polynesian % total
0.11 (0.61)
0.02 4.97***
Island (north 0, south 1)
1.89 (0.33)
0.67 2.83**
R2
0.59
N
44
Percentage Polynesians in blocks where Polynesians 30% o of
population, 2001
Constant
4.86
0.79 6.10***
Urban population (lg10)
0.49 (0.15)
0.15 3.27**
Polynesian % total
0.14 (0.90)
0.01 16.93***
Island (north 0, south 1)
0.68 (0.15)
0.24 2.82**
R2
0.90
N
52
Percentage Polynesians in blocks where Polynesians 50% o of
population, 2001
Constant
6.65
2.29 2.90**
Urban population (lg10)
0.73 (0.18)
0.41 1.78*
Polynesian % total
0.13 (0.68)
0.02 5.63***
Island (north 0, south 1)
1.56 (0.27)
0.65 2.40**
R2
0.63
N
44
***significant at the 0.001 level or better.
**significant at the 0.05 level or better.
*significant at the 0.10 level or better.

that were less than 50 percent Maori. On the


other hand, if another place had only 30 percent
of its population Maori, whereas half of them
would live in meshblocks that were more than
30 percent Maori, only a small proportion
would live in meshblocks that were 50 percent
or more Maori in their composition. Thus, if
the latter town had 25 percent of its Maori living
in meshblocks that were at least 50 percent
Maori in their composition and the former town
had 50 percent, in effect, segregation would
be greater in the first. (For a further discussion
of this issue, with respect to spatial scale, see
Johnston, Voas, and Poulsen, 2003.)
To take this difference into account, we introduce a population-standardized threshold
measure ( PST).
PSTij T  GPCj =
100  GPCj   100

125

where T is the predefined threshold ( point on


the concentration profile); GPCj is the ethnic
groups percentage of the total population in
town j; and PSTij is the population-standardized
threshold for town j where i is T.
Thus, with a threshold (T) of 30 for a town
where the ethnic group forms 10 percent of the
population, the value of PST is [(3010)/
(10010)]* 100, [20/90]* 100, or 22.22. The
larger the value of PST, the greater the degree
of concentration at the predetermined level
than would be expected according to a random
distribution. (Thus, PST can take a negative as
well as a positive value, indicating a more regular distribution than random.)
Figure 5 shows the scatter of PST values
when T is set at 30 for the Maori population
against Maori percentage of the urban total
across the fifty-six urban areas in 1991. There is
a very clear and strong relationship: the greater
the Maori component, the greater the degree of
relative concentration. In most of the centers
with Maori percentages below 10, the PST
values are negative, indicating even less concentration at that threshold than anticipated
through a random allocation process. Where
they are small in relative numbers, Maori are
widely scattered through the urban areas residential districts.
When T is raised to 50, however, the relationship is weaker (Figure 6). In part, this is because some of the towns have no Maori living in
meshblocks where they form at least 50 percent
of the local population. Most have only small
Maori populations, as shown by the places with
no concentration separately identified on
Figure 6 ( for which there is a perfect negative
correlation: the smaller the Maori percentage
the smaller the PST). Even when these places
are ignored, however, the relationship at this
threshold is much less strong than that where
T 30.
To evaluate the model being applied throughout this paper using PST as the dependent variable, the PST values where T is set at 30 and 50
were regressed against the three independent
variables, as before.5 Table 6 gives the results for
the Maori and Table 7 for all Polynesians. One
clear findingforeshadowed by the graphs in
Figures 5 and 6is the major difference in the
value of R2 for the regressions where T is 30
and those where it is 50. It averages 0.87 in
the former case, but only 0.33 in the latter.

126

Volume 57, Number 1, February 2005

Population-Standardized Threshold

100

80

60

Figure 5 The relationship between the population-standardized


threshold for Maori, 1991, where T
is 30, and the Maori percentage of
the urban total population.

40

20

Island

South
20

North
0

10

20

30

40

50

Maori as % of total

regressions and never at better than the 0.05


level; in the latter (Table 7), it is significant at the
0.001 level or better in all four regressions.
There is, thus, stronger evidence of greater segregation of Polynesians in larger centers than
there is for Maori alone. As most non-Maori
Polynesians live in Auckland, this undoubtedly
reflects the intermixture of Maori and Pacific
Islanders there. Finally, there is very little evidence of a separate, between-island difference.
As already noted in the discussion of Figure 6,
part of the reason for the lower correlations for
the regressions with T set at 50 is the substantial
number of places that have no Maori or Poly-

When the threshold for analysis is set to 30,


most of the variation across the fifty-six urban
areas in the PSTcan be accounted for; when it is
set at 50, only one-third can be.
Turning to the regression coefficients, as in
the earlier analyses, the groups percentage of
the urban area population is by far the most
significant and substantial influence across all
eight regressions: it is significant at better than
the 0.001 level in every case and also has the
largest b value. Regarding urban size, there is an
important difference between the regressions
for Maori and for all Polynesians. In the former
(Table 6), it is significant in only three of the four

Population-Standardized Threshold

40

20

20
Any concentration

Yes
No

40
0

10

20
30
Maori as % of total

40

50

Figure 6 The relationship between the population-standardized


threshold for Maori, 1991, where
T is 50, and the Maori percentage
of the urban total population. (Urban areas where there were no
Maori living in blocks that were 50
percent or more Maori are identified as those with no concentrations.)

Ethnic Residential Segregation Across an Urban System: The Maori in New Zealand, 19912001
Table 6 OLS Regressions of Maori Residential
Segregation ( PST) 1991 and 2001
Coefficient b (b)

SE

Table 7 OLS Regressions of Polynesian


Residential Segregation ( PST) 1991 and 2001
Coefficient b (b)

Maori PST for blocks where Maori 30% o of population, 1991


Constant
43.23
11.72 3.69***
Urban population (lg10)
7.23 (0.14)
2.28 3.17**
Maori % total
2.34 (0.96)
0.13 18.33***
Island (north 0, south 1)
2.30 (0.04)
3.25 0.71
0.90
R2
Maori PST for blocks where Maori 50% o of population, 1991
Constant
47.77
15.41 3.10**
Urban population (lg10)
5.56 (0.23)
2.99 1.86
Maori % total
0.67 (0.60)
0.17 4.01***
Island (north 0, south 1)
7.24 (0.24)
4.28 1.69
0.20
R2
Maori PST for blocks where Maori 30% o of population, 2001
Constant
67.46
13.91 4.85***
Urban population (lg10)
7.64 (0.14)
2.60 2.94**
Maori % total
2.64 (1.02)
0.15 17.97***
Island (north 0, south 1)
5.41 (0.08)
3.69 1.45
R2
0.89
Maori PST for blocks where Maori 50% o of population, 2001
Constant
61.96
15.13 4.09***
Urban population (lg10)
5.34 (0.23)
2.83 1.89*
Maori % total
0.81 (0.72)
0.16 5.06***
Island (north 0, south 1)
12.61 (0.42)
4.02 3.13**
R2
0.30
***significant at the 0.001 level or better.
**significant at the 0.05 level or better.
*significant at the 0.10 level or better.

nesians living in meshblocks where their coethnics form at least 50 percent of the local
population. This confounds the general link
because of the perfect negative relationship between PSTand ethnic group relative size in such
cases. Thus, the regressions with T 50 have
been rerun, excluding the places with no such
concentrations. The results are little improvement in terms of the R2 values, however (compare Table 8 with Tables 6 and 7), and the
regression coefficients tell the same story:
the most substantial and significant influence
remains the ethnic group percentage of the
total, with urban size more important for all
Polynesians than for Maori alone.
Inspection of the residuals from these final
regressions identified no pattern among the
major deviants from the general trends,
with one exception. In the Maori regressions,
Aucklands PST is consistently overpredicted,
whereas in the Polynesian regressions it is underpredicted, giving further evidence sustaining
the argument that there is considerable sharing
of residential space by Maori and Pacific Islanders there. The same is true for the countrys

127

SE

Polynesian PST for blocks where Polynesian 30% o of population, 1991


Constant
58.45
21.16 2.76**
Urban population (lg10)
16.53 (0.25)
4.23 3.91***
Polynesian % total
2.32 (0.80)
0.23 10.23***
Island (north 0, south 1) 12.83 (0.16)
6.25 2.05*
R2
0.77
Polynesian PST for blocks where Polynesian 50% o of population, 1991
Constant
83.27
25.28 4.37***
Urban population (lg10)
14.81 (0.41)
3.81 3.89***
Polynesian % total
1.04 (0.63)
0.21 5.06***
Island (north 0, south 1)
3.24 (0.07)
5.62 0.58
0.41
R2
Polynesian PST for blocks where Polynesian 30% o of population, 2001
Constant
76.79
12.31 6.24***
Urban population (lg10)
11.24 (0.20)
2.35 4.78***
Polynesian % total
2.53 (1.00)
0.13 19.90***
Island (north 0, south 1)
2.06 (0.03)
3.53 0.58
R2
0.91
Polynesian PST for blocks where Polynesian 50% o of population, 2001
Constant
85.17
16.61 5.13***
Urban population (lg10)
11.28 (0.38)
3.17 3.56***
Polynesian % total
1.01 (0.75)
0.17 5.88***
Island (north 0, south 1)
9.40 (0.25)
4.77 1.97*
R2
0.42
***significant at the 0.001 level or better.
**significant at the 0.05 level or better.
*significant at the 0.10 level or better.

capital, Wellington, which has the second largest concentration of most Pacific Island groups,
further bolstering the argument.

Conclusions
Although residential segregation of groups
claiming a minority ethnic identity is common
across urban areas in a country, the degree of
segregation may vary widely. This has been
clearly demonstrated for those claiming a Maori
ethnic identity in New Zealand in two recent
censuses, using data at a very fine spatial scale
and a measurement procedure that explicitly
addresses comparative issues. Exploration of
the reasons for that variation has shown that the
most important influence was the relative size of
the Maori population within each urban area:
the larger the Maori component of a places
population, the more segregated those Maori
were into separate residential areas. The reasons
for this are likely to be a combination of

128

Volume 57, Number 1, February 2005

Table 8 OLS Regressions of Maori and


Polynesian Residential Segregation ( PST) 1991 and
2001, Excluding Places with No Maori or
Polynesians Living in Blocks with 50% o of the
Coethnics
Coefficient b (b)

SE

Maori PST for blocks where Maori 50% o of population, 1991


Constant
44.14
20.04 2.20**
Urban population (lg10)
5.17 (0.21)
3.69 1.40
Maori % total
0.68 (0.60)
0.20 3.36**
Island (north 0, south 1)
6.06 (0.19)
5.36 1.13
0.17
R2
N
45
Maori PST for blocks where Maori 50% o of population, 2001
Constant
72.47
21.45 3.38**
Urban population (lg10)
6.46 (0.27)
3.71 1.74*
Maori % total
0.99 (0.84)
0.21 4.77***
Island (north 0, south 1)
14.21 (0.40)
5.54 2.56**
R2
0.34
N
40
Polynesian PST for blocks where Polynesian 50% o of
population, 1991
Constant
86.07
25.28 3.41**
Urban population (lg10)
16.31 (0.44)
4.79 3.40**
Polynesian % total
1.09 (0.66)
0.25 4.36***
Island (north 0, south 1)
1.16 (0.02)
7.37 0.16
0.38
R2
N
44
Polynesian PST for blocks where Polynesian 50% o of
population, 2001
Constant
97.43
22.02 4.42***
Urban population (lg10)
13.35 (0.44)
3.92 3.40**
Polynesian % total
1.15 (0.81)
0.22 5.38***
Island (north 0, south 1)
8.67 (0.20)
6.26 1.38
R2
0.42
N
44
***significant at the 0.001 level or better.
**significant at the 0.05 level or better.
*significant at the 0.10 level or better.

economic disadvantage and discrimination,


plus cultural factors. Where they are relatively
more numerous, it has been argued, Maori are
more likely to be disadvantaged in the lower
strata of the labor market, and hence in the
housing market too, and more concerned to
concentrate in separate areas to enhance their
economic and cultural security.
One of the main deviations from this general
pattern related to the countrys largest urban
area, Auckland, and, to a lesser extent, its second
largest, Wellington.6 Here, the degree of residential segregation of Maori was less than in
other places with comparable Maori components to their total population. The reason
for this, it appears, is the sharing of residential
space by Maori and Pacific Islander ethnic
groups. When they are combined into a single,

Polynesian group, the substantial residuals for


Auckland and Wellington disappeared, and the
conclusion was clear: the larger the urban area
and the larger the Polynesian component of its
population, the greater the residential segregation of its Polynesian population.

Notes
1

Further work on comparative study of the profiles is


planned.
2
The distribution of urban sizes in New Zealand, as in
most countries, is positively skewed; logarithmic
transformation ensures that the few large places do
not bias the regression coefficients and their related
standard errors.
3
This disappearance, and the difference in goodnessof-fit noted previously, reflects the exclusion from
the logit regressions of those places that had no
Maori living at or above the defined thresholdall of
which were small and had few Maori residents.
4
Again, this is because of elimination of the centers
where there was no Polynesian segregation and that,
therefore, were slightly biasing the OLS results.
5
In this case, there was no need for a logistic transformation of the dependent variable. The scatterplots in Figures 5 and 6 indicate the absence of an
S-shaped relationship which would require such a
transformation, and in any case, one cannot take
logarithms of negative numbers!
6
In the census data, Auckland is divided into four
separate, though contiguous, urban areas, which
have been combined here. The Wellington urban
area, as analyzed here, comprises the four adjacent settlements of Wellington, Lower and Upper
Hutt, and Porirua, which form a single contiguous
conurbation.

Literature Cited
Alexander, W. R. J., M. Genc, and M. Jaforullah. 2003.
Maori disadvantage in the labour market. Unpublished paper. School of Business, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ.
Callister, P. 2003. Ethnicity measures, intermarriage
and social policy. Paper at conference on Connecting Policy, Wellington, NZ, April. http://www.
msd.govt.nz/keyinitiatives/conference/abstracts/3.
18.html (last accessed 15 May 2003).
Chapple, S. 2000. Maori socio-economic disparity.
Political Science 52:10115.
de Vries, W. 1974. Net effects of language shift in
Finland, 195160. Acta Sociologica 17:14049.
Frey, W. H., and R. Farley. 1996. Latino, Asian and
Black segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas: are
multiethnic metros different? Demography 33:
3550.

Ethnic Residential Segregation Across an Urban System: The Maori in New Zealand, 19912001
Friesen, W. 2000. Tangata Pasifika Aotearoa: Pacific
populations and identity in New Zealand. New
Zealand Population Review 26:10525.
Friesen, W., L. Murphy, R. A. Kearns, and E. Haverkamp. 2000. Mapping change and difference: a
social atlas of Auckland. Auckland: University of
Auckland, Department of Geography.
Goldberg, D. T. 1998. The new segregation. Race and
Society 1:1532.
Gould, J. D. 2000. Counting Maori. New Zealand
Population Review 26 (2): 119.
Harre, J. 1968. Maori-Pakeha intermarriage. In
The Maori people in the 1960s: a symposium, ed.
E. Schwimmer, 11831. London: C. Hurst
& Co.
Ho, E. S., and R. D. Bedford. 2003. The Chinese in
Auckland: Changing profiles in a more diverse society. In The new Asian immigrant community: from
urban enclave to ethnic suburb, ed. W. Li, 2039. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hugo, G. 1992. Atlas of the Australian people: New South
Wales, 1986. Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Iceland, J., D. H. Weinberg, and E. Steinmetz. 2002a.
Racial and ethnic residential segregation in the United
States: 19802000. Washington, DC: United States
Census Bureau.
. 2002b. Racial and ethnic segregation in the
United States: 1980-2000. Paper presented to the
Population Association of America, May. http://
www.census.gov/ (last accessed 15 May 2003).
Ip, M. 2003. Chinese immigrants and transnationals
in New Zealand: a fortress opened. In The Chinese
Diaspora: space, place, mobility and identity, ed. L. J. C.
Ma and C. Cartier, 33958. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Johnston, R. J., M. F. Poulsen, and J. Forrest. 2003.
The ethnic geography of New Zealand: a decade of
growth and change, 19912001. Asia-Pacific Viewpoint 44:10930.
Johnston, R. J., D. Voas, and M. F. Poulsen. 2003.
Measuring spatial concentration: the use of threshold profiles. Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 30:314.
Kukutai, T. 2003. The dynamics of ethnicity reporting:
Maori in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand:
Te Puni TokiriMinistry of Maori Development.
Lieberson, S., and M. C. Waters. 1988. From many
strands: ethnic and racial groups in contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mare, R. D. 1991. Five decades of educational assertive mating. American Sociological Review 56:1532.
Massey, D. S., and N. A. Denton. 1993. American
apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morrison, P. S., P. Callister, and J. Rigby. 2002. The
spatial separation of work-poor and work-rich
households in New Zealand 1986-2001: introduc-

129

tion to a research project. Wellington, NZ: Paper


given at the New Zealand Association of Economists Conference. June. http://nzae.org.nz (last
accessed 3 April 2003).
Peach, C. 1996. The meaning of segregation. Planning
Practice and Research 11:13750.
Pool, I. 1991. Te Iwi Maori: a New Zealand population
past, present and projected. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Poulsen, M. F., R. J. Johnston, and J. Forrest. 2002.
Plural cities and ethnic enclaves: introducing a
measurement procedure for comparative study. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
26:22943.
Robbin, A. 1999. The problematic status of U.S.
statistics on race and ethnicity: an imperfect
representation of reality. Journal of Government
Information 26:46783.
. 2000. Classifying racial and ethnic group data
in the United States: the politics of negotiation and
accommodation. Journal of Government Information
27:12956.
Sutherland, H. J., and W. R. J. Alexander. 2003. The
impact of Maori-Pakeha occupational segregation
on earnings differentials 19972000. Unpublished
paper, School of Business, University of Otago,
Dunedin, NZ.
Waldinger, R. 2001. The immigrant niche in global
city-regions: Concept, patterns, controversy. In
Global city-regions: trends, theory, policy, ed. A. J.
Scott, 299322. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Zelinsky, W., and B. A. Lee. 1998. Heterolocalism: an
alternative model of the sociospatial behaviour of
immigrant ethnic communities. International Journal of Population Geography 4:28198.

RON JOHNSTON is a professor in the School of


Geographical Sciences at the University of Bristol,
Bristol BS8 1SS, U.K. E-mail: R.Johnston@bristol.
ac.uk. His research interests include electoral studies,
comparative studies of ethnic segregation, and the
history of human geography.
MICHAEL POULSEN is a senior lecturer in the
Department of Human Geography at Macquarie
University, New South Wales, 2109, Australia. Email: mike.poulsen@mq.edu.au. His research interests are the comparative nature of ethnic areas in
Western cities.
JIM FORREST is associate professor and head in the
Department of Human Geography at Macquarie University, New South Wales 2109, Australia. E-mail:
jim.forrest@mq.edu.au. His research interests focus
on studies of race and ethnic segregation, urban, social, and electoral studies.