Diversity is an inherent characteristic of global cities and is likely to intensify in the future as globalization spurs complex migration flows. Spatial segregation, as measured by the dissimilarity index, is calculated and analysed in three global cities: Barcelona, London and Melbourne. Understanding its formation and representation is crucial in order to achieve both migrant integration and host society acceptance.

1. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
global
cities:
1
July
11
A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Joel
Francis
Serra
Bevin
Diversity
is
an
inherent
characteristic
of
global
cities
and
is
likely
to
intensify
in
the
future
as
globalisation
spurs
complex
migration
flows.
Spatial
segregation,
as
measured
by
the
dissimilarity
index,
is
calculated
and
analysed
in
three
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne.
Understanding
its
formation
and
representation
is
crucial
in
order
to
achieve
both
migrant
integration
and
host
society
acceptance.
U n i v e r s i d a d
d e
P o m p e u
F a b r a

2. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
2
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Table
of
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4
Motivation ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
Background............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Spatial
segregation .............................................................................................. 7
Defining
spatial
segregation............................................................................................................................ 7
The
formation
of
segregation ......................................................................................................................... 8
Cultural .....................................................................................................................................................................9
Discrimination .......................................................................................................................................................9
Urban
structure.................................................................................................................................................. 10
Theorising
segregation....................................................................................................................................10
Heterolocalism.................................................................................................................................................... 11
Ethnic
enclaves ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Place
stratification............................................................................................................................................ 13
Spatial
assimilation.......................................................................................................................................... 13
Networks ...............................................................................................................................................................14
Spatial
segregation
measures ............................................................................15
Dimensions
of
segregation.............................................................................................................................16
Evenness ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Exposure ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Concentration ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
The
global
city .....................................................................................................18
The
creation
of
the
global
city ......................................................................................................................18
Migration
and
the
global
city ........................................................................................................................19
City
selection .......................................................................................................21
Barcelona...............................................................................................................................................................22
Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24
London....................................................................................................................................................................26
Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28
Melbourne .............................................................................................................................................................30
Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Methodology ........................................................................................................33
Measurement .......................................................................................................................................................33
Tracts.......................................................................................................................................................................34
Barcelona.............................................................................................................................................................. 34
London.................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Melbourne............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Results..................................................................................................................35
Barcelona...............................................................................................................................................................35
London....................................................................................................................................................................36
Melbourne .............................................................................................................................................................37
Comparative
analysis .......................................................................................................................................39
Intercity ................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Global
cities.......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Conclusions
and
recommendations ..................................................................45

3. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
3
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................45
Global
cities
of
the
future ...............................................................................................................................47
Recommendations.............................................................................................................................................49
At
a
national
level ............................................................................................................................................. 49
At
a
city
level........................................................................................................................................................ 51
Works
cited..........................................................................................................53
Appendix
1 .............................................................................................................57

4. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
4
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Introduction
Motivation
In
this
paper
the
spatial
segregation
of
migrants
in
three
global
cities
–
either
founded
on,
or
now
characterised
by
immigration
–
is
considered.
In
Barcelona,
the
foreign-­‐born
make
up
18
per
cent
of
the
population,
London’s
foreign-­‐born
population
represents
32
per
cent
of
the
total,
and
foreigners
in
Melbourne
comprise
31
per
cent
of
the
population.
The
location
preferences
of
migrants,
together
with
the
institutional
forces
imposed
on
them
by
the
host
society,
leads
to
a
residential
pattern
that
reflects
their
equal
or
unequal
distribution.
These
patterns
represent
the
degree
of
spatial
segregation,
which
is
measured
through
various
tools
in
the
context
of
evenness
of
distribution
and
exposure.
It
is
important
to
investigate
segregation
patterns
in
global
cities
–
those
influential
and
connected
in
a
structural,
economic
and
cultural
context
–
as
intensifying
urbanisation
will
see
these
constructs
assume
increasing
power
in
a
globalised
world.
Migrants
are
already
an
integral
characteristic
of
urban
areas
and
are
likely
to
become
even
more
important
as
the
global
cities
of
the
developed
world
struggles
to
meet
the
demographic
challenge
posed
by
an
ageing
population.
Consequently,
migrant
integration
is
a
crucial
component
of
a
city’s
success
in
order
for
migrants
to
become
economic
and
cultural
participants
in
a
host
society
that
is
receptive
to
this
contribution.
Understanding
the
level
of
spatial
segregation,
which
has
been
empirically
linked
to
migrant
integration,
is
therefore
critical.
The
term
‘global
cities’
can
be
applied
with
consideration
of
a
range
of
variables
and
while
no
consensus
exists
on
the
exact
criteria,
they
can
broadly
be
understood
to
exert
global
influence
at
an
economic,
political,
logistical
and
cultural
level.1
1
Doel,
M.
and
Hubbard,
P.,
(2002).
Taking
World
Cities
Literally:
Marketing
the
City
in
a
Global
Space
of
flows,
City,
vol.
6,
no.
3,
pp.
351-­‐368

5. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
5
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
The
three
cities
chosen
–
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
–
differ
in
terms
of
urban
structure,
immigration
trends
and
policy
environment,
but
all
are
global
cities
in
their
interconnectedness
and
ethnic
diversity.
However,
diversity
alone
is
not
enough
to
bring
about
harmonious
interaction
and
evolution
of
the
different
groups
that
comprise
a
city.
The
subsequent
analysis
seeks
to
illustrate
how
segregation
of
the
foreign-­‐born
population
is
represented
in
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne.
Reflections
are
made
as
to
whether
this
segregation
poses
risks
of
dislocation
and
disadvantage
or
is
the
basis
for
integration
and
social
mobility.
Moreover,
this
study
will
highlight
the
importance
of
considering
spatial
segregation
–
at
a
governmental,
institutional
and
individual
level
–
in
achieving
migrant
integration.
Background
As
globalisation
shapes
cities
of
mass
–
mass
of
place
and
mass
of
people
–
they
assume
increasingly
homogenous
globalised
behavioural
and
attitudinal
characteristics
yet
at
the
same
time
experience
rising
levels
of
cultural
diversity
as
a
result
of
increasing
and
complex
migration
flows.
Through
the
interaction
of
multiple
cultures,
this
diversity
offers
both
amplified
opportunities
for
progress
while
also
posing
risks
of
conflict.
Migration,
as
phenomenon
of
globalisation,
and
in
the
same
vein
as
its
more
visible
effects
such
as
trade
and
communication,
is
the
cause
of
this
diversity.
The
United
Nations
estimates
that
in
2010,
214
million
(3
per
cent)
of
the
world’s
9.1
billion
people
were
migrants2.
This
figure
is
expected
to
soar
in
the
coming
years
due
to
a
combination
of
economic,
social
and
institutional
push
and
pull
factors.3
Migration
is
an
issue
that
cuts
across
multiple
dimensions,
impacting
all
levels
of
the
nation-­‐state,
which
is
charged
with
the
role
of
integrating
this
growing
mass
of
people,
while
also
affecting
the
private
sector,
which
relies
on
2
United
Nations,
Department
of
Economic
and
Social
Affairs,
Population
Division,
(2009).
Trends
in
International
Migrant
Stock:
The
2008
Revision,
United
Nations
database
3
United
Nations,
Department
of
Economic
and
Social
Affairs,
Population
Division,
(2004).
World
Population
to
2300,
New
York

6. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
6
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
migrant
integration
and
social
mobility
in
order
to
satisfy
labour
market
demand
and
support
the
productivity
and
economic
growth
that
stems
from
social
cohesion.
As
such,
the
issue
is
entrenched
at
the
forefront
of
local,
national,
regional
and
international
agendas.
Migrant
integration
into
society
is
a
multi-­‐stage
process;
it
includes
entry
into
the
labour
market,
access
to
education,
improvements
in
socioeconomic
status
and
participation
in
the
political
sphere.
That
said,
the
element
that
is
both
the
initial
and
principal
measure
of
integration
at
its
most
basic
level
is
a
migrant’s
housing
situation.
The
ability
to
access
housing
and
then
be
mobile
within
the
market
remains
the
grounding
factor
that
allows
migrants
to
achieve
subsequent
measures
of
integration.
The
house
is
more
than
simply
physical
protection;
it
represents
a
foothold
in
a
new
society,
a
physical
representation
of
the
formation
of
a
new
cultural
identity.
Understanding
the
manner
in
which
migrants
physically
settle
is
therefore
of
critical
importance,
in
order
to
support
integration,
an
outcome
pursued
for
mutual
gain
by
both
nation-­‐states
and
migrants
themselves.
Migrant
integration
must
also
be
considered
in
the
context
of
the
networks
that
are
built
at
a
neighbourhood
level
and
allow
for
economic,
social
and
cultural
links
to
be
established
between
new
and
existing
migrants.
The
complexity
of
migration
is
based
on
its
inherent
diversity;
a
diversity
that
has
the
potential
to
cause
segregation
and
discrimination,
resistance
to
integration
and
conflict
in
various
forms,
but
a
diversity
that
also
offers
opportunities
for
the
dismantling
of
stereotypes
and
subsequent
individual
and
societal
evolution.
The
resultant
cultural
intersections
remain
crucial
for
continued
social
and
economic
development
and
present
a
balancing
force
in
the
demographic
paradigm
in
which
the
developed
world
currently
finds
itself.
Segregation
exists
as
a
mechanism
that
can
both
exclude
individuals
from
particular
social
and
physical
settings,
thereby
preventing
their
integration,
while
also
allowing
an
environment
that
supports
integration,
in
which
cultural
group
identities
can
be
strengthened
and
where
productivity
gains
and
diversity-­‐driven
innovations
are
possible.

7. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
7
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Similarly
the
spatial
segregation
of
the
foreign-­‐born
takes
place
at
the
local
level
and
has
potential
for
positive
or
negative
representation.
It
is
the
role
of
governments
and
the
societies
they
represent
to
acknowledge
the
extent
and
implications
of
the
spatial
segregation
of
the
foreign-­‐born
population
and
initiate
policy
that
supports
its
positive
function.
Spatial
segregation
Defining
spatial
segregation
Spatial
segregation
is
driven
by
disparate
factors
and
multiple
theories
exist
to
explain
its
creation
and
persistence.
In
the
1920s,
the
human
ecology
model
of
segregation,
developed
by
a
group
of
sociologists
known
collectively
as
the
Chicago
School,4
explained
residential
patterns
of
segregation
by
analysing
the
city
as
“a
separate
entity”
rather
than
as
a
“reflection
and
manifestation
of
the
wider
society.”
5
The
Chicago
School
views
cities
as
representations
of
migrant
flows,
which
created
“…a
chain
reaction,
with
each
preceding
immigrant
wave
moving
outwards
and
being
succeeded
by
more
recent,
poorer
immigrants”.6
This
theory
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
arriving
migrants
have
limited
economic
resources,
are
less
educated
than
natives
and
are
not
aware
of
existing
social
networks,
which
relegate
them
to
less
desirable
areas
of
the
city.
The
Chicago
School
holds
that
residential
segregation
is
transient,
with
migrants
capitalising
on
their
progressively
attained
economic
and
social
mobility
by
improving
their
residential
circumstances
and
exiting
segregated
environments.7
Massey,
who
concluded
that
residential
segregation
is
not
a
neutral
factor,
supports
the
latency
of
this
discrimination.
Again,
with
reference
to
blacks
in
the
United
States
(whose
segregation
has
been
studied
for
over
half
a
century),
Massey
argues
that
segregation
“…systematically
undermines
the
social
and
4
Park,
R.
E.,
Burgess,
E.,
McKenzie,
R.,
(1925).
The
City,
University
of
Chicago
Press
5
Van
Kempen,
R.,
and
Ozuekren,
A.
S.,
(1998).
Ethnic
segregation
in
cities:
New
forms
and
explanations
in
a
dynamic
world,
Urban
Studies,
vol
35,
issue
10,
pg
1636
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.

8. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
8
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
economic
well-­‐being
of
blacks
in
the
United
States.”
He
also
holds
that
as
the
social
disadvantage
that
stems
from
increased
poverty
is
spatially
concentrated,
the
consequently
disadvantaged
environments
become
“…progressively
isolated
–
geographically,
socially
and
economically
–
from
the
rest
of
society.”8
There
does
not
exist
a
significant
body
of
research
investigating
the
spatial
segregation
of
the
foreign-­‐born,
despite
this
group
being
subject
to
similar
social
and
economic
barriers
to
those
facing
blacks
in
the
United
States.
Spatial
segregation
presents
a
risk
through
its
ability
to
render
cities
a
series
of
distinct,
self-­‐contained
but
ultimately
dislocated
communities,
rather
than
unified
spaces
for
cultural
interaction,
exchange
and
adaptation,
where
integrative
outcomes
are
supported.
However,
segregation
also
exists
as
a
positive
phenomenon;
allowing
members
of
the
minority
group
to
fortify
their
cultural
identity
and
gain
the
benefits
that
previously
established
economic
and
social
networks
are
able
to
offer.
The
formation
of
segregation
Segregated
communities
are
formed
by
positive
network
and
community
forces,
but
may
also
be
the
result
of
negative
intercultural
interaction.
Segregation
may
therefore
actually
increase,
rather
than
dissipate
over
time,
an
outcome
corroborated
by
the
research
of
Fairbairn
and
Khatun
who
found
that
the
dispersion
and
the
equal
distribution
of
migrants
over
the
long-­‐run
is
not
an
inevitable
outcome.9
Recent
theories
frame
segregation
in
flexible
contexts,
whereby
cultural,
social
and
physical
barriers
contribute
to
its
formation.
8
Massey,
D.
and
Denton,
M.,
(1998).
American
Apartheid:
Segregation
and
the
Making
of
the
Underclass,
Harvard
University
Press,
pg
2
9
Fairbairn,
K.,
&
Khatun,
H.,
(1989).
Residential
segregation
and
the
interurban
migration
of
South
Asians
in
Edmonton,
Canadian
Ethnic
Studies,
21,
pp
45-­‐64

9. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
9
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Cultural
A
common
explanation
of
migrant
segregation
is
cultural,
whereby
immigrants
choose
to
live
near
people
with
similar
preferences
and
attitudes
and
familiar
behaviours
and,
importantly,
speak
the
same
language.
Bauder
and
Sharpe
attribute
segregation
to
specific
migrant
characteristics,
where
“language,
place
of
origin,
income,
education,
circumstance
of
immigration,
destination
city
and
other
factors”
determine
migrants’
spatial
representation.10
In
the
same
vein,
research
by
Van
Kempen
demonstrated
that
cultural
differences
influence
future
migratory
plans,
which
will
affect
the
extent
to
which
migrants
seek
to
assimilate,
and
determine,
to
some
degree,
their
level
of
segregation.11
The
causes
of
residential
segregation
have
also
been
attributed
to
distinct
ethnic
preferences
of
migrant
groups.12
These
preferences
see
ethnic
group
members
consciously
residing
in
particular
areas
so
as
to
strengthen
cultures
and
avoid
identity
challenges
that
may
be
posed
by
the
presence
of
other
ethnic
groups.
This
conclusion
was
reached
by
Bobo
et
al,
who
conducted
research
into
the
influence
neighbourhood
composition
has
on
spatial
preferences
and
found
that
deliberate
decisions
over
where
to
locate
were
dependent
on
the
existing
neighbourhood
profile.13
Discrimination
Segregation
has
also
been
framed
as
a
consequence
of
a
prejudicial
and
discriminatory
host
society,
whose
behaviour
is
expressed
as
both
a
deliberate
tactic
to
exclude
specific
minorities
and
as
a
subconscious
sentiment
based
on
pre-­‐existing
stereotypes.
Empirical
evidence,
promoted
by
Balakrishnan,
shows
discrimination
of
ethnic
minorities
in
their
entry
and
mobility
within
the
housing
market,
attaining
employment
and
more
broadly
integrating
into
society,
all
of
10
Bauder,
H.,
and
Sharpe,
B.,
(2002).
Residential
segregation
of
visible
minorities
in
Canada's
gateway
cities,
The
Canadian
Geographer,
46(3):
pg
206
11
Ibid.,
Van
Kempen,
R.,
and
Ozuekren,
A.
S.,
(1998).
pp
1631-­‐1656
12
Zubrinsky-­‐Charles,
C.,
(2001).
Processes
of
Racial
Residential
Segregation
in
Urban
Inequality:
Evidence
from
Four
Cities,
New
York:
Russell
Sage
Foundation,
pg
226
13
Bobo,
L.,
et
al,
(February
2000).
Multi-­city
study
of
Urban
Inequality
(1992-­1994):
Atlanta,
Boston,
Detroit,
Los
Angeles,
Michigan:
Inter-­‐university
Consortium
for
Political
and
Social
Research,
3rd
version,
pp
i-­‐iv

10. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
10
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
which
support
the
notion
that
segregation
exists
as
an
externally
imposed
phenomenon.14
Urban
structure
Segregation
has
also
been
considered
to
exist
as
an
outcome
borne
of
the
structural
conditions
that
influence
migrant
settlement
patterns.
The
ability
to
access
housing,
and
then
be
mobile
within
the
market,
remains
the
grounding
factor
that
allows
migrants
to
achieve
subsequent
measures
of
integration.
By
choosing
to
locate
in
segregated
areas,
minority
groups
are
able
to
tap
into
networks,
which
provide
access
to
social
and
economic
opportunities.
This
support
is
said
to
assist
the
process
of
integration,
while
allowing
cultural
identity
to
be
strengthened
and
sustained.15
Tiebout
also
finds
that
spatial
decisions
are
dependent
on
the
type
of
housing
available
and
the
attributes
of
the
neighbourhood,
including
ethnicity,
socioeconomic
status
and
family
composition.
As
neighbourhoods
become
increasingly
heterogeneous,
they
attract
individuals
at
a
similar
stage
of
socioeconomic
development,
which
results
in
the
spatial
configuration
of
the
city
being
split
along
both
geographic
and
socioeconomic
lines.
As
such,
the
housing
profile
and
neighbourhood
configuration
of
particular
areas
develop
unique
characteristics,
representing
both
a
source
of
diversity,
but
also
one
of
segregation.16
Theorising
segregation
Spatial
segregation
is,
according
to
Kaplan
and
Woodhouse,
“…a
process
that
victimises
some
groups
while
liberating
others.”17
It
has
various
causes
and
Massey
concludes
that,
“In
any
single
neighbourhood,
whatever
its
overall
14
Balakrishnan,
T.R.,
and
Feng
Hou.,
(1999).
Socioeconomic
integration
and
spatial
residential
patterns
of
immigrant
groups
in
Canada,
Netherlands:
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers,
Population
Research
and
Policy
Review
18:
pg
202
15
Ibid.,
Van
Kempen,
R.,
and
Ozuekren,
A.
S.,
(1998),
pg
1635
16
Beall,
J.,
(2000).
The
Culture
of
Poverty
to
Inclusive
Cities:
Reframing
Urban
Policy
and
Politics,
Journal
of
International
Development
,
12
(6),
pp
843-­‐856
17
Kaplan,
D.,
and
Woodhouse,
K.,
(2004).
Research
in
Ethnic
Segregation
I:
Causal
Factors,
Bellwether
Publishing,
Urban
Geography
25,
pp
579-­‐585

11. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
11
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
qualities,
we
might
find
that
some
residents
are
trapped
within
it,
others
use
it
as
a
temporary
base
from
which
to
rise,
and
others
–
those
with
the
most
choice
–
prefer
it
as
a
culturally
agreeable
environment.”18
There
are
severeal
key
theoretical
models
that
apply
in
this
analysis,
and
can
be
used
to
explain
the
causes
of
segregation
and
its
impact
on
social
potential.
These
are
heterolocalism
and
ethnic
enclaves
and
to
a
lesser
degree,
place
stratification
and
spatial
assimilation.
Heterolocalism
Heterolocalism
allows
for
the
consideration
of
wider
global
social
and
economic
factors
to
explain
integration,
rather
than
simply
relying
on
residential
location
as
is
the
case
with
the
theories
of
place
stratification
and
spatial
assimilation,
which
attempts
to
link
social
barriers
on
the
process
of
social
integration
with
residential
location.
In
order
to
establish
concrete
links
between
the
segregation
observed
in
this
analysis
and
heterolocalism,
further
research
is
necessary
to
understand
how
socioeconomic
links
between
different
migrant
groups
are
maintained
post-­‐settlement.
Within
the
globalised
world,
where
transportation
and
communication
technology
allow
stronger
connections
to
be
formed
regardless
of
place,
residential
location
as
an
indicator
of
social
integration
is
perhaps
less
relevant.
The
heterolocalism
construct
allows
for
ethnic
groups
to
“enter
a
given
area
from
distant
sources,
then
promptly
adopt
a
dispersed
pattern
of
residential
location,
all
the
while
maintaining
strong
social
cohesion”.19
There
are
limitations
to
the
theory
of
heterolocalism,
as
its
foundations
are
based
on
the
ability
of
migrants
to
attain
an
economic
and
social
standing
that
allows
them
to
choose
where
they
live
while
maintaining
ethnic
group
connections.
However,
if
this
choice
is
beyond
their
financial
means,
then
choosing
residential
18
Logan,
J.
R.,
Wenquan,
Z.,
and
Alba,
R.
D.,
(April
2002).
Immigrant
Enclaves
and
Ethnic
Communities
in
New
York
and
Los
Angeles,
American
Sociological
Review,
Vol.
67,
No.
2:
pg
320
19
Zelinsky,
W.
and
Lee,
B.
A.,
(1998).
Heterolocalism:
An
alternative
model
of
the
sociospatial
behaviour
of
immigrant
ethnic
communities,
International
Journal
of
Population
Geography,
4:
pg
293

12. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
12
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
locations
in
close
proximity
to
concentrations
of
their
ethnic
group
offers
the
most
realistic
way
of
maintaining
cultural
ties.
This
situation
would
result
in
the
formation
and
maintenance
of
ethnically
concentrated
areas
regardless
of
the
proximising
forces
of
globalisation.20
Ethnic
enclaves
The
outcomes
of
spatial
segregation
depend
to
a
large
degree
on
the
circumstances
of
its
formation.
If
segregation
is
voluntarily
chosen,
it
is
likely
that
positive
outcomes
may
be
witnessed
and
the
area
may
operate
as
an
ethnic
enclave
(successful
examples
include
the
various
Chinatowns
and
Little
Italys
located
throughout
global
cities).
However,
if
spatial
decisions
are
forced
upon
migrants,
due
to
socioeconomic
and
structural
barriers,
then
ghetto-­‐like
characteristics
are
more
likely
to
emerge
(such
as
deepening
poverty,
increased
crime
and
lower
educational
outcomes).21
That
said,
this
simplistic
categorisation
does
not
account
for
similarly
located
individuals
that
sit
along
this
ethnic
enclave-­‐ghetto
gamut,
which
Peach
splits
into
five
types.
The
transitional
Assimilation-­‐Diffusion,
where
migrants
are
transient
and
socially
mobile;
the
Ghetto,
which
is
sustained
due
to
involuntary
forces;
the
Voluntary
Plural-­‐Persistent
Enclave,
where
people
choose
to
live
in
enclaves
that
have
prospered
over
time;
the
Voluntary
Plural-­‐Relocated,
where
transitory,
socially-­‐mobile
movement
takes
place
en
masse;
and
the
Parachuted
Suburb,
where
affluent
or
socially
mobile
ethnic
groups
concentrate
in
particular
neighborhoods.22
In
this
research,
migrants
are
considered
as
a
whole
group,
as
opposed
to
splitting
each
group.
Therefore,
there
is
not
a
sufficient
basis
on
which
to
categorise
ethnic
enclaves
in
the
three
cities.
However,
taking
into
account
previous
research
and
considering
the
concentration
maps
introduced
later
in
20
Zelinsky,
W.
and
Lee,
B.
A.,
(1998).
Heterolocalism:
An
alternative
model
of
the
sociospatial
behaviour
of
immigrant
ethnic
communities,
International
Journal
of
Population
Geography,
4:
pg
293
21
Mayadas,
N.,
and
Segal,
U.,
(2000).
Refugees
in
the
1990s:
A
U.S.
Perspective
in
Social
Work
Practice
with
Immigrants
and
Refugees,
New
York:
Columbia
University
Press
22
Peach,
C.,
(2005).
The
Ghetto
and
the
Ethnic
Enclave
in
Desegregating
the
City:
Ghettos,
Enclaves,
and
Inequality,
Albany:
State
University
of
New
York

13. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
13
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
this
paper,
it
can
be
hypothesised
that
there
exist
concrete
ethnic
enclaves,
and
potentially
ghettos,
in
all
three
cities.
Additional
research
is
required
to
confirm
their
existence
and
to
determine
whether
they
exist
as
positive
ethnic
enclaves
or
as
limiting
ghettos.
Place
stratification
Within
place
stratification,
ethnic
segregation
stems
from
the
social
barriers
that
prevent
ethnic
groups
from
freely
locating.
Instead,
“minorities
are
sorted
by
place
according
to
their
group’s
relative
standing
in
society…’
and
therefore,
‘…members
of
some
ethnic
and
racial
groups
may
not
be
able
to
convert
socioeconomic
and
assimilation
gains
into
advantageous
residential
situations”.23
While
members
of
a
particular
group
may
possess
the
economic
and
social
ability
to
relocate
to
more
desirable
areas,
they
remain
in
the
segregated
area
due
to
externally
imposed
limits
on
their
social
and
economic
mobility,
which
results
in
persisting
areas
of
segregation.
For
place
stratification
to
apply
in
this
study,
deeper
qualitative
research
is
necessary
in
order
to
link
residential
decisions
with
social
expectations,
pressures
and
limitations.
Spatial
assimilation
The
spatial
assimilation
model
sees
ethnic
minorities
“convert
socioeconomic
and
assimilation
progress
into
residential
gains…opening
the
way
for
increased
contact
with
members
of
the
ethnic
majority
and
thus
for
desegregation.”24
The
spatial
assimilation
construct
assumes
that
residential
mobility
is
linked
to
individual
social
mobility
and
that
progressive
residential
mobility
allows
for
ultimate
assimilation.25
In
order
to
link
spatial
assimilation
with
the
segregation
results
observed
in
this
study,
the
socioeconomic
evolution
of
foreigners
must
be
quantified
and
correlated
with
residential
patterns.
23
Alba,
R.
D.,
and
Logan,
J.
R.,
(1993).
Minority
Proximity
to
Whites
in
Suburbs:
An
individual-­level
Analysis
Of
Segregation,
American
Journal
Of
Sociology,
98
(6),
pg
1391
24
Ibid.,
Alba,
R.
D.,
and
Logan,
J.
R.,
(1993).
pg
1390
25
Logan,
J.
R.,
and
Alba,
R.
D.,
(1999).
Minority
Niches
and
Immigrant
Enclaves
in
New
York
and
Los
Angeles:
Trends
and
Impacts,
pp
173-­‐
293
in
Immigration
and
Opportunity:
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Employment
in
the
United
States,
edited
by
F.
D.
Bean
and
S.
Bell-­‐Rose.
New
York:
Russell
Sage
Foundation,
pg
447

14. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
14
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Networks
Migrant
networks
comprise
interpersonal
ties
between
community
members,
institutions
and
organisations
and
cut
across
professional
and
personal
boundaries.
Spatial
segregation
has
the
ability
to
provide
a
cultural
milieu,
within
which
new
migrants
are
able
to
join
pre-­‐existing
networks
and
achieve
immediate
social
inclusion,
while
enhancing
their
ability
to
become
economically
active
and
socially
mobile.
Therefore,
while
spatial
segregation
may
result
in
ethnic
minorities
drifting
further
away
from
mainstream
society,
they
may
actually
experience
increased
feelings
of
inclusion,
made
possible
by
their
spatial
segregation,
which
“enables
physical
defense
against
racially
motivated
harassment
by
providing
psychological
support…’
and
assists
‘…the
preservation
of
the
group’s
heritage
and…promotion
of
group
interests”.26
However,
Massey
argues
that
residential
segregation
and
the
resultant
networks
have
been
instrumental
in
creating
a
niche
within
which,
“…a
deleterious
set
of
attitudes
and
behaviours
–
a
culture
of
segregation
has
arisen
and
flourished.”
In
this
context,
segregation
has
created
the
structural
conditions
that
allow
for
the
emergence
of
an
oppositional
culture,
which
devalues
key
indicators
of
socioeconomic
success
in
employment,
education
and
family
formation.27
Therefore,
as
new
members
of
the
minority
group
enter
the
segregated
area,
they
are
subject
to
the
peer
pressure
of
existing
members
to
conform
to
existing
‘deleterious’
norms
in
relation
to
employment,
education,
fertility
and
language.
They
may
also
be
exposed
to
information
that
is
referential
to
the
segregated
community
(welfare
access)
rather
than
the
information
normally
communicated
to
and
consumed
by
broader
society
(such
as
labour
market
entry
and
further
education).28
This
selectivity
of
informationhas
the
potential
to
ultimately
create
26
Ibid.,
Bauder,
H.,
and
Sharpe,
B.,
(2002).
pg
206
27
Ibid.,
pg
8
28
Bertrand,
M.,
Luttmer,
E.,
and
Mullainathan,
S.,
(October
1998).
Network
Effects
and
Welfare
Cultures,
Princeton
University,
Working
Paper
405

15. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
15
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
an
‘oppositional
culture,’
which
opposes
the
ideals
and
norms
of
mainstream
society.29
Spatial
segregation
measures
Spatial
segregation
can
be
defined
as
the
extent
to
which,
within
a
particular
area,
individual
members
of
different
groups
are
distributed
in
an
even
fashion
across
physical
spaces.30
The
dissimilarity
index
provides
an
indication
of
whether
the
distribution
of
these
groups
is
relatively
even
or
uneven;
how
many
of
one
group
have
to
exchange
residence
with
the
other
group
on
the
basis
that
a
score
of
1
indicates
even
distribution
(where
all
groups
are
distributed
through
spaces
in
a
completely
uniform
manner
and
no
exchange
of
residence
between
groups
would
be
required).
Insights
from
the
dissimilarity
index
may
be
limited
due
to
the
issue
of
comparability.
In
order
for
valuable
comparisons
to
be
made,
it
is
important
that
geographical
areas
remain
relatively
consistent
over
time.31
By
maintaining
constant
units,
as
is
the
case
in
this
study,
interpretations
about
the
causes
and
outcomes
of
segregation
remain
valid
to
a
greater
degree.
The
ecological
fallacy
must
also
be
considered.
In
order
for
the
dissimilarity
index
to
be
a
reliable
and
comparable
indicator
of
spatial
segregation,
geographic
units
must
be
held
constant
over
multiple
time
periods.32
Steps
to
address
the
fallacy
have
been
taken
by
using
data
relating
to
the
most
detailed
geography
accessible
and
maintaining
this
geography
across
periods
in
the
subsequent
dissimilarity
index
calculation.
29
Ibid.,
Balakrishnan,
T.R.,
and
Feng
Hou.,
(1999).
pg
203
30
Reardon,
S.
F
and
O'Sullivan,
D.,
(2004).
Measures
of
spatial
segregation,
Sociological
Methodology
34,
pp
121-­‐162
31
Pisati,
M.,
(Novembe
2009).
Spatial
Indicies
of
Residential
Segregation,
Department
of
Sociology
and
Social
Research
University
of
Milano-­‐Bicocca
(Italy),
6th
Italian
Stata
Users
Group
meeting
32
McGraw,
D
and
Watson,
G.,
(1976).
Political
and
social
inquiry,
Wiley,
pg
134

16. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
16
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
The
index
of
dissimilarity
is
just
one
way
to
measure
spatial
segregation
and
when
considered
alone,
may
not
fully
reflect
the
level
of
under/over-­‐
representation
across
areas
or
the
extent
of
exposure
and
interaction
between
groups.
Exposure
measures
attempt
to
determine
the
level
of
interaction
and
isolation
between
different
groups
within
a
particular
area,
and
measure
the
extent
to
which
minority
and
majority
members
physically
confront
one
another
by
virtue
of
sharing
a
common
residential
area.33
There
are
two
basic
measures
of
residential
exposure:
the
interaction
index
measures
the
extent
to
which
members
of
the
minority
group
are
exposed
to
the
majority
group.
The
isolation
index
measures
the
extent
to
which
members
of
a
particular
group
are
only
exposed
to
one
another,
rather
than
to
members
of
other
groups.
While
no
global
consensus
has
been
reached
on
the
most
appropriate
measure
of
segregation,
due
to
the
“complexity
and
ambiguity
of
the
concept
of
segregation,”34
a
literature
review
points
to
the
index
of
dissimilarity
as
being
the
most
widely
used
and
relevant
measure.
Dimensions
of
segregation
A
developed
and
useful
understanding
of
segregation
requires
consideration
from
multiple
perspectives,
an
approach
supported
by
Massey
and
Denton
who
assert
that
more
than
one
index
is
required
in
order
to
accurately
measure
segregation.
In
an
analysis
of
twenty
segregation
indices,
they
conclude
that
there
exist
five
dimensions
of
segregation:
evenness,
exposure,
concentration,
centralization
and
clustering.35
In
this
study,
I
consider
evenness
and
exposure
and
also
measure
concentration
using
a
proportional
calculation.
Determining
the
level
of
evenness,
exposure
and
concentration
present
within
cities
provides
a
meaningful
calculation
to
explain
settlement
patterns
of
the
33
Massey,
D.A.
and
Denton,
N.A.,
(1988).
Residential
Segregation
of
Blacks,
Hispanics,
and
Asians
by
Socioeconomic
Status
and
Generation,
Social
Science
Quarterly,
69,
pg
287
34
James,
D.
and
Taeuber,
K.,
(1985).
Measures
of
Segregation,
Sociological
Methodology
15,
pg
24
35
Massey,
D.
S.
and
Denton,
N.
A.,
(December
1988).
The
Dimensions
of
Residential
Segregation,
Social
Forces
67:2,
pg
283

17. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
17
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
foreign-­‐born.
The
consideration
of
these
multiple
dimensions
of
segregation
is
crucial
in
order
for
policy
makers
to
be
in
a
position
to
make
connections
between
economic
and
social
measures
of
integration
and
spatial
segregation
patterns.
Without
considering
segregation
from
multiple
angles,
informed
decisions
aimed
at
facilitating
and
improving
integration
outcomes
are
limited
to
a
reliance
on
one-­‐dimensional
data,
which
indicates
integration
outcomes
but
does
not
offer
a
link
between
these
outcomes
and
the
spatial
representation
of
the
foreign-­‐born.
Evenness
The
dissimilarity
index
in
its
basic
form
measures
the
“differential
distribution
of
two
social
groups
among
defined
areas”
or
the
level
of
evenness.36
Both
Massey
and
Harrison
conclude
that
of
the
most
widely
used
measures
of
segregation,
it
is
the
dissimilarity
index
that
is
the
most
reliable
in
representing
evenness,
due
to
its
simplicity
and
widespread
empirical
use.37
Exposure
Indices
of
exposure
measure,
at
an
individual
level,
the
extent
to
which
groups
are
exposed
to
physical
contact
as
a
result
of
living
in
the
same
neighbourhood.
The
most
common
indices
include
those
relating
to
interaction
and
isolation.
The
importance
of
contact
between
natives
and
foreigners
was
first
noted
by
Bell
as
a
key
factor
in
determining
integration
outcomes.38
Concentration
Concentration
is
determined
by
analysing
how
ethnic
groups
of
the
same
size
occupy
particular
spaces.
By
understanding
levels
of
concentration,
one
can
36
Ibid.,
Massey,
D.
S.
and
Denton,
N.
A.,
(December
1988).
pg
283
37
Harrison,
R.
and
Weinberg,
D.,
(1992).
Residential
Segregation
–
Measure
Definitions
in
Racial
and
Ethnic
Segregation,
working
paper,
U.S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
Washington,
D.C.,
pg
2
38
Bell,
W.,
(1954).
A
Probability
Model
for
the
Measurement
of
Ecological
Segregation,
Social
Forces
32,
pp
357-­‐64

18. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
18
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
conclude
that
certain
groups
may
be
“considered
more
concentrated
and
consequently
more
segregated.”39
The
global
city
The
creation
of
the
global
city
Global
cities
must
constantly
adapt
to
changing
population,
socioeconomic
and
geopolitical
dynamics
and
migration
is
emerging
as
one
of
the
key
factors
that
cuts
across
each
of
each
of
these
forces.
I
consider
the
global
city
in
this
study
and
seek
to
highlight
and
explain
similarities
and
distinctions
in
migrant
integration
–
analysed
through
spatial
segregation
in
this
case
–
within
three
global
cities.
I
also
pose
questions
about
how
the
management
of
migrants’
spatial
integration
might
impact
the
future
success
of
the
migrant
and
the
city.
The
divergent
processes
–
economic,
social,
cultural
and
spatial
–
of
globalisation
can
be
seen
in
cities
around
the
world.
National
borders,
while
still
spatially
firm,
are
losing
ground
as
a
result
of
the
extensive
international
interaction
and
integration
–
made
possible
by
information
technology
and
communication
networks
–
of
economic,
political
and
social
forces.40
These
forces
are
determining
a
new
spatial
order
and
driving
a
new
urban
hierarchy
that
is
founded
not
only
in
national
boundaries,
but
is
also
shaped
by
networks
and
interconnectedness.
The
resultant
global
cities
compete
to
maintain
their
role
in
transnational
human
and
capital
flows,
a
contest
that
shifts
the
focus
between
the
inanimate
features
of
place
to
the
flows
that
contribute
to
its
whole.41
The
strategic
role
cities
play
in
the
urban
hierarchy
is
currently
being
resolved
through
the
interactions
and
conflict
between
state
and
private
institutions.
The
power
of
capitalism
has
the
potential
to
result
in
the
profit-­‐motivated
private
sector
gaining
increasing
scope
and
physical
power
to
commodify
space.
This
39
Ibid.,
Harrison,
R.
and
Weinberg,
D.,
(1992).
pg
3
40
Friedmann,
J.,
(1995).
The
World
City
Hypothesis.
World
Cities
in
a
World
System,
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press
41
Castells,
M.,
(1996).
The
Rise
of
the
Network
Society,
The
Information
Age:
Economy,
Society
and
Culture
(Vol.
1).
Cambridge,
Oxford:
Blackwell
Publishing
Ltd

19. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
19
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
process
of
commodification
can
be
seen
in
the
grouping
of
socioeconomically
alike
individuals
in
order
to
achieve
economies
of
scale
in
service
delivery.
Global
cities
have
also
given
in
to
the
forces
of
gentrification,
where
land
and
public
space
is
recycled
to
the
highest
value.
This
creates
investment
expectations
and
the
pressure
to
self-­‐replicate
intensifies
competition
at
a
national,
city
and
suburban
level.
It
has
also
led
to
a
spatial
restructuring
of
key
infrastructure
and
amenities
within
cities.
This
process
generally
results
in
the
central,
most
connected
areas
of
the
city
being
priced
out
of
reach
of
minority
groups
at
a
lower
socioeconomic
level,
thereby
reinforcing
latent
disadvantages
already
present.42
Within
a
spatial
construct,
higher
economic
classes
confront
those
at
lower
levels
and
displace
them
from
sought-­‐after
inner
city
areas
to
yet-­‐poorer
and
potentially
more
disadvantaged
neighbourhoods.
This
iterating
sequence
of
events
widens
inequalities
and
creates
“divided,
partitioned,
polarised
and
fragmented”
cities.43
Sassen
expresses
concern
that
the
increasing
levels
of
spatial
segregation
raise
the
likelihood
of
increased
polarisation
and
social
exclusion.44
Migration
and
the
global
city
The
migrant
flows
that
are
the
logical
result
of
globalisation
naturally
lead
to
a
state
of
multiculturalism,
defined
by
Rosado
as
“…a
system
of
beliefs
and
behaviours
that
recognises
and
respects
the
presence
of
all
diverse
groups
in
an
organisation
or
society,
acknowledges
and
values
their
socio-­‐cultural
differences
and
encourages
and
enables
their
continued
contribution
within
an
inclusive
cultural
context
which
empowers
all
within
the
organisation
or
society.”45
Cities
are
a
natural
habitat
of
migrants
and
function
as
environments
that
both
provide
for
and
rely
upon
the
positive
replication
of
the
migratory
process
for
their
longevity.
They
are
pluralistic
spaces
where
the
obligation
to
adhere
to
42
Madanipour,
A.,
(2003).
Social
Exclusion
and
Space,
The
City
Reader,
London
and
New
York:
Routledge,
pp
181-­‐188
43
Massey,
D.
S.
(2009).
Globalization
and
Inequality:
Explaining
American
Exceptionalism,
European
Sociological
Review,
pp
9-­‐23
44
Sassen,
S.,
(2001).
The
Global
City:
New
York,
London,
and
Tokyo
(Second
ed.).
Princeton
University
Press
45
Rosado,
C.,
(1997).
Toward
a
definition
of
multiculturalism.
www.rosado.net

20. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
20
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
certain
host
society
cultural
norms
is
diluted
somewhat
by
the
presence
of
multiple
cultures.
This
pluralism
deepens
the
complexity
of
intercultural
interactions
and
the
potential
for
conflict.
Migrants
must
expend
greater
energy
to
maintain
their
identity
and
the
host
society
must
adapt
to
numerous
cultures
competing
for
space.46
This
pluralisation
of
societies
can
represent
a
positive
outcome
for
migrants,
whose
integration
is
eased
by
previously
established
networks,
emotional
and
logistical
support
and
referential
cultural
landmarks.
However,
it
may
also
be
interpreted
as
a
threat
to
the
nation-­‐state.
Migrants,
who
are
one
of
the
driving
forces
behind
increasing
levels
of
multiculturalism,
each
possess
different
ambitions
and
require
distinct
integration
approaches.
This
requires
a
degree
of
cultural
and
structural
flexibility
that
not
all
societies
are
willing
to
accommodate,
often
preferring
that
migrants
operate
under
the
same
paradigm
as
the
majority
endorsed
construct.47
As
cities
evolve
through
the
process
of
urbanisation,
levels
of
ethnic
and
cultural
diversity
increase.
The
establishment
of
self-­‐referential
communities
reduces
the
relevance
of
and
reverence
to
the
culture
and
identity
of
the
state.
While
cultural
identity
and
geographic
boundaries
have
historically
coincided,
technological
developments
in
communication
and
transportation
have
diminished
the
importance
of
geographical
separation
on
cultural
identity.
This
allows
cultural
identity
to
be
maintained
regardless
of
place,
allowing
people
to
be
‘both
here
and
there’
simultaneously.48
Global
cities
such
as
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
will
remain
attractive
to
migrants
as
a
result
of
the
economic
and
social
opportunities
that
naturally
exist
within
them.
In
each
of
the
cities
analysed,
the
proportion
of
foreigners
increased,
or
remained
high
over
the
period
analysed
[Barcelona:
1-­‐18%
(1991-­‐2008),
London:
25-­‐32%
(1991-­‐2001),
Melbourne:
33-­‐31%
(1996-­‐2006)].
46
Ottiaviano,
G.
and
Prarolo
G.,
(November
2008).
Cultural
Identity
and
Knowledge
Creation
in
Cosmopolitan
Cities,
Bocconi
University
of
Bologna,
pp
1-­‐5
47
Koopmans,
R
and
Statham,
P.,
(1999)
Challenging
the
Liberal
Nation-­State?
Postnationalism,
Multiculturalism,
and
the
Collective
Claims
Making
of
Migrants
and
Ethnic
Minorities
in
Britain
and
Germany,
The
University
of
Chicago
48
Beck,
U.,
(2000).
What
is
Globalisation?,
Cambridge,
UK:
Polity
Press

21. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
21
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
The
consideration
of
the
spatial
representation
of
migrants
is
therefore
critical
for
cities
aiming
to
ensure
social,
economic
and
cultural
evolution.
By
analysing
the
spatial
preferences
and
behaviour
of
migrants,
specifically
their
spatial
segregation,
cities
are
able
to
obtain
a
deeper
understanding
of
the
forces
driving
this
representation.
Knowledge
of
spatial
segregation
trends
allows
cities
to
hypothesise
policies
and
actions
that
aim
to
ensure
this
segregation
remains
a
positive
phenomenon,
which
supports
migrant
integration
into
society.
City
selection
The
selection
of
cities
for
this
study
was
based
on
several
factors.
Cities
must
be
sufficiently
diverse
with
a
significant
foreign-­‐born
population,
in
order
to
allow
for
observations
to
be
made
regarding
the
integration
and
segregation
of
different
groups.
Cities
must
also
be
globalised
–
in
economic,
social
and
cultural
terms
–
to
ensure
the
consistent
treatment
of
ideologies,
attitudes
and
behaviours
across
cities
and
to
allow
for
comparable
interpretations
of
segregation.
There
is
also
an
important
personal
aspect
to
the
selection
of
these
three
cities.
Residential
experience
within
each
of
the
cities
analysed
and
an
understanding
of
the
hyper-­‐local
economic,
residential
and
cultural
forces,
not
immediately
observable
at
a
macro
level,
has
allowed
for
greater
insight
into
the
implications
of
migrant
segregation.
A
series
of
maps
shows
the
concentration
of
the
foreign-­‐born
population
in
the
three
cities
at
two
time
points
and
highlights
the
contribution
of
each
area
to
total
migrant
growth
over
the
period
considered.
Due
to
data
availability
and
graphic
considerations,
these
maps
were
created
using
different
geographic
units
to
the
ones
used
in
the
calculation
of
the
dissimilarity
index.
An
analysis
of
the
social,
structural
and
spatial
make-­‐up
of
each
city
is
provided
below.

22. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
22
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Barcelona
Background
The
City
of
Barcelona
covers
101
km2
with
a
population
of
approximately
1.6
million
people
according
to
the
Ajuntament
de
Barcelona.
Barcelona’s
history
is
rooted
in
Roman
conquest
and,
despite
the
1936-­‐39
civil
war,
the
city
experienced
the
full
force
of
industrialisation,
which
saw
large-­‐scale
regional
and
international
migration
and
led
to
the
rapid
urbanisation
that
continues
today.
While
the
official
population
of
Barcelona
currently
stands
at
1.6
million,
the
city
relies
on
an
economic
population
of
over
5.0
million.49
Population
density
in
Barcelona
of
15,779
persons
per
km2
–
the
highest
within
Spain
–
is
elevated
compared
to
other
European
cities.
The
Council
of
Barcelona
estimates
that
in
2008
some
18
per
cent
of
the
population
originated
outside
of
Spain,
up
significantly
from
the
1
per
cent
recorded
in
1991.
Barcelona
is
a
global
city
in
both
its
size
and
the
size
of
its
foreign
population.50
The
city
has
urbanised
over
the
past
two
decades
and
experiences
high
levels
of
density.
Both
rural-­‐to-­‐urban
and
international
migrants
are
drawn
to
the
city
for
reasons
that
may
be
economic
(employment
opportunities),
social
(to
more
easily
connect
with
family
and
friends)
and
cultural
(to
access
the
activities
and
events
not
available
in
more
rural
settings).
Spain’s
migration
policy
follows
the
traditional
‘open
borders’
European
model.
However,
with
a
large
number
of
undocumented
migrants,
more
stringent
regulations
have
been
introduced.
The
government
continues
to
focus
on
border
protection
as
a
means
of
slowing
rapidly
expanding
migration
flows
and
has
also
succumbed
to
populist
pressure
to
restrict
migration
flows
originating
in
the
49
Institut
d'Estadística
de
Catalunya,
accessed
May
2011,
http://www.idescat.cat/
50
Beaverstock,
J.,
(July
1998).
Globalization
and
the
World
Cities
Research
Network
(GaWC),
GaWC
Research
Bulletin
5,
GaWC,
Loughborough
University

23. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
23
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
labour
market.
Nevertheless,
multiculturalism
is
firmly
supported,
in
contrast
to
neighbouring
France’s
promotion
of
assimilation.
Barcelona
is
a
relatively
young
city
of
migration
and
just
1
per
cent
of
the
total
population
was
foreign-­‐born
in
1991.
The
city
experienced
rapid
immigration
from
poorer
countries
in
the
Middle
East,
Africa
and
South
America
during
the
1990s
and
more
recently
from
other
Western
countries
as
Spain’s
economy
expanded.
These
flows
have
contributed
to
the
jump
in
Barcelona’s
foreign-­‐born
population,
which
hit
18
per
cent
of
the
total
in
2008.
In
Barcelona,
there
is
limited
public
ownership
of
land,
which
has
prevented
the
development
of
regulated
social
housing.
The
housing
market
is
by
and
large
a
free
market
with
a
high
percentage
of
private
property
compared
to
other
European
countries.
This
is
the
result
of
the
social
and
economic
changes
that
took
place
during
the
second
half
of
the
twentieth
century,51
whereby
home
ownership
became
the
primary
strategy
individuals
and
families
adopted
in
order
to
maintain
social
and
economic
status.
The
rental
market
has,
until
recently,
been
moribund,
and
was
to
a
large
extent
restricted
to
long-­‐term
tenants
paying
low
rents.
However,
recent
policy
developments
have
led
to
its
liberalization,52
however,
subsidized
housing
is
still
virtually
non-­‐existent,
which
may
influence
migrant
spatial
patterns
and
integration
outcomes.
Official
data
from
the
Ajuntament
de
Barcelona
shows
that
migrants
originating
in
Ecuador,
Peru,
Colombia
and
Argentina
represent
a
large
proportion
of
the
foreign-­‐born
residing
in
Barcelona,
which
may
be
the
result
of
the
linguistic
ties
Spain
shares
with
Latin
America.
In
addition,
Spain’s
proximity
to
Africa
has
seen
a
strong
presence
of
migrants
originating
in
North
Africa
settling
throughout
Spain,
particularly
urban
areas
such
as
Barcelona
and
Madrid.
Figure
1
highlights
Barcelona’s
negligible
foreign
population
(representing
just
1
per
cent)
in
1991
by
barrio,
before
advancing
markedly
over
the
subsequent
17
years
and
reaching
18
per
cent
of
the
total
population
in
2008
as
can
be
seen
in
51
Cabre,
A.
and
Módenes,
J.
A.,
(2004).
Home
Ownership
and
Social
Inequality
in
Spain,
Centre
d’Estudis
Demogràfics,
Stanford:
Stanford
University
Press
52
Ibid.

24. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
24
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
figure
2.
Density
in
Barcelona
is
high,
allowing
immigrants
to
realistically
afford
inner-­‐city
living.
This
ensures
migrants
are
in
a
position
to
avoid
segregated
areas
and
locate
in
barrios
more
connected
to
employment
and
education
opportunities.
Figure
3
shows
the
contribution
of
each
barrio
in
Barcelona
to
overall
growth
in
the
foreign-­‐born
population
between
1991
and
2008.
The
areas
where
the
majority
of
growth
in
the
foreign
population
took
place
are
centrally
located
and
include
the
barrios
of
Raval
and
Gotic.
However,
growth
was
also
observed
in
the
proximal
outer-­‐lying
suburbs,
which,
as
is
the
case
in
London
and
Melbourne,
are
areas
that
have
proven
to
attract
migrant
communities
due
to
affordability
and
the
familiarity
that
comes
with
existing
concentrations.
Maps
Figure
1
–
foreigners
as
a
proportion
of
total
population
by
barrio,
1991

25. A
comparative
analysis
of
spatial
segregation
in
three
25
global
cities:
Barcelona,
London
and
Melbourne
Figure
2
–
foreigners
as
a
proportion
of
total
population
by
barrio,
2008
Figure
3
–
contribution
to
foreign-­population
growth
by
barrio,
1991-­2008