Moving forward with ethnoburb and income inequality: A Preliminary Analysis

1. Moving forward with ethnoburb and income inequality: A Preliminary Analysis Rafael Harun PhD Candidate in Planning University of Waterloo, ON, smharun@uwaterloo.ca

2. Background • Canada has the highest proportion of foreign born population (20.6%) among G7 countries • About 82.4% of the new comers come from Asia • A number of literature has used ethnoburb to describe the immigrant settlement pattern • There is a lack of coherence in the process of identifying ethnoburbs • One inconsistency – visible minority variable • Most literature is descriptive by nature, and there is a lack of in-depth analysis of socioeconomic issues

3. Objective AND RESARCH QUESTIONS • To assess the efficacy of visible minority variable to capture immigrant dynamics • To evaluate the prevalence of income disparity concerns in ethnoburbs RESEARCH QUESTIONS • Are there differences between major ethnic minority groups? • Is there any difference in the settlement patterns? • Do they differ in socioeconomic characteristics? • Where are the ethnoburbs of the major ethnic minority groups located? • Are there income inequality issues in the ethnoburbs?

4. description Study Area: Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary Ethnic focus: East and south East Asians, and Southern Asians Data Source: Canadian Census Data Timescale: 1996 to 2011 in 5 year intervals Spatial Scale: Census Tract

5. methodology Spatial Pattern and Socioeconomic Character Identifying Ethnoburbs Income Characterization (Ethnoburb VS Non-ethnoburb) Calculate Gini Coefficient Calculate Immigrant percentages by place of birth Calculate VM percentages for each group Calculate VM percentages Calculate LQ for the immigrant groups Calculate Coefficient of Polarization Use Gettis Ord Gi* Statistics to identify HS Identify ethnoburb based on VM percentages Identify ethnoburb based on VM percentages Calculate Middle Class Proportions Correlation Analysis to Characterize each VM group Overlay identified ethnoburbs on LQ distribution

6. Is there any difference in the settlement patterns? • Do they differ in socioeconomic characteristics? Are there differences between the E & SE Asian and South Asian in the STUDY AREA?

9. What are the socioeconomic profiles of the two groups?

11. Where are the ethnoburbs of the two minority groups located?

12. Frequently used criteria to identify ethnoburb • A density of 10% to 35% is commonly applied to identify ethnoburbs • Visible minority variable is predominantly used

15. Location quotient • Quantifies how concentrated a specific group is at a location relative to the benchmark (The municipalities in this case) • Compare immigrant concentration at a CT relative to the Four Metropolis Number of immigrants of group X at CT / Total immigrants at CT Number of immigrants of group X at Benchmark/ Total immigrants at Benchmark LQ > 1 : Outperforming the benchmark LQ < 1 : Performing below the benchmark LQ = 1 : Subsistence level performance

20. EFFICACY OF ETHNOBURBS TO CAPTURE IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

21. ARE THERE INCOME INEQUALITY ISSUES IN THE ETHNOBURBS?

22. INCOME INEQUALITY MIDDLE CLASS PROPORTION

23. Summary & Conclusion • The E & SE Asian and Southern Asian groups considerably differ on settlement patterns and socioeconomic characteristics • Using ‘Visible Minority’ as a variable includes multiple generations an does not capture the immigrant settlement dynamics • There are difference in the patterns of income disparities between the two groups AND LOCATIONS SO WHAT? • We need to go beyond descriptive research • We need better data to investigate the situation more accurately • Having an agreed criteria is essential (population concentration is not the only factor) • Is ethnoburb a new model or simply a phenomenon?