Search

The measurement of deprivation for small areas in the UK has provided the basis for the development of policies and targeting of resources aimed at reducing spatial inequalities. Most measures summarise the aggregate level of deprivation across all people in a given area, and no account is taken of differences between people with differing characteristics, such as age, sex or ethnic group. In recognition of the marked inequalities between ethnic groups in the UK, and the distinctive geographies of these inequalities, this paper presents a new ethnic group‐specific neighbourhood deprivation measure—the Ethnic Group Deprivation Index (EGDI). This index, using a custom cross‐tabulated 2021 Census dataset on employment, housing tenure, education and health by ethnic group, reveals the small area geographies of ethnic inequalities that have to date received scant attention, and yet have profound impacts on life chances and well‐being. Drawing on the methodological framework of the widely used English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and for the same geographies (Lower Layer Super Output Areas), the EGDI measures deprivation for each ethnic group using data from the 2021 Census of England and Wales. The EGDI reveals the complex geographies of ethnic inequality and demonstrates that while one ethnic group in a neighbourhood may have high relative levels of deprivation, another ethnic group in that same neighbourhood may experience very low relative levels. The EGDI explores ethnic inequalities within and between neighbourhoods, complementing and augmenting existing measures by offering an important means of better understanding ethnic inequalities. The EGDI can be used to help shape locally and culturally sensitive policy development and resource allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional explanations of neighbourhood ethnic transitions consider what drives differential growth in ethnic group populations without regard to household composition. We enrich these nonhousehold approaches by using consistent Census data on neighbourhoods and households for England and Wales for 2001, 2011 and 2021 to analyse connections between mixed‐ethnicity households and neighbourhood ethnic diversity. We employ a neighbourhood typology of ethnic diversity that identifies neighbourhoods as either low‐ or moderate‐diversity, or high‐diversity, where no single ethnic group is in the majority. We focus particularly on White‐majority and highly diverse neighbourhoods given the dominance of the former in residential spaces in England and Wales, and because they are the principal source of transitions to highly diverse neighbourhoods. Mixed‐ethnicity households have become an increasingly important feature of the ethnic diversification of England and Wales; by 2021, almost 15% of multiperson households were mixed, a growth from 12% in 2011 and 9% in 2001. We find that higher levels of neighbourhood ethnic diversity are associated with higher shares of mixed‐ethnicity households. In high‐diversity neighbourhoods, for example, around 30% of multiperson households (nearly a quarter of a million households) were ethnically mixed in 2021. Levels of household mixing in moderate‐diversity White neighbourhoods were considerably higher than in low‐diversity White neighbourhoods. The same is found for diversifying neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods that become more ethnically diverse were typically home to higher rates of mixed‐ethnicity households. Stably moderately diverse White neighbourhoods also had a higher proportion of mixed households. Studies of neighbourhood transition that focus on individuals in neighbourhoods may be missing important processes operating in the intimate spaces of the home. Including this intermediate scale of analysis adds to our understanding of neighbourhood ethnic mixing and processes of integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internal migration research is paying increasing attention to the role in migration behaviour of having non‐resident family—family living outside of the household—living close by, and also to non‐migration and staying in general. Combining these two themes, this paper investigates the role of non‐resident family ties in rural staying for adults aged 31–64. Using a mixed methods analysis of survey and interview data from the Netherlands, Germany and Northern Ireland (UK), we examine if the presence of non‐resident family nearby relates to future intentions to stay in the rural region, and we explore the meanings of different family relations and how they relate to past and ongoing staying behaviours. Our findings reveal that living near non‐resident children and in‐laws increases the likelihood of the intention to stay in the rural region for the rest of one's lifetime. While the quantitative analyses suggest that the presence of parents in the area does not contribute to future staying intentions, the interviews revealed that parents' residential proximity was integral in the original staying decision. Non‐resident family members provide emotional and instrumental support, offer location‐specific structural opportunities, and provide a sense of security. Partly, family obligations also play a role in staying, yet not in the sense that rural stayers are 'stuck in place' because of family ties, but rather in an implicit way, intertwined with senses of belonging and attachment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While much of the ethnic and racial segregation literature concentrates on residential neighbourhoods, a growing body of research demonstrates how levels of inter-ethnic mixing vary between home and other spaces, including workplace environments. Using alternative population bases from the 2011 Census for England and Wales, we explore how levels of ethnic segregation and diversity compare for working-age people in residential ('nighttime'), workday ('daytime') and workplace ('employment') environments. Analyses of Middle Layer Super Output Areas reveal that a larger number of these zones had low residential ethnic diversity than had low workday or workplace diversity. We also find higher levels of residential segregation than workplace segregation for all ethnic groups, including the White British (majority) and minoritised groups. Notable differences in segregation between residential and workplace spaces for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups, for example, demonstrate that more commonly applied measures of residential segregation fail to capture the extent of inter-ethnic mixing across spaces, and at different times of the day. Commuting data are analysed to explore the role of daily mobilities in shaping these patterns. The findings nuance understandings of levels of ethnic mixing, and emphasise the need for segregation analyses across multiple spatio-temporal contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to disrupt the dominant 'segregation as negative' narrative, by exploring hopeful experiences and perceptions of ethnic residential concentration. Drawing on fieldwork in an ethnically mixed, working-class inner-city neighbourhood, we critically reflect on recent debates around ethnic segregation, particularly hegemonic and 'official' policy discourses that position ethnic concentration as incompatible with social solidarity. Narratives from residents' in-depth interviews in Liverpool 8 problematise this association, offering alternative interpretations of ethnic concentration. Historically, Black and other racially minoritised communities were spatially confined to this area through endemic structural racism. This accentuated existing class, religious and racial inequalities, leading to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of neighbourhood and community. Neighbourhood challenges to racism help both shape and reinforce allegiance and belonging to the neighbourhood of Liverpool 8. Out of structural discrimination and spatial confinement, a unique identity with place has been forged. This has strengthened perceptions of social solidarity amongst residents and led to a neighbourhood belonging 'through difference', not despite the multiple disadvantages residents faced, but, in many ways, because of them. Our findings underscore the value of contextualising the circumstances under which ethnic concentration is (re)created – to appreciate the nuances of its consequences, and how communities respond to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]