Fear of the detrimental effects of ethnic segregation has pervaded the debate on the population composition of cities and neighbourhoods. However, little is known about mechanisms underlying the spatial sorting of ethnic minorities. Hence, policies aimed at desegregation may result in exactly the opposite—that is, new ethnic concentrations and segregation. This paper studies the residential outcomes of 658 forced movers from urban restructuring areas in The Hague. Compared with ‘native’ Dutch (those with both parents born in the Netherlands), ethnic minorities report neighbourhood improvement less often and are more likely to stay within or move into other ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods. These differences are not fully explained by differences in individual characteristics, resources, institutional factors, pre-relocation preferences or other relocation outcomes. Ethnic specificities in neighbourhood choices thus remain a pressing issue for further research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AalbersM. B.DeurlooM. (2003) Concentrated and condemned? Residential patterns of immigrants from industrial and non-industrial countries in Amsterdam, Housing, Theory and Society, 20, pp. 197–208.
2.
AllenT. (2000) Housing renewal: doesn’t it make you sick?, Housing Studies, 15, pp. 443–461.
3.
AtkinsonR. (2004) The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban renaissance?, European Journal of Housing Policy, 4, pp. 107–131.
4.
AtkinsonR. (2005) Neighbourhoods and the impacts of social mix: crime, tenure diversification and assisted mobility. CNR Paper No. 29, ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research (http://www.neighbourhoodcentre.org.uk).
5.
AtkinsonR. (2008) Commentary: gentrification, segregation and the vocabulary of affluent residential choice, Urban Studies, 45, pp. 2626–2636.
6.
BloklandT.van EijkG. (2010) Do people who like diversity practice diversity in neighbourhood life? Neighbourhood use and social networks of ‘diversity seekers’ in a mixed neighbourhood in the Netherlands, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36, pp. 313–332.
7.
BoltG.van KempenR.van HamM. (2008) Minority ethnic groups in the Dutch housing market: spatial segregation, relocation dynamics and housing policy, Urban Studies, 45, pp. 1359–1384.
8.
BuronL.PopkinS.LevyD.. (2002) The HOPE VI resident tracking study: a snapshot of the current living situation of original residents from eight sites. Abt Associates Inc. and The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
9.
ButlerT. (2003) Living in the bubble: gentrification and its ‘others’ in North London, Urban Studies, 40, pp. 2469–2486.
10.
CharlesC. Z. (2003) The dynamics of racial residential segregation, Annual Review of Sociology, 29, pp. 167–207.
11.
Clampet-LundquistS. (2004) HOPE VI relocation: moving to new neighbourhoods and building new ties, Housing Policy Debate, 15, pp. 415–448.
12.
ClaphamD.KintreaK. (1984) Allocation systems and housing choice, Urban Studies, 21, pp. 261–269.
13.
ClarkW. A. V.LedwithV. (2007) How much does income matter in neighborhood choice?, Population Research and Policy Review, 26, pp. 145–161.
14.
ClarkW. A. V.DeurlooM.DielemanF. (2006) Residential mobility and neighbourhood outcomes, Housing Studies, 21, pp. 323–342.
15.
CrumpJ. (2002) Deconcentration by demolition: public housing, poverty, and urban policy, Environment and Planning D, 20, pp. 581–596.
16.
CurleyA. (2007) Dispersing the poor: new directions in public housing policy, in: ArrighiB.MaumeD. (Eds) Child Poverty in America Today, Vol. 4: Children and the State, pp. 71–92. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
17.
van DaalenG.van der LandM. (2008) Next steps in choice-based letting in the Dutch social housing sector, European Journal of Housing Policy, 8, pp. 317–328.
18.
DavidsonM. (2008) Spoiled mixture: where does state-led ‘positive’ gentrification end?, Urban Studies, 45, pp. 2385–2405.
19.
DawkinsC. J. (2004) Recent evidence on the continuing causes of black–white residential segregation, Journal of Urban Affairs, 26, pp. 379–400.
20.
FeinsJ.ShroderM. (2005) Moving to opportunity: the demonstration’s design and its effects on mobility, Urban Studies, 42, pp. 1275–1299.
21.
FreemanL. (2000) Minority housing segregation: a test of three perspectives, Journal of Urban Affairs, 22, pp. 15–35.
22.
FriedM. (1967) Functions of the working-class community in modern urban society: implications for forced relocation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33, pp. 90–103.
23.
GalsterG. (1988) Residential segregation in American cities: a contrary view, Population Research and Policy Review, 7, pp. 93–112.
24.
GalsterG. (2007) Should policy makers strive for neighborhood social mix? An analysis of the western European evidence base, Housing Studies, 22, pp. 523–545.
25.
GoetzE. G. (2002) Forced relocation vs. voluntary mobility: the effects of dispersal programmes on households, Housing Studies, 17, pp. 107–123.
26.
JeffersS.HoggettP. (1995) Like counting deckchairs on the Titanic: a study of institutional racism and housing allocations in Haringey and Lambeth, Housing Studies, 10, pp. 325–344.
27.
KarstenL. (2007) Housing as a way of life: towards an understanding of middle-class families’ preference for an urban residential location, Housing Studies, 22, pp. 83–98.
28.
van KempenR.IdamirM. (2003) Housing allocation and ethnic minority groups: the effects of different housing allocation models on Moroccan households in two Dutch cities, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 18, pp. 257–268.
29.
van KempenR.BoltG.SlobA. (2008) Displacement effects of urban restructuring: a case study of three Dutch cities. Paper presented at the meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Baltimore, April.
30.
KleinhansR. (2003) Displaced but still moving upwards in the housing career? Implications of forced residential relocation in the Netherlands, Housing Studies, 18, pp. 473–499.
31.
KleinhansR.van der Laan Bouma-DoffW. (2008) On priority and progress: forced residential relocation and housing chances in Haaglanden, the Netherlands, Housing Studies, 23, pp. 565–587.
32.
KleitR. G.ManzoL. (2006) To move or not to move: relationships to place and relocation choices in HOPE VI, Housing Policy Debate, 17, pp. 271–308.
33.
KruythoffH. (2003) Dutch urban restructuring policy in action against socio-spatial segregation: sense or nonsense?, European Journal of Housing Policy, 3, pp. 193–215.
34.
KrysanM. (2008) Does race matter in the search for housing? An exploratory study of search strategies, experiences, and locations, Social Science Research, 37, pp. 581–603.
35.
KullbergJ. (2002) Consumers’ responses to choice-based letting mechanisms, Housing Studies, 17, pp. 549–579.
36.
van der Laan Bouma-DoffW. (2007) Involuntary isolation: ethnic preferences and residential segregation in the Netherlands, Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(3), pp. 289–309.
37.
LeesL. (2008) Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban renaissance?, Urban Studies, 45, pp. 2449–2470.
38.
LeesL.LeyD. (2008) Introduction to the Special Issue on Gentrification and Public Policy, Urban Studies, 45, pp. 2379–2384.
39.
LipskyM. (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of Individuals in the Public Service. New York: Sage.
40.
LoganJ. R.AlbaR. D. (1993) Locational returns to human capital: minority access to suburban community resources, Demography, 30, pp. 243–268.
41.
MarrM. (2005) Mitigating apprehension about section 8 vouchers: the positive role of housing specialists in search and placement, Housing Policy Debate, 16, pp. 85–111.
42.
MayJ. (1996) Globalisation and the politics of place: place and identity in an inner London neighbourhood, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21, pp. 194–215.
43.
MulderC.HooimeijerP. (1999) Residential relocations in the life course, in: van WissenL.DykstraP. (Eds) Population Issues: An Interdisciplinary Focus, pp. 159–186. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
44.
NewmanK.WylyE. (2006) The right to stay put: gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City, Urban Studies, 43, pp 23–57.
45.
OrrL.FeinsJ.JacobR.. (2003) Moving to opportunity: interim impacts evaluation. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.
46.
PahlR. E. (Ed.) (1970) Whose City? And Further Essays on Urban Society. London: Longmans.
47.
ParkesA.KearnsA.AtkinsonR. (2002) What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods?, Urban Studies, 39, pp. 2413–2438.
48.
PattersonO. (1997) The ordeal of integration: progress and resentment in America’s ‘racial’ crisis. Civitas/Counterpoint, New York.
49.
PopkinS.KatzB.CunninghamM.. (2004) A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
50.
SCP/WODC/CBS (2005) Jaarrapport Integratie 2005. Den Haag: SCP/WODC/CBS.
51.
SmithN. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London: Routledge.
52.
SouthS. J.CrowderK. D. (1997) Escaping distressed neighborhoods: individual, community, and metropolitan influences, American Journal of Sociology, 102, pp. 1040–1084.
