Abstract
There has been extensive use of segregation indices for measuring residential segregation since 1950s, with continuous progress made in the field. Recent developments include the propositions of spatial global and local versions of traditionally used segregation indices, which have opened avenues for representing and analysing segregation as a multiscale and spatially varying phenomenon. Much less explored has been the issue of how important research design choices, such as the extent of geographical boundaries, grouping systems and scales of analysis, can influence the measurement of segregation. This paper contributes in this direction by investigating the impact of such decisions in the outcomes of the indices of generalized dissimilarity (D) and information theory (H) using a set of sensitivity analysis. Using a comparative study between London and São Paulo as basis, results obtained with different geographical boundaries, grouping systems and scales for the two indices are analysed visually and quantitatively. Results suggest that although D and H depict the same spatial dimension of segregation (unevenness/clustering), they present different sensitivity to geographical boundaries and grouping systems. The study also revealed how the two indices unfold different aspects of the segregation, which impact on their interpretation and applicability. The study concludes with a discussion of the considerations on research design choices concerning the interpretation of the results, which indicate the two indices should not be used interchangeably.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.