Explaining Sociospatial Patterns in South East Queensland, Australia: Social Homophily versus Structural Homophily

Abstract

Model simulations of residential segregation have shown that even modest levels of social homophily (or wishing to live near residents with similar social characteristics) gives rise to distinct spatial patterns of residential segregation. However, this proposition has been contested where social homophily is modest. This paper contrasts two explanations for urban sociospatial patterns (socioeconomic and demographic spatial patterns) in a region where social homophily is modest-South East Queensland (SEQ). The research question is whether sociospatial patterns are better explained by social homophily or by structural homophily. In other words, are they better explained by residents wishing to live in neighborhoods with similar people (social homophily), or by residents with similar social characteristics finding similar neighborhood physical attributes important, and thus moving to neighborhoods with similar people (structural homophily). SEQ residents were asked how important various reasons were in choosing their neighborhood. The survey data were linked to neighborhood social characteristics from census data with the aid of geographic information systems. Six neighborhood social characteristics in SEQ were investigated. Social homophily explained a small, though statistically significant, level of spatial variation in socioeconomic and ethnic (non-Western) environments. However, it did not explain any variation in the other four neighborhood social characteristics which related to household structure: that is, younger nonnuclear household environments; nuclear family environments; and older nonnuclear household environments, or disadvantaged environments. Moreover, structural homophily explained much more variation than did social homophily in all six neighborhood social characteristics. In regions such as SEQ, spatial patterns can largely be explained by structural homophily. Thus, modest levels of social homophily are not necessarily important in explaining sociospatial patterning.

Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Family Matter? An Integration of Household Composition Characteristics into the Residential Segregation Literature

“…However, even in the absence of residential preferences for segregation, segregation could still arise. Structural homophily offers a first possible explanation (McCrea 2009). This occurs as 'residents with similar social characteristics may consider similar physical attributes of neighbourhoods important and so move to similar neighbourhoods' (McCrea 2009(McCrea , p. 2201.…”

“…Structural homophily offers a first possible explanation (McCrea 2009). This occurs as 'residents with similar social characteristics may consider similar physical attributes of neighbourhoods important and so move to similar neighbourhoods' (McCrea 2009(McCrea , p. 2201. As such, the morphology of the housing market, with specific types of housing that are often geographically clustered, can relate to segregation as well (McCrea 2009).…”

“…This occurs as 'residents with similar social characteristics may consider similar physical attributes of neighbourhoods important and so move to similar neighbourhoods' (McCrea 2009(McCrea , p. 2201. As such, the morphology of the housing market, with specific types of housing that are often geographically clustered, can relate to segregation as well (McCrea 2009). A second explanation ignores preferences altogether, but focuses instead on housing costs and opportunities.…”

An analysis of one-dimensional schelling segregation

“…Schelling's model eloquently argues that while all individuals in a community may prefer integration, the global consequence of their actions may be complete segregation. Empirical evidence, found through surveys and statistics of segregated communities, indicates that the effects of local organization seen in Schelling's spatial proximity model may also lead to real-world segregation, whether by ethnicity [3,17,18,24,25,38,13,36,37], religion [21], or socioeconomic factors [7,8,39].…”

Preferences Toward Neighbor Ethnicity and Affluence: Evidence from an Inherited Dual Ethnic Context in Post-Soviet Tartu, Estonia

“…Both dependent variables, however, have a significant variation not explained by the other as well. When people express their attitudes, they often imagine many qualities of a possible destination neighborhood that they envision (McCrea 2009). As mentioned earlier, people combine different dimensions in their "joint" preferences-for example, ethnic, religious, lifestyle, age, and socioeconomic composition of the neighborhood, but also housing and tenure type or surrounding milieu.…”