Individual Activity Patterns and the Meaning of Residential Environments for Inter‐Ethnic Contact

Abstract

Past research has indicated that the ethnic composition of residential neighbourhoods influences inter-ethnic contact. However, little attention has been paid to individual activity and travel patterns which encompass encounters with others at physical and virtual activity sites, such as sports clubs and online chat rooms. By analysing a Dutch dataset on the life of urban ethnic minorities, we found that individual activity patterns are important factors in explaining interethnic contact. Activities such as sports, attending parties or religious gatherings, using Internet, and hosting friends and neighbours influence the extent of inter-ethnic contact. The effect of ethnic composition of neighbourhoods and educational qualification on relative frequency of contact with native Dutch is strongly reduced when individual activity and travel patterns are taken into account. For receiving practical help from native Dutch, neighbourhood effects were insignificant.

Reflections on Measuring Discrimination: The Case of Outdoor Recreation

“…Some of these consider how spaces and environments facilitate or deter inter‐ethnic contact, and the effects of that inter‐ethnic contact on individuals' behaviour and well‐being (e.g., most recently, Heringa et al . ). While many studies in this journal focus on residential areas, inter‐ethnic contacts can also take place in natural environments or greenspace, namely through outdoor recreation.…”

Path-dependency in segregation and social networks in the Netherlands

“…The relative isolation of Turkish-Dutch in comparison to other ethnic minority groups (cf. Heringa et al, 2014;Huijnk & Dagevos, 2012;Wessendorf, 2013) also makes them an interesting case for studying segregation patterns. The focus was on the age group between 20 and 55 because this is the most dynamic life phase with regard to educational, professional, household and residential careers that impact people's activity patterns and social network.…”

“…In other words, with whom people 'meet and mate' (see Verbrugge, 1977) is not so much dependent on where they live as it is on the co-presence and encounters that take place at various activity locations that are not necessarily located in one's residential neighbourhood (Dijst, 2009;Drever, 2004;Kwan, 2012;Urry, 2002). Neighbourhood population compositions seem to be less relevant for inter-ethnic contact when individual activity patterns are taken into account (Heringa, Bolt, Dijst, & van Kempen, 2014). In modern, motorised and individualised societies with increasingly mobile people, physical (residential) proximity is less important for socialisation (Bauman, 2005;Urry, 2002;Wellman, 2001).…”

Spatial and temporal patterns of economic segregation in Sweden’s metropolitan areas: A mobility approach

“…The lion's share of segregation research has traditionally focused on the area of residence. However, a growing body of literature argues that segregation needs to be treated as a process occurring also outside the location of one's home, the argument being that individual experiences of segregation are not only a result of the conditions of the home neighbourhood, but also daily mobility in and through other places (Heringa et al, 2014;Krivo et al, 2013;Kwan, 2013;Wong and Shaw, 2011). This literature acknowledges that areas outside the residential neighbourhood may have a significant role in determining experiences of segregation, and accordingly, individuals residing in the same area may be exposed to very different social and economic contexts depending on the nature of their daily mobility.…”