Migration Patterns and Residential Selection in Auckland, New Zealand

Samoan Immigrants in Auckland

“…Similarly the 'new' immigrant orientation of the south-eastern wedge suggests a reception-area function, but also adds weight to the 'leap-frog' theory (see Francis, 1969;Whitelaw, 1971) where-by relatively recent arrivals moving out of the inner-city are said to by-pass the 'obstacles' of high-status inner suburbs and move directly to outer suburbs. As for the 'old' immigrants, their dominance of the second zone, which includes the high-status areas of North Shore, Mount Albert and Epsom, lends support to the view (Trlin, 1971b) that mixed-bloods, by penetrating these Figure 2 -Samoan Factorial Ecology, Auckland Urban Area, 1966 :…”

“…At the other extreme, females in the Sandringham -Three Kings -Hillsborough (+ 1.65), Onehunga (+ 1.15), Mount Wellington (+ 1.15), Mount Eden South (+ 1.10), Halsey -Waikowhai (+1.10) and Glen Eden -New Lynn (+0.96) areas are employed primarily as production-process workers in manufacturing industries. While the journey-to-work phenomenon cannot be discounted, the two main features of the spatial distribution of Factor III suggest the importance of industrial decentralisation and the emergence of alternative centres of attraction within Auckland as factors underlying the residential distribution of immigrants (see Whitelaw, 1971).…”

Centripetal and Centrifugal Residential Movement. The Case of Dutch Immigrants in Auckland, New Zealand

“…The validity of the invasion-succession concept, intimately associated with the operation of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, has also been demonstrated 'to a certain extent and during the early migration phases' (Whitelaw, 1971, 66) with respect to the settlement of Maoris and Pacific Islanders in Auckland. Once again, however, significant 'deviations' have been noted by Francis (1969), Rowland (1969Rowland ( , 1972, Whitelaw (1971), and Walsh and Trlin (1973). These researchers have found that: (a) many new arrivals, especially Maoris, may move directly into the suburbs (particularly family groups), rather than being drawn initially into the inner city (favoured by single migrants and childless couples); and (b) that centrifugal movement is dominated by a pattern of leapfrogging from the inner city to the outer suburbs, rather than one of progressive diffusion through successive zones toward the urban periphery.…”