4.6 Article

Socio-economic segregation in European cities. A comparative study of Brussels, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo and Stockholm

期刊

URBAN GEOGRAPHY
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 1-36

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2021.1959778

关键词

Socio-economic segregation; comparative studies; European capitals; nearest-neighbor approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares socioeconomic segregation patterns and levels in Brussels, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo, and Stockholm, and finds that the segregation of the rich is stronger than the segregation of the poor in all cities. Macro-scale poverty segregation is most prominent in Stockholm and Brussels, while macro-scale affluence segregation is most pronounced in Oslo. At micro-scales, Brussels and Stockholm stand out with very high local poverty concentrations, indicating high levels of polarization.
The purpose of this study is to compare socioeconomic segregation patterns and levels in Brussels, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo, and Stockholm with uniform measurements. Previous research has been hampered by conceptual and methodological shortcomings. We use harmonized datasets containing geocoded indicators based on a nearest-neighbors approach. Our analyses offer an unprecedented comparison of patterns and levels of socio-spatial inequalities in European capitals at multiple scales. Using maps, segregation indices and percentile plots, we find that for all cities, the segregation of the rich is much stronger than the segregation of the poor. Macro-scale poverty segregation is most prominent in Stockholm and Brussels, and quite low in Amsterdam, while macro-scale affluence segregation is most pronounced in Oslo. At micro-scales, Brussels and Stockholm stand out with very high local poverty concentrations, indicating high levels of polarization. We interpret differences in the light of spatial inequalities, welfare regimes, housing systems, migration and area-based interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据