Urban Micro-Segregation: Taking Segregation Analysis at the Micro Level

1. Introduction

Urban micro-segregation refers to segregation at the small scale, below the scale of the neighborhood. Urban segregation research is traditionally focused on the neighborhood, assuming implicitly that spatial effects refer exclusively to that level [1,2,3]. Micro-segregation is an emerging topic in the urban research agenda and brings new questions for segregation studies.

The perception of the neighborhood spatial level has varied depending on available administrative data across time and contexts. In many countries, census tracts have been the spatial units that provided data and became de facto proxies for neighborhoods. However, segregation can occur at even smaller spatial scales, including within neighborhoods, specific public spaces, and even within individual buildings. At these finer spatial levels, subtle social boundaries and patterns of exclusion may emerge, such as the clustering of groups in different sections of a park, the separation of residents within gated communities, or the unequal access to shared facilities within a building. The question raised by urban micro-segregation, and treated in this Special Issue, is the need to investigate segregation at spatial levels below the neighborhood and to explore the (assumed) importance of social boundaries operating at those scales. By focusing on these micro-level interactions and spatial dynamics, we can better understand the complexity and nuances of segregation in urban environments.

2. Dominant Methods and Assumptions in Segregation Studies

For a long time, the central question in segregation studies remained the same: Is the level of separation of social and/or racial groups in a city increasing or decreasing? The general hypothesis was that the negative spatial trend (increase in segregation) was related to the negative social outcome (increased inequality and discrimination), while the positive trend (desegregation) was to the opposite, assuming that market forces convert increased inequality and discrimination to spatial trends in the same direction. In actual terms, reality is always more complex than theoretical schemes. Income—reflecting inequality—and ethno-racial segregation—reflecting discrimination—do not necessarily follow the same path. Moreover, social trends are not necessarily translated to spatial trends (e.g., increased inequality in income and wealth is not necessarily translated to more segregation). Examining segregation at the micro-scale allows a better understanding of this complexity and provides further material to interpret broader segregation processes and trends.

The traditional assumption that social and spatial trends follow similar directions and patterns goes back to the Chicago School and to Park’s assertion that social trends are so much correlated with spatial trends that it is eventually possible to study the former through the latter [4]. More than half a century later, the same assumption emerged in another way: the social polarization thesis stated that the developing social polarization in global cities was also leading to spatial polarization, i.e., to increased segregation [5].

These assumptions were endorsed by the main context of reference for both the Chicago School and the social polarization thesis, i.e., the metropolis of the US, where urban space is much more divided—socially and racially—at the neighborhood level than in other cities in the rest of the world. Moreover, in this urban reference context, discriminatory practices persisted well beyond their abolition, and regulation policies never really obstructed the shifting and sorting of market mechanisms. Eventually, these assumptions became part of a universalized model for segregation studies, even though segregation structures and trends in US cities are much more complex than the universalized model.

Nevertheless, evidence from various urban contexts has challenged this universalization and raised new questions for segregation research. The most significant challenge pertains to the diversified segregation outcomes observed across different urban contexts within a globalized world. These diverse outcomes highlight the importance of contextual parameters that are often overlooked in approaches such as the social polarization thesis. Such parameters ultimately challenge the assumed dominance of global forces over political decisions, local welfare regimes, or other systemic arrangements.

Alternative approaches to segregation, diverging from the models developed in the English-speaking world, have emerged from scholars examining contexts where welfare policies have been far more influential (mainly in Western and Northern Europe) or where the capitalist model deviates from the US paradigm, as seen in East Asia’s developmental capitalism [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17].

This new evidence on the forms, trends, and processes related to segregation challenged not only the similarity of trends followed by inequality and polarization, on the one hand, and by segregation trends on the other. It also questions the unvaryingly negative connotation of segregation, asserting that social distance is not interchangeable with spatial distance [18] and that social homogeneity at the local level is not inevitably negative. Proximity among low-income households may indicate the concentration of disadvantage but may offer, at the same time, possibilities of interaction and solidarity. This suggests that desegregation is not necessarily positive, as it may reflect the effects of poverty dispersal policies or gentrification processes, rather than the alleviation of inequality and discrimination [19,20,21,22]. Similarly, the social–spatial mix does not inherently lead to positive outcomes, as it does not necessarily prevent or reduce the persistence of deprivation [23] or even lead to conflicts [24]. These findings underscore the complexity of segregation and desegregation processes and challenge the assumption that spatial integration automatically produces social benefits.

Research evidence from outside the English-speaking world challenged the unduly universalized segregation model by firstly turning attention to parameters beyond the free market affecting segregation outcomes. It also contributed to challenging dominant assumptions about the unequivocally negative outcomes of segregation and the undoubtedly positive impact of social mix. This research evidence opened the door to turning attention to micro-segregation and to starting to investigate the forms, processes, and significance of segregation at the micro-spatial scale.

3. The Urban Micro-Segregation Research Agenda

The emerging research on urban micro-segregation should provide a deeper analysis of the social function of social (and/or ethno-racial) mix and of social (and/or ethno-racial) separation below the neighborhood level, promoting the discussion on the effective relation between social and spatial distance and its impact on social reproduction. This should lead to a better understanding of the potentially different types of social mix and of their characteristics that should be addressed to facilitate the objectives of urban policies promoting social integration and cohesion.

The research on urban micro-segregation needs detailed data to investigate segregation processes at the micro-space level and across time. Geolocalized data liberate segregation analysis from the ecological fallacy related to spatial units [25]. More particularly, the work based on the geolocalization of US census data in the 1880–1940 decades has challenged the stereotypical view that the level of segregation was much lower in US cities before the big wave of suburbanization ([26]). The volume Vertical Cities [27] provides evidence on urban micro-segregation from 20 cities across the world. However, the research on micro-segregation is still at the beginning.

The research agenda on urban micro-segregation can be summarized in the following three components:

• Provide evidence on the multiple forms of urban micro-segregation in different urban contexts across the world.
• Investigate the mechanisms that produce urban micro-segregation and the trends of their reproduction.
• Evaluate the importance of urban micro-segregation for social reproduction in terms of their impact on social inequalities and discrimination.

4. The Contents of the Special Issue

This Special Issue is the first open call inviting work on urban micro-segregation. The Special Issue contains 13 papers (Appendix A) dealing with different aspects of urban micro-segregation in diverse urban contexts. It is an exploratory attempt to trigger research on micro-segregation and inspire future work on diverse micro-segregation topics.

Four papers of the Special Issue develop a macroscopic view of the detailed patterns of social and ethnic segregation in Vienna, Rome, Athens, and other Greek cities. The paper on Vienna examines in spatial detail the increased social mix produced by the socially and spatially segmented housing market in two of the city central districts. The paper on Rome investigates the patterns of ethnic segregation at the micro level in the whole metropolitan area. The one on Athens focuses on the patterns of micro-segregation for Albanian migrants in the housing market. The fourth paper relates the types of building stock with the forms of deprivation in the six largest Greek cities, taking into account the EU-funded territorial programs developed by local communities.

Two other papers focus on the social mix at the neighborhood level of Naples and in two cities in Northern Greece and the way the proximity in social mix functions as a cohesive element or as a boundary. The paper on Naples describes the working-class enclaves situated within the bourgeois strongholds of the city and their functional interaction with their surroundings. The one on Thessaloniki and Tyrnavos (Northern Greece) investigates the combination of absolute deprivation and ghettoization with spatial proximity with mainstream communities. The paper on Lima, Peru, explores the relationship between residential micro-segregation and social capital.

Two more papers are dealing with the relation of daily activities and urban amenities with micro-segregation. The paper on Fuzhou, China, investigates micro-segregation through the comparison of daily activities in three different types of neighborhoods, and the one on Seoul explores the different levels of residents’ access to urban amenities living in the two main different types of housing.

The four remaining papers relate micro-segregation with public space in different ways. The paper on Malmö and Paris deals with the emergence of gated spaces within spaces that represented open access (large public housing estates) in both. The paper on Quetta, Pakistan, investigates the aspiration for gated communities for protection from criminality among residents with different experiences and social status. The one on Szeged, Hungary, investigates micro-segregation in a context where spatial proximity and the weak feeling of segregation are supported by the lack of public space and the potentially conflictual encounters it could generate. Finally, the paper on Santiago, Chile, focuses on a large urban park and investigates the ways of accessing public space in conditions of peripheralized poverty.

The papers of the Special Issue raise many different questions: How does social mix in one of the most regulated cities across the world (Vienna) affect social reproduction compared to much less regulated urban contexts? Is the introduction of new spatial arrangements (gated spaces) in the emblematic loci of the welfare state era (public housing estates in Paris and Malmö) an embodiment of neoliberal domination in everyday life? And how can aspirations for increased individualized security be treated within completely different contexts (like in Quetta, Pakistan) that have no welfare state tradition and do not provide alternatives? Social mix must have many different facets and effects, revealed by the question of how the vicinity of working-class enclaves within affluent group strongholds in Naples is affecting the lives and the social mobility opportunities of working-class people compared to their counterparts living in other areas. How does social capital affect micro-segregation and vice versa, drawing evidence from research on Lima, Peru? How are the types of building stock –associated with diverse forms of social mix and micro-segregation in Greek cities– related to deprivation levels? How is access to urban amenities affected by different types of social housing corresponding to different levels of micro-segregation and social mix in Fuzhou, China? Do we learn more by investigating ethnic segregation at the micro level in Rome, Italy, compared to segregation at the neighborhood level? The largest immigrant group (Albanians) in Athens is much more dispersed than other immigrant groups. Is this related to its size (by far the largest immigrant group in the city) or to other parameters? Some groups (mainly Roma) experience deprivation and ghettoization in Greek cities, where deprived groups are usually spatially dispersed, embodying inequality and discrimination at the same time. Is discrimination overriding market and liberal democracy mechanisms for particular groups? How does the availability (or the absence) of public space affect segregation experience, drawing evidence from Szeged, Hungary? And how does public space affect social interaction in peripheralized poverty urban contexts, drawing experience from Santiago, Chile?

Most of the papers in this Special Issue on Urban Micro-Segregation are exploratory and partake in an emerging approach of segregation that investigates the forms, mechanisms, and processes of social hierarchies developed at the micro scale and, eventually, their importance for social reproduction. The questions they raise are very diverse, focused on different issues, and are not pointing at overturning the centrality/importance of the neighborhood in segregation studies. However, turning their attention to segregation at the micro scale, they challenge the universalized view of segregation based uniquely on analyses at the neighborhood level and shed light on the importance of micro-segregation, usually neglected in segregation studies.