1. Moving forward with ethnoburb and income inequality: A Preliminary Analysis
Rafael Harun
PhD Candidate in Planning
University of Waterloo, ON,

2. Background
Canada has the highest proportion of foreign born population (20.6%) among G7 countries
About 82.4% of the new comers come from Asia
A number of literature has used ethnoburb to describe the immigrant settlement pattern
There is a lack of coherence in the process of identifying ethnoburbs
One inconsistency – visible minority variable
Most literature is descriptive by nature, and there is a lack of in-depth analysis of socioeconomic issues

3. Objective AND RESARCH QUESTIONS
To assess the efficacy of visible minority variable to capture immigrant dynamics
To evaluate the prevalence of income disparity concerns in ethnoburbs
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Are there differences between major ethnic minority groups?
Is there any difference in the settlement patterns?
Do they differ in socioeconomic characteristics?
Where are the ethnoburbs of the major ethnic minority groups located?
Are there income inequality issues in the ethnoburbs?

4. description
Study Area: Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary Ethnic focus: East and south East Asians, and Southern Asians Data Source: Canadian Census Data Timescale: 1996 to 2011 in 5 year intervals Spatial Scale: Census Tract

5. methodology Spatial Pattern and Socioeconomic Character
Identifying Ethnoburbs
Income Characterization (Ethnoburb VS Non-ethnoburb)
Calculate VM percentages for each group
Use Gettis Ord Gi* Statistics to identify HS
Correlation Analysis to Characterize each VM group
Calculate VM percentages
Calculate Immigrant percentages by place of birth
Calculate LQ for the immigrant groups
Identify ethnoburb based on VM percentages
Overlay identified ethnoburbs on LQ distribution
Calculate Gini Coefficient
Calculate Coefficient of Polarization
Calculate Middle Class Proportions

6. Are there differences between the E & SE Asian and South Asian in the STUDY AREA?
Is there any difference in the settlement patterns?
Do they differ in socioeconomic characteristics?

9. What are the socioeconomic profiles of the two groups?

11. Where are the ethnoburbs of the two minority groups located?

12. Frequently used criteria to identify ethnoburb
A density of 10% to 35% is commonly applied to identify ethnoburbs
Visible minority variable is predominantly used

15. Location quotient
Quantifies how concentrated a specific group is at a location relative to the benchmark (The municipalities in this case)
Compare immigrant concentration at a CT relative to the Four Metropolis
Number of immigrants of group X at CT / Total immigrants at CT
Number of immigrants of group X at Benchmark/ Total immigrants at Benchmark
LQ > 1 : Outperforming the benchmark
LQ < 1 : Performing below the benchmark
LQ = 1 : Subsistence level performance

20. EFFICACY OF ETHNOBURBS TO CAPTURE IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

21. ARE THERE INCOME INEQUALITY ISSUES IN THE ETHNOBURBS?

22. INCOME INEQUALITY
MIDDLE CLASS PROPORTION

23. Summary & Conclusion
The E & SE Asian and Southern Asian groups considerably differ on settlement patterns and socioeconomic characteristics
Using ‘Visible Minority’ as a variable includes multiple generations an does not capture the immigrant settlement dynamics
There are difference in the patterns of income disparities between the two groups AND LOCATIONS
SO WHAT?
We need to go beyond descriptive research
We need better data to investigate the situation more accurately
Having an agreed criteria is essential (population concentration is not the only factor)
Is ethnoburb a new model or simply a phenomenon?