Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006 Douglas Grbic a, * , Hiromi Ishizawa a , Charles Crothers b a Department of Sociology, George Washington University, 801 22nd Street, NW, Suite 409, Washington, DC 20052, USA b Department of Social Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, D-78, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand article info Available online xxxx Keywords: New Zealand Residential segregation Immigration abstract New Zealand has experienced a marked increase in immigration since the early 1990s, which has fostered greater ethnic diversity. However, little is known about the changing patterns of spatial differentiation among ethnic groups. Using the New Zealand Census data from 1991 to 2006, we examine the patterns of Asian, Maori, and Pacific people res- idential segregation from the majority European population. We then assess the effects of ethnic group and geographic level characteristics on the levels of segregation. The results reveal that Pacific people are the most segregated group from Europeans. The levels of seg- regation have declined only slightly for Maori and Pacific people over time, but increased gradually for Asians. While results show general support for spatial assimilation theory, different sets of factors were found to be associated with levels of segregation for each eth- nic minority group. Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans, Louisiana. We thank Nissa Finney, Eric Fong, and Ian Pool for their comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to the staff at Statistics New Zealand for producing special census tabulations. 1. Introduction Ethnic residential segregation is a key aspect to understanding intergroup relations and processes of individual and ethnic group social mobility (Charles, 2003). The field of ethnic residential segregation has been enriched by studies of countries with varying immigration histories, such as Britain (Peach, 1999; Simpson, 2004), Canada (Fong and Wilkes, 1999, 2003), Netherlands (Logan, 2006), New Zealand (Johnston et al., 2008), and the U.S. (Iceland, 2004). Similar to other immigrant countries, New Zealand also experienced significant changes to its ethnic composition during the latter part of the 20th cen- tury. While Britain has been the traditional source of immigrants, immigration reforms in the late 1980s lead to a significant increase in the number of immigrants from non-traditional sources, such as Asia. In the mid-20th century, 94 percent of the population was European, primarily of British ancestry, and 6 percent was Maori, the indigenous population (McLintock, 1966). By the beginning of the 21st century, 77 percent of the population was European, 14 percent Maori, 6 percent Asian, and 6 percent Pacific people 1 (Statistics New Zealand, 2008a). While research has examined the levels of residential concentration of ethnic minority groups in the Auckland metropol- itan area (e.g., Johnston et al., 2005, 2008), we have yet to fully explore how ecological context (i.e., the structural and demo- graphic characteristics of a geographic area) and measures derived from spatial assimilation theory are associated with the 0049-089X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003 * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: dgrbic@gwu.edu (D. Grbic), ishizawa@gwu.edu (H. Ishizawa), charles.crothers@aut.ac.nz (C. Crothers). 1 Pacific people is one of the ethnic categories used by Statistics New Zealand and refers to individuals who claim ethnic heritage from one or more of the Pacific Island countries, such as the Cook Islands, Fiji, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau, and Tonga. Social Science Research xxx (2009) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Social Science Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: Grbic, D., et al. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Sci. Res. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.003