打印

作者

来源

URBAN GEOGRAPHY,Vol.42,Issue6,P.744-768

语言

英文

关键字

Ethnicity,diversity,mixed-race,residential choice,segregation

作者单位

Australian Centre for Culture, Environment, Society and Space (ACCESS), School of Geography and Sustainable Communities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

摘要

Ethnically mixed households signify decreasing social distance between ethnic groups, and have potential to transform urban ethnic landscapes. Quantitative research has revealed mixed-ethnicity couples’ distinctive residential geographies, which interrupt established segregation patterns. Mixed-ethnicity couples often concentrate in diverse neighborhoods. Yet few studies have asked these couples to explain the reasons behind their residential decision-making. We respond to this gap, drawing on 48 interviews with mixed-ethnicity couples in Australia. Conventional concerns prevailed in discussions of neighborhood choice: dwelling characteristics, affordability, proximity to workplace and family and accessibility of services. Most expressed affinity for ethnically diverse neighborhoods, but rarely cited this as a primary decision-making factor. Our findings counter assumptions that ethnic differences are front-and-center of mixed-ethnicity families’ everyday decision-making, and highlight their ordinariness. Mixed-ethnicity couples’ seeming lack of focus on neighborhood ethnic composition shows that being surrounded by ethnically similar people is not always a driving force in people’s residential lives.KEYWORDS: Ethnicitydiversitymixed-raceresidential choicesegregationAcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to the 86 participants who generously gave their time to tell us about their experiences of being a mixed-ethnicity couple in Australia. We are particularly thankful to the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory for their kind assistance in participant recruitment in Darwin. This research has been conducted with the support of the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the University of Wollongong Small Grant.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. It was also supported financially by a URC Small Grant (University of Wollongong) awarded to Natascha Klocker.