Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803)
2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
DOI: 10.17645/si.v9i2.4345
Editorial
Spatial Underpinnings of Social Inequalities: A Vicious Circles of
Segregation Approach
Tiit Tammaru 1, *, David Knapp 1 , Siiri Silm 1 , Maarten van Ham 2,3 and Frank Witlox 4,1
1
Department of Geography, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Tartu,
54014 Tartu, Estonia; Emails: tiit.tammaru@ut.ee (T.T.), david.knapp@ut.ee (D.K.), siiri.silm@ut.ee (S.S.),
frank.witlox@ugent.be (F.W.)
2 Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, 2628 Delft, The Netherlands; Email: m.vanham@tudelft.nl
3 School of Geography & Sustainable Development, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, KY169AL, UK
4 Department of Geography, Ghent University, S8 9000 Gent, Belgium
* Corresponding author
Submitted: 6 April 2021 | Published: 13 May 2021
Abstract
A paradigm shift is taking place in spatial segregation research. At the heart of this shift is the understanding of the connectedness of spatial segregation in different life domains and the availability of new datasets that allow for more detailed
studies on these connections. In this thematic issue on spatial underpinnings of social inequalities we will outline the
foundations of the ‘vicious circles of segregation’ framework to shed new light on questions such as: What is the role
of residential neighbourhoods in urban inequalities in contemporary cities? Have residential neighbourhoods lost their
importance in structuring daily lives since important part of social interaction takes place elsewhere? How is residential
segregation related to inequalities in other important life domains, in schools, at work and during leisure time? The vicious
circles of segregation framework builds on the traditional approaches to spatial segregation, as well as on the emerging
new research undertaken within the ‘activity space approach’ and ‘longitudinal approach’ to segregation. The articles in
this thematic issue improve our understanding of how spatial segregation is transmitted from one life domain to another as
people sort into residential neighbourhoods, schools, workplace and leisure time activity sites, and gain contextual effects
by getting exposed to and interacting with other people in them.
Keywords
activity space; discrimination; housing; inequality; life domains; segregation; social networks
Issue
This editorial is part of the issue “Vicious Circle of Segregation: Understanding the Connectedness of Spatial Inequality
across Generations and Life Domains” edited by Tiit Tammaru (University of Tartu, Estonia), Siiri Silm (University of Tartu,
Estonia), Frank Witlox (Ghent University, Belgium), Maarten van Ham (Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)
and Madli-Johanna Maidla (University of Tartu, Estonia).
© 2021 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This editorial is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).
1. Paradigm Shift: From Residential Segregation to a
Multi-Domain Understanding of Segregation
Large cities continue to attract people and jobs despite
decade-long efforts to achieve more inclusive regional
development. How inclusive are large cities themselves
for people clustering in them? Do large cities provide
opportunities for all, or do they provide opportunities
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
on a selective basis to selected groups of people? What
is the role of residential neighbourhoods in facilitating
social and spatial inclusion? Have other spatial settings,
such as schools, workplaces, or free time activity places,
become the main arenas that shape how unequal or
inclusive contemporary cities are?
This thematic issue addresses these and many other
related questions in eleven articles, and it delivers three
65
key messages to the ongoing discussions on the spatial
underpinnings of inequalities and social inclusion in contemporary cities. First, it is short-sighted to downplay
the importance of residential neighbourhoods for understanding how spatial inequalities are produced and reproduced. Second, a vicious circle of segregation framework
helps to shed new light on how spatial inequalities in different life domains are connected to each other, encompassing the whole activity space of people—residential
neighbourhoods, schools, workplaces and leisure time
activity sites. Third, bringing together research from longitudinal studies on individual life courses and across
generations with research from daily activity spaces
anchored around homes provides the key for understanding how urban social and spatial inequalities form, how
to break the vicious circles of inequality and segregation,
and what might be the roadmap towards more socially
and spatially inclusive cities.
Research on spatial inequalities and exclusion has
mainly focused on residential segregation (Booth, 1888;
E. W. Burgess, 1925; Krysan & Crowder, 2017; Maloutas
& Fujita, 2012; Musterd, 2005; Musterd & Ostendorf,
1998; Peach, 1996; Schelling, 1971; Tammaru, van Ham,
Marcińczak, & Musterd, 2016; van Ham, Tammaru,
Ubarevičienė, & Janssen, 2021). Residential segregation,
defined as an uneven distribution of population groups
across urban neighbourhoods, is generally understood
as a function of income inequality, preferences and discrimination. Although income inequality is often seen as
the prime cause for the spatial inequality between population groups, for residential segregation to occur, housing preferences matter as well. Segregation levels rise if
high-income households seek housing in attractive parts
of the city, such as regenerated inner-city neighbourhoods, pushing house prices in those neighbourhoods
beyond the reach of lower-income households (Pastak,
2021). Some forms of discrimination tend to operate in
housing markets as well, even when explicit discrimination is outlawed, stemming from subtle mechanisms that
range from the selection of renters by landlords through
to which neighbourhoods are included in the consideration set by renters (Krysan & Crowder, 2017).
Residential sorting is a household-level process
(Rossi, 1955) and, since people tend to find partners similar to themselves (Kalmijn, 1991), residential segregation
by income or social status is reinforced by demographic
processes of family formation. Dual-earner households
with two higher incomes drive urban spatial inequalities
through their behaviour in the housing market, as they
have the purchasing power to buy in the most attractive neighbourhoods. Lower-income households have
much less choice and less financial credibility with banks
and, as a result, they rent or buy in low-cost neighbourhoods (Gonalons-Pons & Schwartz, 2017). Since there is
some overlap between social groups and ethnic groups
in terms of incomes, a triple inequality—social, ethnic
and spatial—or ‘eth-class’ segregation tends to emerge
in multi-ethnic cities (R. Andersson & Kährik, 2016). In his
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
pioneering study, Peach (1980) took an explicit interest
in the links between family formation and residential segregation. He showed that ethnic minorities living in a
co-ethnic union live in more segregated neighbourhoods
compared to ethnic minorities living in a mixed ethnic
union with members of the native majority population.
The considerations of households that produce
and reproduce spatial inequalities go beyond financial
resources at hand. The search for a home also relates
to other important decisions facing families, including
where to school children and how to obtain easy access
to jobs and other urban amenities. In other words, the
choice of where to live relates to the linked lives of family members and to the needs related to the daily activity
space of all family members (Coulter, van Ham, & Findlay,
2015; Järv, Müürisepp, Ahas, Derudder, & Witlox, 2015;
Silm et al., 2021; Silm & Ahas, 2014). In addition, the
choice of housing options is influenced by social network
ties and their locations (Krysan & Crowder, 2017). Hence,
the long-term residential decisions are tightly related
to the expectations families have towards schools and
other important daily activity sites. Different neighbourhood characteristics tend to be considered jointly; the
overall reputation of neighbourhoods as places to live
and raise children is especially important in the home
search of families (Bernelius, Huilla, & Lobato, 2021;
Nieuwenhuis & Xu, 2021).
The study by Rivkin (1994) was the first to measure
whether segregation in residential neighbourhoods and
schools are related. Based on the analysis of US census
data from 1968, 1980 and 1988, he found that schools
are highly segregated primarily because of high levels
of residential segregation. School segregation is largely
driven by the fact that children generally attend nearby
schools and, as neighbourhoods are relatively homogeneous in composition, schools are too (Bernelius &
Vilkama, 2019; Oberti & Savina, 2019; Rich, Candipan,
& Owens, 2021). Ellis, Wright, and Parks (2004) established that there is also a strong connection between
levels of residential and workplace segregation. Based
on census data from 1990 in Los Angeles, they found
that residential segregation accounts for about half of
workplace segregation. In short, research on residential segregation has gradually established strong links
with segregation in other important domains of daily
life: schools and workplaces. Neighbourhood reputation
is important in residential sorting, and homes are an
important anchor point for other daily activities, shaping
access both to schools (Nieuwenhuis & Xu, 2021), jobs
(Delmelle, Nilsson, & Adu, 2021) and leisure time activities (Kukk, van Ham, & Tammaru, 2019; Mooses, Silm, &
Ahas, 2016; Silm & Ahas, 2014).
2. Conceptual Foundations of the Vicious Circle
of Segregation
The pioneering studies on the connectedness of residential segregation with family formation (Peach, 1980),
66
school segregation (Rivkin, 1994) and workplace segregation (Ellis et al., 2004), paved the way for a paradigm
shift in research on the spatial underpinnings of inequality and inclusion in cities, from residential segregation
to a multi-domain understanding of segregation. This
paradigm shift was further supported by the availability
of individual-level, longitudinal, relational and geocoded
register data covering full populations. While early pioneering studies provided “photo-like” snapshots on levels of and changes in segregation, longitudinal studies (e.g., Manley, van Ham, & Hedman, 2020; Musterd,
Ostendorf, & de Vos, 2003; Strömgren et al., 2014;
Tammaru, Strömgren, Stjernström, & Lindgren, 2010;
Torpan, Sinitsyna, Kährik, Kauppinen, & Tammaru, 2020;
Vogiazides & Chihaya, 2020) allow for a “video-like” following of people across time and space, connecting their
behaviour in school, residential and work environments,
and connecting family members, neighbours, schoolmates and co-workers with each other.
These longitudinal empirical studies led to the first
attempts to conceptualize the connectedness of segregation in different spatial settings. Tammaru et al. (2010)
introduced the term ‘domains’ for studying the contextual effects of residential neighbourhoods and workplaces on migrant incomes. Silm and Ahas (2014) proposed an ‘activity space approach’ for analysing links
between different ‘activity sites’ by focusing on segregation in residential neighbourhoods and other out-ofhome daily activities. Van Ham and Tammaru (2016) elaborated the ‘domains approach’ for investigating the linkages and interactions between different domains over
time. Boterman and Musterd (2017) used the notion of
‘cocooning’ to explain segregation at places of work and
residence, and in transport. Park and Kwan (2017) proposed the term ‘multi-contextual segregation’ for under-
standing how immigrants and members of the host population sort into various daily activity sites, anchored
around home and work. Tammaru, Kallas, and Eamets
(2017) introduced the term ‘vicious circle of segregation’ to show how spatial inequalities and segregation
are systematically produced and reproduced in different life domains, in residential neighbourhoods, workplaces and schools. Finally, van Ham, Tammaru, and
Janssen (2018) developed the ‘vicious circles of segregation’ framework by explaining that feedback loops connect segregation in different life domains over the life
course and across generations.
Within a vicious circles of segregation framework, a
city could be understood as a set of different life domains
where spatial inequalities are produced and reproduced,
including the residential domain, school domain and
work domain (Figure 1). Domains are the sum of activity
sites; all residential neighbourhoods in the city form the
residential domain, all schools form the school domain,
and all workplaces form the work domain. If high-income
households sort into certain residential neighbourhoods
(i.e., activity sites), they drive up segregation in the residential domain. When kids from affluent families attend
certain schools, they drive up segregation in the school
domain. When people with certain skills are sorted into
certain workplaces, they drive up segregation in the work
domain. Indices of segregation can be computed for each
domain to compare levels of segregation between them
(Silm, Ahas, & Mooses, 2018; Toomet, Silm, Saluveer,
Ahas, & Tammaru, 2015).
The aim of this thematic issue is to contribute to the
ongoing paradigm shift in research on spatial inequalities in the city by shedding new light on segregation as
a multi-domain process, its drivers and consequences,
and how segregation may be passed from generation
Residential
domain
City
Residential
neighbourhoods
Activity sites in the city
Workplaces
Schools
Work
domain
School
domain
Figure 1. The connections between spatial inequalities in different life domains.
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
67
to generation as people sort into concrete activity sites.
By following the ‘domains approach’ by van Ham and
Tammaru (2016) and the ‘activity space approach’ by
Silm and Ahas (2014), we develop further the ‘vicious
circles of segregation’ framework (Tammaru et al., 2017;
van Ham et al., 2018). The production and reproduction
of inequalities and segregation in different life domains
emerges as a result of (1) the sorting of people into
concrete activity sites by buying or renting a home in a
certain neighbourhood in the city, starting studies in a
particular school and by getting a job in a certain workplace, and (2) the contextual effects people experience
at these activity sites by being exposed to and interacting with others—with neighbours, schoolmates and
co-workers. Both sorting and contextual effects are further shaped by the institutional set-up and spatial distribution of opportunities in different cities. For example, the way in which social housing is distributed across
the urban neighbourhoods—being spatially clustered
into certain neighbourhoods or spread evenly across
the city—affects the residential sorting of less affluent
households and, as a consequence, levels of segregation
(Friesenecker & Kazepov, 2021; Torpan et al., 2020).
The vicious circles of segregation framework thus
argue that segregation experienced in one life domain
tends to be reproduced in other life domains, and that
segregation experienced early in life is often reproduced later in life and transmitted from parents to children because of the interconnected lives of the family members. Hence, when adding the time dimension,
the vicious circles of segregation framework could be
understood as a sequence of feedback loops both in
space and time as people proceed over their life course,
live their daily lives and navigate between home, school
and workplaces, as well as leisure time activity sites
and temporary mobility and activities abroad (Mooses,
Silm, Tammaru, & Saluveer, 2020). Figure 2 illustrates
how these sequences and feedback loops evolve over
a person’s life course and across generations, running
from the lower-left corner to the upper-right corner. For
adults, sorting in the labour and housing markets are
connected. One the one hand, money buys choice on
the housing market (Hulchanski, 2010), implying that
the inequalities generated in the labour market drive
inequalities in the housing market. On the other, the
places where people live shape their labour market
opportunities and access to jobs (Kain, 1968). The effects
are not immediate, and there is often a time-lag before
differences in the labour market become visible in the
housing market (Tammaru, Marcińczak, Aunap, van Ham,
& Janssen, 2020).
The main global urban labour market trend is the
professionalization of workforce as people living in large
cities move up the occupational ladder because of significant improvements in education and skills (Hamnett,
2021; van Ham, Uesugi, Tammaru, Manley, & Janssen,
2021). However, the spatial effects of professionalization are uneven as we can observe both professionalization, polarization and proletarianization taking place in
residential neighbourhoods (Maloutas & Botton, 2021).
Professionalization of the urban workforce, and the residential preferences of higher-income households, has
brought along three spatial “megatrends” related to residential segregation (Hochstenbach & Musterd, 2018; see
also Hess, Tammaru, & van Ham, 2018; Tammaru et al.,
2016; van Ham, Tammaru, et al., 2021):
1. The upgrade of the social composition of many
neighbourhoods as the share of professionals
increases in the city, often as a result of in situ
changes as younger and better-educated people
replace the less-educated previous generation;
Figure 2. The conceptual framework of vicious circles of segregation.
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
68
2. Gentrification driven by the residential mobility
of higher-income households moving into former
working-class neighbourhoods, driving up housing
prices in inner-city neighbourhoods;
3. The displacement of lower-income households
to less-attractive suburban settings such as modernist high-rise housing estates.
It has been argued that residential neighbourhoods
have lost their importance in producing and reproducing
inequalities and segregation, since they are simply places
where people sleep with very little social interaction
occurring between neighbours (Boal, 1987). However,
residential location has a wider meaning in peoples’ lives
beyond interacting with neighbours. The reputation of
neighbourhoods itself is very important in residential
decision-making (Bernelius et al., 2021). Housing is the
key element that structures social and spatial inequalities in cities (Sorando, Uceda, & Domínguez, 2021)
and housing inequalities may be transmitted over several generations (Galster & Wessel, 2019; Hedman &
van Ham, 2021). The location of homes shapes access
to schools and jobs. As higher-income households have
moved to inner cities and low-income households have
moved the suburbs (Hochstenbach & Musterd, 2018), a
greater symmetry in the geography of where low-income
and high-income households live and where high-wage
and low-wage jobs are located has emerged (Delmelle
et al., 2021). This implies that the geography of disadvantage is increasingly clustering on the peripheries of large
cities (Hess et al., 2018).
The growing body of research using an activity space
approach shows that the homes where people live are
the main anchor points in daily activities and shape
access, not only to schools and workplaces, but also a
rich set of various leisure time activity sites (Järv, Ahas, &
Witlox, 2014; Silm & Ahas, 2014). The importance of residential neighbourhoods as places of social interaction
varies too between population groups. Neighbourhoods
are central spatial settings for children, the elderly and
members of the ethnic minority population (Wissink,
Schwanen, & van Kempen, 2016). For example, Hedman
and van Ham (2021) show that, for 60% of people living
in ethnic neighbourhoods, the neighbourhood is also the
main daily activity site. Silm et al. (2018) show that segregation in the activity places (including leisure time sites)
tends to be passed on to following generations.
Residential sorting of households with different
incomes is thus directly related to a wider consideration
set in terms of local amenities and public goods (Tiebout,
1956). Because of the linked lives of the family members, these considerations lead to the inter-generational
transmission of segregation (Tammaru et al., 2017;
van Ham et al., 2018). Children frequently attend a
nearby school and, consequently, residential segregation of parents results in the school segregation of their
children (Bernelius & Vilkama, 2019; Oberti & Savina,
2019). School segregation not only reflects existing patSocial Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
terns of residential segregation, but also plays a crucial role in maintaining and reinforcing social and spatial inequalities in cities (Boterman, Musterd, Pacchi, &
Ranci, 2019). Comparative studies of residential segregation and school segregation have shown that levels
of school segregation tend to be higher than levels of
residential segregation (S. Burgess, Wilson, & Lupton,
2005). For example, having the opportunity to choose
a school contributes to school segregation when affluent parents living in lower-income neighbourhoods send
their kids to schools outside the home neighbourhood
(E. Andersson, Malmberg, & Östh, 2012; Maloutas &
Fujita, 2012; Maloutas & Lobato, 2015). When school
choice is not available or heavily restricted, parents may
also start to ‘shop’ for schools by renting or buying
homes in the catchment areas of desired schools (Rich
et al., 2021).
In other words, school choice leads to school segregation through many and often highly localized mechanisms (Wilson & Bridge, 2019), for example when affluent
families prioritize the academic quality (Nieuwenhuis
& Xu, 2021) and reputation (Bernelius et al., 2021) of
the schools where their children study. School reputation, in turn, reinforces residential segregation, meaning that there is a circular relationship between residential segregation and school segregation (Rich et al.,
2021; see Figure 2). This circularity emerges since differences in school quality affect residential segregation
through prices in the housing market: Neighbourhoods
in which schools are perceived as being of a higher quality attract higher-educated and affluent households, leading to higher property prices, which excludes low-income
families (Nieuwenhuis & Xu, 2021). In short, the interconnectedness of residential segregation and school segregation results from a joint residential-school choice, in
parallel with the clustering of low-wage jobs and lowincome households in certain parts of cities. Residential
clustering of high-income households into certain neighbourhoods contributes not only to school segregation,
but also to broader inequalities in education. For many
reasons, learning outcomes tend to be better in those
neighbourhoods where more affluent families reside
(Nieuwenhuis & Hooimeijer, 2016; Owens & Candipan,
2019; Rich et al., 2021).
3. Policy Implications: A Roadmap to More Spatially
Inclusive Cities
Vicious circles of segregation are a result of the connectedness of social and spatial inequalities in different
life domains. Advantage breeds advantage and disadvantage breeds disadvantage. Hence, policy interventions
in one domain could potentially transmit into the other
domains (Figure 1). Dealing with overall levels of income
inequality is important for achieving more spatially inclusive cities. During times of growing income inequality,
social and spatial mobility increase as well, leading to
higher levels of segregation as higher income groups
69
sort into more attractive neighbourhoods (Nieuwenhuis,
Tammaru, van Ham, Hedman, & Manley, 2020). When
income inequality stays high, social and spatial inequalities remain high and intergenerational transmission of
advantage and disadvantage becomes more frequent.
While the growth of income inequalities leads to higher
levels of spatial inequalities, the opposite is true as well:
reduced income inequality contributes to lowering the
levels of residential segregation (Tammaru et al., 2020).
Tackling the overlap between residential segregation and school segregation within the linked lives of
family members is especially important for reducing
spatial exclusion. Since children usually attend neighbourhood schools, urban policies that aim for diverse
housing in residential neighbourhoods help to maintain socially diverse schools as well. The even distribution of social housing across urban neighbourhoods or
allocation of social housing to different social groups
helps to address residential segregation (Friesenecker
& Kazepov, 2021). If social housing is concentrated in
certain neighbourhoods, as exemplified by modernist
high-rise suburban housing estates (Hess et al., 2018),
and residualized for lower-income groups (Ogrodowczyk
& Marcińczak, 2021), levels of segregation increase as
well. Hence, lowering levels of residential segregation
would be the first important measure that would help
to reduce school segregation and differences in learning
outcomes (Nieuwenhuis & Xu, 2021). The second measure would relate to school choice; when parents have
relatively unrestrained choice in which schools their kids
learn, levels of school segregation rise as well as affluent parents compensate residential social mix with sending their kids to more attractive schools (E. Andersson
et al., 2012; Maloutas & Fujita, 2012; Maloutas & Lobato,
2015; Maloutas, Spyrellis, Hadjiyanni, Capella, & Valassi,
& 2019). Bonding ties form at schools between the
peers and lowering levels of school segregation would
facilitate bridging social ties between different ethnic
and social groups. For example, Lubbers, Van Der Werf,
Kuyper, and Offringa (2006) find that peer acceptance
in schools is not related to the socioeconomic characteristics of parents. Both skills and social networks are, in
turn, important in the labour market (Muringani, Fitjar,
& Rodríguez-Pose, 2021).
The social interaction between neighbours is often
less intense than the social interaction with peers at
school and colleagues at work, giving rise to questions
on the importance of neighbourhoods in shaping social
interaction (Boal, 1987). However, Silm et al. (2021)
demonstrate that the social networks are more diverse
for people living in mixed neighbourhoods. Rahnu, Puur,
Kleinepier, and Tammaru (2020) show that living in
mixed neighbourhoods contributes to the formation of
mixed-ethnic unions. Residential neighbourhoods shape
social interactions directly and indirectly. First, sharing a
neighbourhood may bring together neighbours with different backgrounds. For example, families living in the
same neighbourhood may start to interact with each
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
other if they have same-age children through meeting
each other in the neighbourhood playground or when
their children attend the same kindergarten or school
(Špačková & Ouředníček, 2012). The effect may also be
indirect. Living in mixed neighbourhoods may make people more comfortable in diverse environments, leading
to more social interactions with members of different
social or ethnic groups in other life domains or even the
formation of mixed-ethnic unions (Rahnu et al., 2020).
Policies aiming at residential mixing also need to go
hand-in-hand with policies that address overall levels of
income inequality, i.e., housing and labour market policies should reinforce each other in achieving higher levels of spatial inclusion. Otherwise, eliminating the transmission of disadvantage from one domain to another
would be much harder. For example, Nieuwenhuis et al.
(2017) find that adolescents whose parents move to a
more affluent neighbourhood experience increased levels of depression, social phobia, aggression and conflict
with parents. It is stressful for children if peers in the
neighbourhood and school can afford significantly more.
In short, city-level policies in residential mixing should
go together with country-level policies on tackling overall levels of income inequalities in breaking vicious circles of segregation (cf. Tammaru et al., 2020; van Ham,
Tammaru, et al., 2021). Likewise, a combination of residential mixing with parental choice in school allocation
may not help to break the vicious circles of segregation, since higher-income households living in socially
mixed neighbourhoods can opt for non-neighbourhood
schools, increasing school segregation (cf. E. Andersson
et al., 2012).
4. Empirical Contribution: Main Findings from the
Thematic Issue
The most effective way of addressing the spatial underpinnings of social inequalities and segregation is to focus
on residential neighbourhoods as related to other important life domains, as families live their linked lives and
navigate from homes to schools and workplaces, as well
as to leisure time activity sites. The rest of this thematic
issue provides more detailed insights into the mechanisms of how segregation evolves in daily activity spaces,
over the life course and between generations.
The first four articles deal with residential inequalities and housing. Friesenecker and Kazepov (2021) show
that the unitary housing system in Vienna helps to keep
levels of residential segregation low. Social housing is distributed relatively evenly in Vienna and the tenure structure in social housing is very mixed, preventing a rise
in levels of residential segregation. Contrary to Vienna,
social housing has contracted in Łódź, and is mainly occupied by lower-income households, a process called residualization of social housing (Ogrodowczyk & Marcińczak,
2021). Since social housing is over-represented in certain parts of the city, its residualization contributes to
increasing levels of residential segregation as well.
70
Sorando et al. (2021) argue that housing is the key
element of social inequality in Spain. Their study shows
that gentrification has contributed to the disappearance
of the last socially mixed residential settings in the inner
city in Madrid. Immigrants are over-represented among
lower-income households, and they are increasingly clustering in comparatively more affordable housing in the
suburbs. Maloutas and Botton (2021) take a different
angle by focussing on the role of changes in the occupational structure on residential geographies in Athens.
Professionalization in the workforce is the main driving
force at the level of the metropolitan area. However, they
observe a more detailed geography of neighbourhood
social trajectories characterized either by professionalization, proletarianization or polarization driven by both
poles. Hedman and van Ham (2021) extend the analysis
of residential change across three generations. They find
that for Swedish women the probability of residential
disadvantage or living in a low-income neighbourhood
is correlated with the residential disadvantage of their
mothers and, to some extent, their grandmothers.
The following two articles are about school domain.
Nieuwenhuis and Xu (2021) demonstrate that there
is a strong link between children from higher-income
households attending wealthier schools in larger cities in
Taiwan while no such link exists in smaller urban areas.
Hence, wealthier and higher educated parents make use
of opportunities when it comes to residential and school
choice in the most urbanized areas to secure a better education for their children. Bernelius et al. (2021)
find that school segregation and reputation are strongly
linked to neighbourhood reputation in Helsinki. Schools
with excellent institutional quality and high learning outcomes suffer from being in disadvantaged neighbourhoods with poor reputations. This implies that investments into quality education alone are not enough to
break the vicious circle of segregation if parents’ perceptions remain unchanged. However, successful ways
in improving school reputation may lead to positive outcomes for the school and neighbourhood.
The following two articles focus on the work domain.
Delmelle et al. (2021) focus on accessibility to jobs
for people living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in
the suburbs of the Charlotte metropolitan area. They
find that the suburbanization of both low-income
households and low-wage jobs reinforce each other.
Hence, improved access to jobs would not improve
levels of employment among low-income households.
However, improved accessibility to higher-wage jobs
would increase incomes of people living in low-income
neighbourhoods. Sorting in the labour market has, however, both a spatial (sorting into workplaces) and aspatial (sorting into industries) dimension. Sinitsyna, Torpan,
Eamets, and Tammaru (2021) find that immigrants in
Helsinki’s labour market cluster both to certain workplaces, referred to as ‘workplace segregation,’ and certain
industries, referred to as ‘industrial niching.’ Immigration
policies favouring migrants with certain skill thus tend to
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
increase inequalities in the labour market. Also, women
are more likely than men to be employed simultaneously
in segregated workplaces and niched industries.
The last two articles take an activity space approach
to studying segregation in different life domains based
on mobile phone data. Hedman, Kadarik, Andersson, and
Östh (2021) analyse the daily mobility patterns of people living in two medium-sized cities in Sweden. Results
reveal that daily mobility patterns are strongly segregated. People living in immigrant-dense neighbourhoods
tend to spend most of their day in their home neighbourhood or, when they travel elsewhere to the city,
the destination neighbourhoods tend to be immigrantdense too. People living in non-immigrant neighbourhood are more mobile, and their destination neighbourhoods tend to be less immigrant-dense. The findings
from Silm et al. (2021) in Estonia are similar and the
authors further elaborate that there is a relationship
between spatial mobility and the ethnic composition
of social networks. Neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of residents from another ethnic group tend to
favour interethnic social networks. The activity-space is
most constrained for ethnic minorities whose social networks contain mainly ethnic minorities, while the activity space is the largest for members of the ethnic majority population with mainly ethnic-majority-population
social networks.
5. The Way Forward: Five Questions Stemming from
the Thematic Issue
There is a paradigm shift taking place in research in spatial inequality and exclusion, from residential segregation
to multi-domain understandings of segregation. This thematic issue outlines the conceptual foundations of the
vicious circles of segregation to better understand the
connectedness of segregation in different life domains
and provide empirical insights to the various elements
of the concept. It provides the basis for future research
since many questions remain unanswered. We will highlight five questions that warrant future research.
First, what is the impact of improved education and
the greater professionalization of workforces on social
and spatial inequalities? There has been much interest in
the role of income inequality on segregation. In parallel,
there has been a heated debate on occupational composition change in cities by considering whether it is shifting towards higher levels of social polarization or professionalization. Recent empirical evidence indicates that
professionalization has been a trend across the globe.
Hence, although cities are more unequal on the one
hand, the share of professionals earning high incomes
is growing on the other. Furthermore, people worldwide increasingly concentrate in large cities. The expansion of people living and professionals working in large
cities drives up house prices and pushes low-income
households to urban peripheries. In this thematic issue,
we learn that the professionalization of the workforce
71
contributes to the socioeconomic upgrading of many
urban neighbourhoods. However, more needs to be
done when it comes to understanding the other effects
of increased income inequality and professionalization
of the workforce on cities. For example, does the socioeconomic upgrading of neighbourhoods also improve the
reputation of the neighbourhoods, and what is its effect
on breaking the vicious circles of segregation?
What are trajectories of segregation across neighbourhoods and individual life courses? In this thematic
issue, we learn about segregation in daily activity
spaces, the connectedness of segregation in different
life domains and the transmission of segregation over
multiple generations. However, we still know little about
(1) neighbourhood trajectories and (2) individual life trajectories in different life domains, as well as how they
are connected. Research in this thematic issue indicates
that advantage and disadvantage tend to cluster increasingly to the broad macro regions in cities. Many innercity neighbourhoods gain high-income households, provide high-wage jobs and attractive schools. In many
cities, inner cities that were the most socially mixed
have become more homogenous as the number of highincome households increases. In contrast, many suburban locations have witnessed increased concentrations
of low-wage jobs, low-income households and schools
with poorer reputations. What such a spatial “scaling-up’’
of segregation into broader macro regions in the city
means for individuals needs further research. In a nutshell, more longitudinal research is needed on neighbourhood and individual life trajectories. For example,
research could address how family or residential contexts are related to the educational trajectories of people through their whole school life from kindergarten to
graduating from university, and how these educational
trajectories with their various episodes and twists, in
turn, shape different aspects of labour market success
for individuals.
In this thematic issue, we learn that the residential
outcomes of daughters, mothers and grandmothers are
related. However, we lack nuance of exactly how the
lives of family members are related to each other regarding the intergenerational transmission of spatial inequalities. This begs the question: What is the role of linked
lives of family members in the transmission of spatial
inequality? For example, how do the high and increasing
levels of wealth inequality contribute the intergenerational transmission of various resources and capital? And
from a different but equally important note: Do different family arrangements matter in segregation? Families
in contemporary cities take different forms and shapes
and are in constant flux; families form and dissolve, and
kids grow up in very diverse family arrangements. What
is the role of increased transnationalisation in everyday
lives? Although research in this thematic issue shows
that many people live very localized and neighbourhoodbased lives, there is also a growing number of families where one of the partners works abroad or underSocial Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
takes long-distance commutes within the home country.
Likewise, many people living in large cities have second
homes which they visit in summertime. Kids spend more
time outdoors in summertime and may develop friendships with kids in very different social and spatial environments in second-home neighbourhoods compared to
their first-home neighbourhoods.
What is the role of social networks and digital spaces
in shaping inequality and inclusion in physical spaces?
Although research in this thematic issue demonstrates
the continued importance of neighbourhoods in structuring the lives of families, it also shows that spatial
mobility and social networks are mutually related to each
other. Also, an important part of social relations takes
place in the digital space, where people make friends
and find partners. Many digital environments and services are location-based, though. For example, people
search for partners on digital platforms that allow filtering according to proximity. It is, therefore, important to
learn more about whether the social homophily in digital spaces helps to reduce the tyranny of space, by bringing together people with similar interests irrespective of
their social background, or reinforces segregation in the
physical space as well.
Finally, how do the aims of smart and sustainable
cities shape segregation and inclusion? The leading
paradigms in urban research relate to smart, sustainable
and inclusive cities. Future cities aim to be green and sustainable and, for this end, reducing the ecological footprint of mobility is a key target. It implies promoting
green and active forms of mobility, including public transit, walking and cycling. Research is needed on the implications of increased active mobility on the sizes of people’s activity spaces and whether shorter travel distances
contribute to the spatial isolation of social groups who
reside in different neighbourhoods of the city.
Acknowledgments
Working on this thematic issue was a great pleasure
because of the high quality of the contributions and the
smooth writing process, for which we are indebted to
all authors. The support from the editorial staff at Social
Inclusion was a key to success; the quality of the reviews
was high, and the speed and efficiency in handling the
review process was excellent. We are also very grateful to the Estonian Research Agency, who has provided
financial support to the five-year PRG306 project “Understanding the Vicious Circles of Segregation. A Geographic
Perspective” (for more see www.segregationcircles.eu),
as well as to the support of the Infotechnological Mobility Observatory (www.imo.ut.ee/en) and the EU Horizon
project “UpLift” (www.uplift-youth.eu).
References
Andersson, E., Malmberg, B., & Östh, J. (2012). Travelto-school distances in Sweden 2000–2006: Changing
72
school geography with equality implications. Journal
of Transport Geography, 23, 35–43. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.022
Andersson, R., & Kährik, A. (2016). Widening gaps segregation dynamics during two decades of economic
and institutional change in Stockholm. In T. Tammaru, S. Marcińczak, M. van Ham, & S. Musterd
(Eds.), Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities: East meets West (pp. 110–131). London:
Routledge.
Bernelius, V., & Vilkama, K. (2019). Pupils on the move:
School catchment area segregation and residential
mobility of urban families. Urban Studies, 56(15),
3095–3116. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980198
48999
Bernelius, V., Huilla, H., & Lobato, I. R. (2021). ‘Notorious
schools’ in ‘notorious places’? Exploring the connectedness of urban and educational segregation. Social
Inclusion, 9(2), 154–165.
Boal, F. W. (1987). Segregation. In M. Pacione (Ed.),
Socail geography: Progress and prospect (pp.
90–128). London: Croom Helm.
Booth, C. (1888). Condition and occupations of the people of East London and Hackney, 1887. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, 51(2), 276–339. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2979109
Boterman, W., & Musterd, S. (2017). Differentiated residential orientations of class fractions. In SAGE handbook of new urban studies (pp. 388–407). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781412912655.n25
Boterman, W., Musterd, S., Pacchi, C., & Ranci, C. (2019).
School segregation in contemporary cities: Sociospatial dynamics, institutional context and urban outcomes. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3055–3073. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0042098019868377
Burgess, E. W. (1925). Residential segregation in American cities. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 140, 105–115. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/1016838
Burgess, S., Wilson, D., & Lupton, R. (2005). Parallel
Lives? Ethnic segregation in schools and neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 42(7), 1027–1056. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00420980500120741
Coulter, R., van Ham, M., & Findlay, A. (2015). Rethinking residential mobility: Linking lives through
time and space. Progress in Human Geography, 49(3),
334–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515575
417
Delmelle, E., Nilsson, I., & Adu, P. (2021). Poverty suburbanization, job accessibility, and employment outcomes. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 166–178.
Ellis, M., Wright, R., & Parks, V. (2004). Work together,
live apart? Geographies of racial and ethnic segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 94(3), 620–637. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00417
Friesenecker, M., & Kazepov, Y. (2021). Housing Vienna:
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
The socio-spatial effects of inclusionary and exclusionary mechanisms of housing provision. Social
Inclusion, 9(2), 77–90.
Galster, G., & Wessel, T. (2019). Reproduction of social
inequality through housing: A three-generational
study from Norway. Social Science Research, 78,
119–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.
12.016
Gonalons-Pons, P., & Schwartz, C. R. (2017). Trends in
economic homogamy: Changes in assortative mating
or the division of labor in marriage? Demography,
54(3), 985–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524017-0576-0
Hamnett, C. (2021). The changing social structure of
global cities: Professionalisation, proletarianisation
or polarisation. Urban Studies, 58(5), 1050–1066.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020940556
Hedman, L., & van Ham, M. (2021). Three generations
of intergenerational transmission of neighbourhood
context. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 129–141.
Hedman, L., Kadarik, K., Andersson, R., & Östh, J. (2021).
Daily mobility patterns: Reducing or reproducing
inequalities and segregation? Social Inclusion, 9(2),
208–221.
Hess, D. B., Tammaru, T., van Ham, M. (2018). Housing
estates in Europe: Poverty, ethnic segregation and
policy challenges. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-92813-5
Hochstenbach, C., & Musterd, S. (2018). Gentrification
and the suburbanization of poverty: Changing urban
geographies through boom and bust periods. Urban
Geography, 39(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02723638.2016.1276718
Hulchanski, D. (2010). The three cities within Toronto:
Income polarization among Toronto’s neighbourhoods, 1970–2005. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Järv, O., Ahas, R., & Witlox, F. (2014). Understanding monthly variability in human activity spaces: A
twelve-month study using mobile phone call detail
records. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 38, 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.trc.2013.11.003
Järv, O., Müürisepp, K., Ahas, R., Derudder, B., &
Witlox, F. (2015). Ethnic differences in activity
spaces as a characteristic of segregation: A study
based on mobile phone usage in Tallinn, Estonia.
Urban Studies, 52(14), 2680–2698. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0042098014550459
Kain, J. F. (1968). Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82(2). https://doi.org/
10.2307/1885893
Kalmijn, M. (1991). Status homogamy in the United
States. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2),
496–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/229786
Krysan, M., & Crowder, K. (2017). Cycle of segregation:
Social processes and residential stratification. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
73
Kukk, K., van Ham, M., & Tammaru, T. (2019). EthniCity
of leisure: A domains approach to ethnic integration
during free time activities. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 110(3), 289–302. https://
doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12307
Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P. C., Kuyper, H., &
Offringa, G. J. (2006). Predicting peer acceptance in
Dutch youth: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 26(1), 4–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0272431605282747
Maloutas, T., & Botton, H. (2021). Trends of social polarisation and segregation in Athens (1991–2011). Social
Inclusion, 9(2), 117–128.
Maloutas, T., & Fujita, K. (Eds.). (2012). Residential segregation in comparative perspective. Making sense of
contextual diversity. Farnham: Ashgate.
Maloutas, T., & Lobato, I. R. (2015). Education and social
reproduction: Educational mechanisms and residential segregation in Athens and Dortmund. Local
Economy, 30(7), 800–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0269094215601817
Maloutas, T., Spyrellis, S., Hadjiyanni, A., Capella, A., &
Valassi, D. (2019). Residential and school segregation
as parameters of educational performance in Athens.
Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography. https://
doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.33085
Manley, D., van Ham, M., & Hedman, L. (2020). Inherited and spatial disadvantages: A longitudinal study
of early adult neighborhood careers of siblings.
Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(6), 1670–1689. https://doi.org/10.1080/
24694452.2020.1747970
Mooses, V., Silm, S., & Ahas, R. (2016). Ethnic segregation
during public and national holidays: A study using
mobile phone data. Geografiska Annaler, Series B:
Human Geography, 98(3), 205–219. https://doi.org/
10.1111/geob.12100
Mooses, V., Silm, S., Tammaru, T., & Saluveer, E. (2020).
An ethno-linguistic dimension in transnational activity space measured with mobile phone data. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00627-3
Muringani, J., Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2021).
Social capital and economic growth in the regions of
Europe. Environment and Planning A: Economy and
Space. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0308518X211000059
Musterd, S. (2005). Social and ethnic segregation in
Europe: Levels, causes and effects. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 27(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.0735-2166.2005.00239.x
Musterd, S., & Ostendorf, W. (1998). Urban segregation and the welfare state inequality and exclusion in
Western cities. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780203448533
Musterd, S., Ostendorf, W., & de Vos, S. (2003). Neighbourhood effects and social mobility: A longitudinal
analysis. Housing Studies, 18(6), 877–892. https://
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
doi.org/10.1080/0267303032000135483
Nieuwenhuis, J., & Hooimeijer, P. (2016). The association
between neighbourhoods and educational achievement, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(2),
321–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-0159460-7
Nieuwenhuis, J., Tammaru, T., van Ham, M., Hedman,
L., & Manley, D. (2020). Does segregation reduce
socio-spatial mobility? Evidence from four European
countries with different inequality and segregation
contexts. Urban Studies, 57(1), 176–197. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0042098018807628
Nieuwenhuis, J., van Ham, M., Yu, R., Branje, S., Meeus,
W., & Hooimeijer, P. (2017). Being poorer than
the rest of the neighborhood: Relative deprivation
and problem behavior of youth. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 46(9), 1891–1904. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10964-017-0668-6
Nieuwenhuis, J., & Xu, J. (2021). Residential segregation
and unequal access to schools. Social Inclusion, 9(2),
142–153.
Oberti, M., & Savina, Y. (2019). Urban and school
segregation in Paris. The complexity of contextual
effects on school achievement: The case of middle
schools in the Paris metropolitan area. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3117–3142. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042098018811733
Ogrodowczyk, A., & Marcińczak, S. (2021). Pending final
version. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 91–103.
Owens, A., & Candipan, J. (2019). Social and spatial inequalities of educational opportunity: A portrait of schools serving high- and low-income neighbourhoods in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3178–3197. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042098018815049
Park, Y. M., & Kwan, M. P. (2017). Individual exposure
estimates may be erroneous when spatiotemporal
variability of air pollution and human mobility are
ignored. Health and Place, 43, 85–94. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.10.002
Pastak, I. (2021). Gentrification and displacement in postindustrial neighbourhoods of Tallinn. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Peach, C. (1980). Ethnic segregation and intermarriage. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 70(3), 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8306.1980.tb01320.x
Peach, C. (1996). Good segregation, bad segregation.
Planning Perspectives, 11(4), 379–398.
Rahnu, L., Puur, A., Kleinepier, T., & Tammaru, T. (2020).
The role of neighbourhood and workplace ethnic contexts in the formation of inter-ethnic partnerships:
A native majority perspective. European Journal of
Population, 36, 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10680-019-09528-x
Rich, P., Candipan, J., & Owens, A. (2021). Segregated
neighborhoods, segregated schools: Do charters
74
break a stubborn link? Demography, 58(2), 471–498.
https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9000820
Rivkin, S. G. (1994). Residential segregation and school
integration. Sociology of Education, 67(4), 279–292.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2112817
Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move: A study in the
social psychology of urban residential mobility. London: Free Press.
Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2),
143–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.
9989794
Silm, S., & Ahas, R. (2014). Ethnic differences in activity spaces: A study of out-of-home nonemployment
activities with mobile phone data. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(3), 542–559.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.892362
Silm, S., Ahas, R., & Mooses, V. (2018). Are younger age
groups less segregated? Measuring ethnic segregation in activity spaces using mobile phone data. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(11), 1797–
1817. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.
1400425
Silm, S., Mooses, V., Puura, A., Masso, A., Tominga, A., &
Saluveer, E. (2021). The relationship between ethnolinguistic composition of social networks and activity
space: A study using mobile phone data. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 192–207.
Sinitsyna, A., Torpan, K., Eamets, R., & Tammaru, T.
(2021). Overlap between industrial niching and workplace segregation: Role of immigration policy, culture
and country of origin. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 179–191.
Sorando, D., Uceda, P., & Domínguez, M. (2021). Inequality on the increase: Trajectories of privilege and
inequality in Madrid. Social Inclusion, 9(2), 104–116.
Špačková, P., & Ouředníček, M. (2012). Spinning the
web: New social contacts of Prague’s suburbanites. Cities, 29(5), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cities.2011.09.002
Strömgren, M., Tammaru, T., Danzer, A. M., van Ham, M.,
Marcińczak, S., Stjernström, O., & Lindgren, U. (2014).
Factors shaping workplace segregation between
natives and immigrants. Demography, 51(2),
645–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-0130271-8
Tammaru, T., Kallas, K., & Eamets, R. (Eds.). (2017). Estonian human development report: Estonia at the age
of migration. Tallinn: Eesti Koostöö Kogu.
Tammaru, T., Marcińczak, S., Aunap, R., van Ham, M.,
& Janssen, H. (2020). Relationship between income
inequality and residential segregation of socioeconomic groups. Regional Studies, 54(4), 450–461.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1540035
Tammaru, T., Strömgren, M., Stjernström, O., & Lindgren,
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
U. (2010). Learning through contact? The effects
on earnings of immigrant exposure to the native
population. Environment and Planning A, 42(12),
2938–2955. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4396
Tammaru, T., van Ham, M., Marcińczak, S., & Musterd,
S. (Eds.). (2016). Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities: East meets West. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315758879
Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.
https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
Toomet, O., Silm, S., Saluveer, E., Ahas, R., & Tammaru, T.
(2015). Where do ethno-linguistic groups meet? How
copresence during free-time is related to copresence
at home and at work. PlosOne, 10(5). https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0126093
Torpan, K., Sinitsyna, A., Kährik, A., Kauppinen, T. M.,
& Tammaru, T. (2020). Overlap of migrants’ housing and neighbourhood mobility. Housing Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02673037.2020.1849574
van Ham, M., & Tammaru, T. (2016). New perspectives on ethnic segregation over time and space.
A domains approach. Urban Geography, 37(7),
953–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.
1142152
van Ham, M., Tammaru, T., & Janssen, H. J. (2018). A
multi-level model of vicious circles of socio-economic
segregation. In OECD (Eds.), Divided cities: Understanding intra-urban disparities (pp. 135–154). Paris:
OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300385-en
van Ham, M., Tammaru, T., Ubarevičienė, R., & Janssen,
H. (Eds.). (2021). Urban socio-economic segregation and income inequality: A global perspective.
Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03064569-4
van Ham, M., Uesugi, M., Tammaru, T., Manley, D., &
Janssen, H. (2021). Changing occupational structures
and residential segregation in New York, London and
Tokyo. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1124–1134.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0927-5
Vogiazides, L., & Chihaya, G. K. (2020). Migrants’ longterm residential trajectories in Sweden: Persistent
neighbourhood deprivation or spatial assimilation?
Housing Studies, 35(5), 875–902. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02673037.2019.1636937
Wilson, D., & Bridge, G. (2019). School choice and
the city: Geographies of allocation and segregation.
Urban Studies, 56(15), 3198–3215. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0042098019843481
Wissink, B., Schwanen, T., & van Kempen, R. (2016).
Beyond residential segregation: Introduction. Cities,
59, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.
08.010
75
About the Authors
Tiit Tammaru is Professor of Urban and Population Geography and Head of the Chair of Human
Geography at the University of Tartu. He is also a member of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. His
research interests include migration, residential mobility, housing, relations between social inequalities and socioeconomic segregation, as well as comparative segregation studies. He is developing the
concept of ‘vicious circles of segregation’ to understand segregation across different life domains.
David Knapp is a PhD candidate in the Department of Geography at the University of Tartu. His PhD
research focuses on the relationship between residential segregation and school segregation. Other
research interests of his include sustainable urban planning and age-related segregation.
Siiri Silm is an Associate Professor in Human Geography and acting Head of the Mobility Lab at the
University of Tartu. She has developed mobile phone-based methodology (passive mobile positioning, smartphone-based positioning) and has been conducting related research since 2004. Her main
fields of research include human mobility, analyses of urban space, socio-ethnic inequalities, social networks and cross-border mobility. She acts as the Head of the organizing committee of Mobile Tartu
conferences.
Maarten van Ham is Professor of Urban Geography and Head of the Department of Urbanism at Delft
University of Technology. He is a population geographer with a background in economic and urban
geography. He is a Research Fellow at IZA and Professor of Geography at the University of St Andrews.
In 2014, Maarten was awarded a two-million-euro ERC Consolidator Grant for a 5-year research project
on neighbourhood effects (DEPRIVEDHOODS).
Frank Witlox is Senior Full Professor of Economic Geography and Head of the Department of
Geography at Ghent University. He is also Visiting Professor at the Department of Geography,
University of Tartu. His research focuses mainly on travel behaviour analysis and modelling. He is the
current Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Transport Geography, a world-leading interdisciplinary journal
focusing on the geographical dimensions of transport, travel and mobility. In recognition to the field,
he received two honorary doctorates, one in 2018 from the University of Tartu (Estonia) and one in
2020 from the Odessa National Polytechnic University (Ukraine).
Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 65–76
76