This article was downloaded by: [1.55.74.

244]
On: 26 May 2014, At: 01:59
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
The Professional Geographer
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpg20
Rethinking Diversity
Through Analyzing Residential
Segregation Among Hispanics in
Phoenix, Miami, and Chicago
Christopher Lukinbeal
a
, Patricia L. Price
b
& Cayla
Buell
c
a
University of Arizona
b
Florida International University
c
Independent Scholar
Published online: 27 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Christopher Lukinbeal , Patricia L. Price & Cayla Buell (2012)
Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential Segregation Among Hispanics
in Phoenix, Miami, and Chicago, The Professional Geographer, 64:1, 109-124, DOI:
10.1080/00330124.2011.583584
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2011.583584
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential
Segregation Among Hispanics in Phoenix, Miami,
and Chicago

Christopher Lukinbeal
University of Arizona
Patricia L. Price
Florida International University
Cayla Buell
Independent Scholar
Hispanics are an internally diverse population, yet residential segregation within census-dened groups is
often overlooked. Census data are used to examine evenness and exposure segregation among Hispanics in
Chicago, Miami, and Phoenix along the lines of national origin, race, year of arrival, and income. Results
suggest that segregation exists in Miami where there is more national origin diversity, between white and black
Hispanics in Chicago, in all three cities for foreign-born Hispanic recent arrivals, and especially between high-
and low-income Hispanics. Attempts to theorize immigration, social capital and solidarity, and the future of
democratic society have inadequately conceptualized diversity; our work critically employs quantitative
analysis to suggest an enriched and more nuanced socio-spatial understanding of the term. Key words:
diversity, Hispanics, race, residential segregation, segregation indexes.
Internamente los hispanos son una poblaci on diversicada, pero dentro de los grupos denidos censalmente la
segregaci on residencial a menudo pasa desapercibida. Se usan los datos censales para examinar la uniformidad
y la segregaci on por exposici on entre los hispanos de Chicago, Miami y Phoenix, junto con las variables de
origen nacional, raza, a no de llegada e ingreso. Los resultados sugieren que la segregaci on se presenta en
Miami en dondequiera que exista una mayor diversidad de origen nacional, entre hispanos blancos y negros
en Chicago, en todas las tres ciudades para los hispanos nacidos en el extranjero y de llegada reciente, y ocurre
especialmente entre hispanos de alto y bajo ingreso. En los intentos hechos por teorizar inmigraci on, capital
social y solidaridad, y el futuro de la sociedad democr atica, el t ermino diversidad ha sido conceptualizado
inadecuadamente; nuestro trabajo emplea crticamente el an alisis cuantitativo para sugerir un entendimiento
socio-espacial m as enriquecido y matizado de ese t ermino. Palabras clave: diversidad, hispanos, raza,
segregaci on residencial, ndices de segregaci on.

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation Human and Social Dynamics program under Award No. 433947.
Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect
the views of the National Science Foundation.
The Professional Geographer, 64(1) 2012, pages 109124
C
Copyright 2012 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, February 2008; revised submissions, November 2008, June 2009, January and
May 2010; nal acceptance, May 2010.
Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

110
Volume 64, Number 1, February 2012
A
s several recent articles in this journal
have noted, numbers matter whenit comes
to critical geographic analysis of race (Carter
2009; Ellis 2009); moreover, the notion that
there exists an inherent antagonism between
critical and quantitative geographies is erro-
neous and unnecessarily divisive (Barnes 2009;
Kwan and Schwanen 2009; Wyly 2009). As El-
lis (2009) incisively noted, Numbers and the
methods we use to estimate them shape how
clearly and extensively we can see injustice and
inequality; I cannot imagine how human ge-
ography can be critical if it does not embrace
this fact (308). We agree wholeheartedly with
Ellis and contribute to this project by under-
taking a quantitative exploration of segregation
among urban Hispanics
1
to draw critical con-
clusions regarding diversity. Given the recent
surge of Hispanics as a demographic group, it
would seem imperative that geographers and
others studying urban populations pay particu-
larly close attention to Hispanics. While this
trend is indeed underway, researchin par-
ticular, critical researchis proceeding more
swiftly with respect to conceptual and quali-
tative approaches than it is with methodologi-
cal and quantitative approaches (see also Carter
2009). In this article, we explore one manifes-
tation of intra-Hispanic diversityresidential
segregationfrom the latter (methodological
and quantitative) approach. A critical engage-
ment with urban Hispanic segregation that
centralizes the socially constructed nature of
racialized categories allows us to utilize segre-
gation indexes in a manner overlooked by stan-
dard methods of data collection and analysis
that typically do not probe below the surface
of standard race and ethnic categories (Skop
2006). By using quantitative analysis in non-
traditional ways (i.e., within a standard ethno-
racial category), we are able to probe below the
surface to make critical observations about di-
versity that nuance and extend ways that race
is lived, conceptualized, and measured in the
United States.
First, then, the numbers. The ethno-racial
makeup of the United States has shifted sig-
nicantly over the last few decades. The years
since 1990, in particular, have witnessed rapid
growth in the nations Hispanic population,
which has nearly doubled from 22.4 million
in 1990. In the single year from 1 July 2003
to 1 July 2004, one of every two additions
to the U.S. population, through natural in-
crease and immigration together, was Hispanic
(U.S. Census Bureau 2005). In 2003, Hispan-
ics surpassed African Americans to become the
nations largest minority group, and by 2005
to 2007 constituted 14.7 percent of the U.S.
population, versus 12.4 percent for African
Americans. The American Community Survey
estimates that there were more than 45 million
Hispanics in the United States in 2006 to 2008.
By 2050, the Hispanic population of the United
States is predicted to triple in size to constitute
29 percent of the nations population (Passel
and Cohn 2008).
In addition, Hispanics are proportionally
more urban based than non-Hispanic whites
and more than twice as likely to reside in
central cities within a metropolitan area as non-
Hispanic whites (45.6 percent versus 21.1 per-
cent, respectively in 2002; Ramrez and de la
Cruz 2003). In this aspect of their residential
patterns, Hispanics and African Americans are
much closer to one another than either group
is to non-Hispanic whites (Massey and Denton
1993; Falk, Hunt, and Hunt 2004). In addi-
tion, and like African Americans, urban His-
panics are likely to be residentially segregated
within cities. According to Iceland, Wein-
berg, and Steinmetz (2002), the highest lev-
els of Hispanic segregation exist in cities with
the highest percentage of Hispanics. Further-
more, those metropolitan areas experiencing
the largest increase in Hispanics between 1980
and 2000 also experienced the largest increases
in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic segregation
(Iceland, Weinberg, and Steinmetz 2002).
Finally, Hispanics encompass a wide range
of diversity, such that viewing the category as a
monolithic one is extremely problematic. The
term Hispanic spans diverse national origins,
years in the United States that range from sev-
eral centuries in the case of New Mexicos His-
pano
2
population to very recent immigrants,
and a multitude of racialized identications. In
2000, the U.S. Census redened Hispanics to
constitute a multiracial ethnic category (Grieco
and Cassidy 2001). This brings the ofcial enu-
meration of Hispanics closer to lived reality
by recognizing the myriad racial, ethnic, and
origin congurations one individual can claim,
thus lending a sort of legitimacy to the long-
standing acknowledgment of intracategory di-
versity among Hispanics. This also makes any
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential Segregation
111
analysis of Hispanics that relies on some form
of racial identication problematic, as these are
uid and contingent identications not just in
theory, but in practice (see also Ellis 2001;
Zentella 2002).
Three study citiesPhoenix, Miami, and
Chicagowere chosen for analysis because
they provide valuable comparative and con-
trasting features. On the one hand, all
three cities are gateways for Latin American
and Caribbean immigrants (Benton-Short and
Price 2008). Yet despite their gateway city sta-
tus, segregation and racialized discrimination
against Hispanics (as well as other racialized
minorities and newcomers) remain an unfor-
tunate fact of life in theseas in mostU.S.
cities. On the other hand, Chicago is an older
city with a long history of diverse immigrant
reception; indeed, the baseline for much of the
early work on immigrant incorporation and im-
migrant neighborhoods is set in Chicago (Park,
Burgess, and McKenzie 1925; Nagel 2009).
Although Hispanics have been a longtime pres-
ence in Chicago, particular Chicago neighbor-
hoods have transitioned from one dominant
immigrant group to another for many gen-
erations (D. Wilson, Beck, and Bailey 2009).
In Miami and Phoenix, by contrast, the rel-
atively young age of these cities on the na-
tional scale, and their relatively recent history
of large-scale Hispanic immigration, sets them
apart from older gateway cities like Chicago
(Singer 2008). Between these two cities, as well,
there are also important differences. Whereas
Phoenix is dominated by a Mexican-ancestry
Hispanic population, yet still sees its business
and political power concentrated in the hands
of Anglos, Miamis Hispanic population is far
more diverse by ancestry, and a large share of
Miamis political and business power is held by
Hispanics.
Aninitial comparisonof segregationbetween
Hispanics and non-Hispanics in Chicago, Mi-
ami, and Phoenix, along with census-generated
national benchmarks, provides baseline com-
parisons for our analyses. We then query in-
tergroup segregation within the U.S. Census
category of Hispanic, by national origin, race,
year of arrival, and income. Attempts to the-
orize diversity, race, and indeed the future of
democratic society have involved various, con-
tending understandings of howsegregation op-
erates. Our work here thus has implications for
these theories, which we turn to now, as well as
in the concluding section.
Hispanic Segregation
and The Divide
Hispanics have long experienced racialized dis-
crimination in the United States, an important
aspect of which involves residential segrega-
tion (Camarillo 1984; Hise 2004). Hispanics
are the second most segregated group following
African Americans and experienced increasing
amounts of segregation over the period from
1980 to 2000 (Iceland, Weinberg, and Stein-
metz 2002). Hispanics have also suffered from
a systematic undercounting; for instance, with
regard to their presence among the homeless
(Conroy and Heer 2003), in the urban histor-
ical record (Oberle and Arreola 2008; Lukin-
beal, Arreola, and Lucio 2010), and among the
ranks of suburbanites (Odem 2008). In addi-
tion, rening the understanding of Hispanic
participation and experiences in U.S. cities has
acquired particular urgency of late, for there
is evidence that todays Hispanic population
is losing ground on a variety of fronts vis-` a-
vis non-Hispanic whites (Haney-L opez 2006;
Garca 2007).
Allen (2002) documented what he colorfully
termed the Tortilla-Mercedes Divide to dis-
cuss the increasing gap separating Mexicanos
and Anglos
3
residing in Los Angeles County, a
gap that has been widening since 1960. The
Divide is at once social and spatial, reected
in both growing income disparity and increased
levels of residential segregation. Although Los
Angeles is often used to discuss the inclusion
of Hispanics in conceptualizing and modeling
urban processes, the Divide exists in many
U.S. cities. And, as we demonstrate here, the
Divide is not only among Hispanic and non-
Hispanic white populations it also exists within
the category Hispanic. Race andincome, inpar-
ticular, appear to play key roles in determin-
ing levels of residential segregation, such that
black Hispanics and lower income Hispanic im-
migrants are, among Hispanic populations in
general, more likely to experience residential
segregation (Iceland and Nelson 2008).
The empirical evidence for a growing
socio-spatial gap between some U.S. Hispanic
populations and others, as well as between His-
panics and non-Hispanic whites more broadly,
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

112
Volume 64, Number 1, February 2012
is set within a climate of general anxiety over
the latinization of the United States. Con-
gressional debates over border security, recent
demonstrations of the political ascendance of
Hispanic voters, and large-scale immigration
rallies held in many U.S. cities over the spring
and summer of 2006 are just a few of the indi-
cators of the heated nature of the national con-
versation on immigration. Although only one
aspect of the growth in Hispanic populations in
the United States, undocumented immigration
has provided the focal point for these debates
(Portes 2007a, 2007b).
Perhaps most notable (or notorious) among
the quasi-academic discussions of the growing
proportion of the nations population that iden-
ties as Hispanic or Latino is that put forward
by Huntington. In his recent missive, The
Hispanic Challenge, Huntington (2004a, 32;
see also Huntington 2004b) blames many of
the perceived ills of U.S. society on the im-
mense and continuing immigration from Latin
America, especially from Mexico, and the fer-
tility rates of these immigrants compared to
black and white American natives. Hunting-
tons argument rests on the contention that
todays Hispanics are qualitatively different
from earlier immigrant ethnic populations in
their inability or unwillingness to assimilate
into the Anglo-Protestant mainstream. This,
according to Huntington, threatens to divide
the nation in two: one part English-speaking
and Anglo-Protestant in values and institutions
and the other part culturally and linguistically
Hispanic.
Space plays a key role in Huntingtons thinly
disguised racial conspiracy thesis, wherein the
physical concentration of Hispanics in regions
(the Southwest) and in the barrios of major
cities allows Hispanics to amass culturally, lin-
guistically, and politically, positioning them to
take over areas of the country. Demograph-
ically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista
(re-conquest) of the Southwestern United
States by Mexican immigrants is well under-
way (Huntington 2004a, 42). Yet where Hunt-
ington sees the lack of socio-spatial integration
as providing a spatial basis for Hispanics to con-
solidate and incubate their perceived threat,
most social scientists view ethno-racial segre-
gation as a factor that holds minority popula-
tions back, particularly economically speaking.
4
In other words, spatial integration and social
assimilation are most often conceptualized as
being positively related, although geographers
have of late challenged the notion that mere
residential spatial dispersion in fact attenuates
racialized discrimination or precludes the pos-
sibility of resegregation (see Ellis, Wright, and
Parks 2004; Skop and Li 2005; Wright, Ellis,
and Parks 2005; Hardwick 2008).
Spatial integration underlies two opposing
theories on immigration, diversity, and assim-
ilation and on national identity and the demo-
cratic process. On the one hand, proponents
of contact theory argue that physical proxim-
ity fosters trust and solidarity among ethnic
and racial groups (Allport 1954; Sigelman and
Welch 1993; Pettigrew 1998; Stein, Post, and
Rinden 2000; Pettigrewand Tropp 2000, 2006;
Tropp and Pettigrew 2005a, 2005b). This, in
turn, increases social capital across groups and
fosters economic growth, political participa-
tion, and sociocultural tolerance. On the other
hand, conict theory argues the opposite: that
proximity to other ethnic and racial groups is
negatively correlated with outgroup trust and
solidarity (Blumer 1958; Blalock 1967; Giles
and Evans 1986; Quillian 1995, 1996; Brewer
and Brown 1998; Bobo and Tuan 2006). Thus,
ethno-racial integration, in this view, does not
contribute to social capital formation, nor does
it foster economic growth, political participa-
tion, or sociocultural tolerance; rather, diver-
sity erodes and impedes these processes.
Recently, Putnam (2007) examined the ef-
fects of diversity on social capital and solidar-
ity. He argued that both contact theory and
conict theory fail to explain what happens in
diverse communities, because they assume that
in-group trust and out-group trust are neg-
atively correlated. . . . However, once we rec-
ognize that in-group and out-group attitudes
need not be reciprocally related, but can vary
independently, then we need to allow, log-
ically at least, for the possibility that diver-
sity might actually reduce both in-group and
out-group solidarity. . . . We might label this
possibility constrict theory (emphasis added,
Putnam 2007, 14344). Putnam analyzed a
large national (United States) sample and forty-
one smaller community samples of behavioral
and attitudinal variables measuring trust, diver-
sity, and social capital. He interpreted his re-
sults to conclude that, when viewed over time,
diversity (through immigration) inhibits social
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential Segregation
113
capital formation and social solidarity in the
short- to midterm, in a process he termed hun-
kering down (Putnam 2007, 169); but in the
mid- to long-term, new forms of social solidar-
ity are created, new identities are constructed,
and social capital and social solidarity are in-
creased.
Putnams earlier analyses have been critiqued
on a number of factors (Mohan and Mohan
2002). Although we are not measuring atti-
tudes and behaviors associated with social cap-
ital and social solidarity here, and although
diversity is imperfectly related to integration
(segregations opposite), we do measure lev-
els of segregation in ways that advance analy-
ses, like that of Putnam (and his critics), which
rely on understanding how segregation works.
First, we explicitly focus on between-group
segregation using Hispanics as the focus cat-
egory. This recognizes the fact that although
Hispanics are not ofcially considered a racial
group, they are in practice racialized and thus
form one of the ve chromatic points in the
de facto ethno-racial pentagon of the United
States (Hollinger 1995; Price 2010). This lends
segregation analysis, which has traditionally fo-
cused on African Americans, a plural character
more in keeping with the nature of U.S. so-
ciety today. Second, we perform segregation
analysis not only between racialized groups, as
is standard, but within Hispanics as a group.
In doing so, we use quantitative analysis to
ag urban segregation as a far more complex
process, both methodologically and experien-
tially, than typically conceived. In conclusion,
we specically note that all three approaches
already mentionedcontact, conict, and con-
strict theoriesrelate diversity to democratic
progress and rely on predened, homogenous
ethno-racial categories. We demonstrate that
this is a problematic assumption, because our
analysis shows that intracategorical segregation
levels can be higher than those occurring across
ethno-racial categories.
Methodology
To construct our analysis we use publicly avail-
able data from the U.S. Census. We used
the index of dissimilarity and the information
index to measure evenness and the isolation
and interaction indexes to measure exposure.
Evenness refers to the differential distribution
of two social groups among areal units in a
city (Massey and Denton 1988, 283), and ex-
posure refers to the probability of group in-
teraction or isolation (White 1986). Massey
and Denton (1988, 287) argued that expo-
sure indices attempt to measure the experience of
segregation.
The index of dissimilarity (D) is understood
as the proportion of people from a group that
would need to move from subunits of overrep-
resentation to subunits of underrepresentation
to achieve a distributional evenness of repre-
sentation within a dened unit of space. Values
for D range from zero to one, where a smaller
number indicates less overrepresentation and,
therefore, less segregation. The information
index (H) has ascended in prominence since its
introduction in the early 1970s (White 1986).
It quanties the level of heterogeneity within
an area by comparing unit entropy scores to
subunit entropy scores, whereby entropy is
dened as the amount of disorder in a system.
This comparison results in a measure of even-
ness, one that helps to substantiate the results
of D scores. Values for H range from zero to
one, where the lower limit of H (0) indicates
low heterogeneity in subunits, and the upper
limit (1) indicates high heterogeneity in sub-
units. Finally, the isolation index (xPx) is the
probability of sharing a subunit within a city
with a member of the same group whereas the
interaction index (xPy) gauges minority group
interaction with the majority group. Values for
these indexes range fromzero to one, with high
numbers representing either a higher degree
of isolation for a particular social group or a
higher degree of interaction between two social
groups. Thus, higher levels of isolation and
lower levels of interaction mean more segrega-
tion. Where Dcanbe inated by a small subunit
population and small minority unit proportion
(Cortese, Falk, and Cohen 1976; White 1986),
exposure indexes are affected by the relative
size of groups (Iceland and Nelson 2008). In
our analysis, the small size of a minority na-
tional origin or racial group affected the index
of dissimilarity and exposure indexes. Although
all scores are reported in our tables, only those
that were unaffected are discussed in our
results.
We used U.S. Census data to examine
between-group segregation based on Hispan-
ics versus non-Hispanics (SF1, P4: Hispanic
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

114
Volume 64, Number 1, February 2012
Table 1 National baseline for non-Hispanic versus Hispanic segregation
D xPx xPy Terminology used
0.668 0.731 0.868 Very high
0.6670.563 0.7300.532 0.8670.669 High
0.5620.456 0.5310.332 0.6680.469 Midrange
0.4550.351 0.3310.133 0.4680.270 Low
0.35 0.132 0.269 Very low
or Latino and not Hispanic or Latino, Total
Population by Race), and within-group segre-
gation based on national origin (SF1, PCT11:
Hispanic or Latino, By Specic Origin; SF3,
PCT19: Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born
Population), race (SF1, P8: Hispanic or Latino
By Race), year of arrival (SF3, PCT20: Place of
Birth by Year of Entry by Citizenship Status for
the Foreign-Born Population), and household
income in 1999 (SF3, P151H: Household In-
come in 1999, Hispanic or Latino householder,
Universe: Households with a householder who
is Hispanic or Latino). Year of arrival data only
represent immigrants residing in each city at
the time of the 2000 census. For PCT20 data
we merged not citizens and naturalized cit-
izen, as our focus was on national origin and
not citizenship status. Analysis of PCT20 fo-
cused on the census-derived regional categories
of Mexico, other Central America, Caribbean,
and South America, as they constitute the re-
gion of origin for Hispanic immigrants. Al-
though analysis was done on all Latin American
regional categories, only those that represented
a signicant percentage of a citys Hispanic
population are discussed. We use U.S. Census
2000dened metropolitan areas, and all analy-
sis was conducted at the tract level; however, for
the sake of abbreviation, we use the common
names of the central citiesChicago, Miami,
and Phoenixto indicate the wider metropoli-
tan statistical areas (MSAs).
A national baseline for evaluating our
between- and within-group results was es-
tablished by creating a median, standard
deviation classication scale using Iceland,
Weinberg, and Steinmetzs (2002, Table A2)
dissimilarity and isolation index results from
their analysis of thirty-six U.S. metropolitan
areas having 3 percent or more Hispanics and
a total population of over 1 million in the
1980 U.S. Census. Scores for D ranged from
0.273 to 0.676 with a median of 0.509 and a
standard deviation of 0.105. Isolation scores
ranged from 0.057 to 0.791 with a median
of 0.432 and a standard deviation of 0.199.
Because our analysis needed a baseline for
interaction scores, we used Iceland, Weinberg,
and Steinmetzs (2002, Table A2) isolation
scores for Hispanics versus non-Hispanics
to derive an interaction index value (1
xPx = xPy). Interaction scores ranged
from 0.209 to 0.943 with a median of 0.569
and a standard deviation of 0.199 (Table 1).
A secondary baseline came from comparing
within-group analysis scores to Hispanic versus
non-Hispanic group index scores for their
respective city.
Between-Group Analyses
Results of our evenness analysis between His-
panics and non-Hispanics show that of our
three study cities, Chicago has a high degree of
residential segregation between Hispanics and
other groups (Table 2). Roughly 60 percent of
one group in Chicago would need to move from
one census tract to another to achieve even-
ness. Evenness results are not dramatically dif-
ferent among the three cities, showing that the
distribution of Hispanics and non-Hispanics
throughout these metropolitan areas is fairly
similar (except for the very low H score in
Phoenix). All three study cities have midrange
to high levels of segregation between Hispanics
and non-Hispanics.
Table 2 Index scores based on non-Hispanic
versus Hispanic
City D H xPy
Chicago 0.595 0.344 0.526
Miami 0.501 0.261 0.290
Phoenix 0.488 0.157 0.545
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential Segregation
115
The interactionindex indicates that the expe-
rience of residential segregation is more likely
to be felt by Hispanics in Miami (xPy =0.290)
than in Chicago (xPy = 0.526) or Phoenix
(xPy = 0.545). In other words in Miami, His-
panics experience only a 29 percent likelihood
of living in the same tract as non-Hispanics,
compared to Chicago (53 percent chance) and
Phoenix (55 percent chance). It is important to
bear in mind, however, that, at 62 percent as of
2007 (and 57 percent as of 2000), MiamiDade
Countys Hispanic population in fact consti-
tutes a majority population (Shoer Roth 2008).
It is therefore not surprising that the U.S. Cen-
sus ranks Miami as the most segregated city for
Hispanics based on the isolation index, as this
measure is sensitive to the size of the group
under analysis (Iceland, Weinberg, and Stein-
metz 2002). All three cities scored belowthe na-
tional median for interaction (0.569) between
Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups.
Although these results reveal that between-
group residential segregation is midrange to
high for the three study cities, this information
has lowmarginal utility; that is, it merely empir-
ically reinforces conventional wisdom that says
that Hispanics, as do other racialized groups in
the United States, experience residential seg-
regation. It cannot, however, tell us anything
about intragroup dynamics.
Within-Group Analysis by Hispanic
National Origin
For within-group analysis, we begin by con-
ducting a two-group analysis between the ma-
jority Hispanic national origin group versus
all other Hispanic national origin groups, for
each city. In each of the three cities, one
Hispanic ancestry group is more than 50 per-
cent larger than all other Hispanic national
origin groups. For minority Hispanic groups
in each city, we focused on the combined sec-
ond and third largest Hispanic national origin
population groups. In Chicago, Mexicans rep-
resented 74.99 percent of the total Hispanic
population, Puerto Ricans 10.73 percent, and
Guatemalans 1.35 percent. In Phoenix, Mex-
icans represented 81.73 percent of the total
Hispanic population, Puerto Ricans 1.4 per-
cent, and Guatemalans 0.46 percent. In Mi-
ami, Cubans represented 50.37 percent of the
total Hispanic population, Puerto Ricans 6.22
percent, and Colombians 5.42 percent. In con-
structing these two groups (majority group vs.
minority as combined second and third largest
groups) for each city, we essentially conducted
the same analyses as for the between-group
results discussed earlier, only this time it was
conducted between subgroups of the Hispanic
category.
Evenness results show very low levels of
segregation between majority and minority
Hispanic groups in Phoenix (D = 0.196) and
Miami (D = 0.332) relative to the national
benchmark (D 0.35; see Table 1) and low
levels in Chicago (D= 0.386) compared to the
national benchmark range (D between 0.351
and 0.455; see Table 1). In Miami and Chicago,
roughly one third to two fths (respectively)
of one group would need to change tracts
to achieve evenness. The information index
conrms very low levels of heterogeneity in
Chicago (H= 0.133), Miami (H= 0.114), and
Phoenix (H= 0.157).
Post hoc evenness analysis of Miami is in
order given the citys large and diverse His-
panic national origin population. For Miami,
a multigroup information index was calculated
using Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, and
Nicaraguans, as each of these four groups ac-
counted for more than 5 percent of the total
Hispanic population and together constitute
Miamis four largest Hispanic ancestry popu-
lations. The resulting H= 0.328 indicates that
these four groups are more segregated fromone
another than Cubans are from all other His-
panic groups combined. This shows a lack of
homogeneity not only within the Hispanic cat-
egory but also a lack of homogeneity between
the minority Hispanic groups in Miami.
In terms of exposure, minority Hispanic
group members experience a low degree of in-
teraction in Miami (0.428), a midrange level
of interaction in Chicago (0.635), and a high
degree of interaction in Phoenix (0.781). The
chance of a minority Hispanic (non-Cuban) liv-
ing in the same tract with a majority Hispanic
group member (Cuban) in Miami is only 43
percent (Table 3).
Analysis of all national origin groups with
over 5 percent of the total Hispanic population
in their respective cities shows low to very low
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

116
Volume 64, Number 1, February 2012
Table 3 Index scores based on majority Hispanic group versus all other Hispanic groups
H
City D Two groups Four groups xPy
Chicago
a
0.386 0.133 0.635
Miami
b
0.332 0.114 0.328 0.428
Phoenix
a
0.196 0.042 0.781
a
Mexican is the largest Hispanic group.
b
Cuban is the largest Hispanic group (four group analysis included Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, and
Nicaraguans).
levels of evenness segregation. In Miami, there
is a low degree of interaction (0.428) between
Cubans and other Hispanic groups (Table 4).
In Phoenix and Chicago there is a high degree
of interaction between the minority Hispanic
groups and the majority Hispanic group, with
these values exceeding the U.S. Census median
(0.569) of interaction between Hispanics and
non-Hispanics.
Overall there were low levels of segrega-
tion by national origin when a large majority
Hispanic group (over 70 percent) is present.
But when a majority Hispanic group is present
amidst a plurality, that is, among a large and
diverse Hispanic population as in Miami, more
intra-Hispanic segregation by national origin is
found. In Miami, Puerto Ricans, Colombians,
Nicaraguans, and Cubans are more segregated
from one another (H=0.328) than Cubans are
from all other Hispanic groups combined (H=
0.114). Further, there is more unit to subunit
heterogeneity among the four major Hispanic
nation origin groups (H = 0.328) than there is
between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in Mi-
ami (H = 0.261). Also, there is a 57 percent
chance that a minority Hispanic (non-Cuban)
will live in the same tract with another mi-
nority Hispanic group member (non-Cuban) in
Table 4 Index scores based on national origin
D xPx xPy
Chicago
Puerto Rican vs. Mexican 0.286 0.768
Guatemalan vs. Mexican 0.277 0.696
Guatemalan vs. Puerto Rican 0.406 0.187
Mexican 0.788
Puerto Rican 0.036
Guatemalan 0.035
Miami
Puerto Rican vs. Cuban 0.443 0.618
Nicaraguan vs. Cuban 0.313 0.704
Colombian vs. Cuban 0.415 0.651
Columbian vs. Puerto Rican 0.325 0.124
Nicaraguan vs. Puerto Rican 0.423 0.618
Columbian vs. Nicaraguan 0.425 0.074
Cuban 0.578
Puerto Rican 0.103
Colombian 0.087
Nicaraguan 0.082
Phoenix
Puerto Rican vs. Mexican 0.449 0.946
Guatemalan vs. Mexican 0.358 0.968
Guatemalan vs. Puerto Rican 0.559 0.017
Mexican 0.825
Puerto Rican 0.036
Guatemalan 0.012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential Segregation
117
Table 5 Index scores based on race
H D xPx xPy
Chicago
White, black, Native American 0.157
Black vs. white 0.466 0.781
Native American vs. white 0.281 0.936
Native American vs. black 0.493 0.033
Native American 0.015
Black 0.124
White 0.485
Miami
White, black, Native American 0.119
Black vs. white 0.400 0.914
Native American vs. white 0.379 0.942
Native American vs. black 0.325 0.052
Native American 0.006
Black 0.082
White 0.973
Phoenix
White, black, Native American 0.112
Black vs. white 0.289 0.940
Native American vs. white 0.309 0.822
Black vs. Native American 0.382 0.016
Native American 0.162
Black 0.026
White 0.955
Miami. In short, there is a signicant level of
segregation between Cubans and other His-
panic groups in Miami.
Within-Group Analysis by Race
That race is an enduring fact of life in the
United States overall is taken by scholars of
segregation as axiomatic; here, we suggest that
race is also an important factor at work below
the surface of broad categories. In the 2000 cen-
sus, 42.2 percent of Hispanics selected some
other race and 6.3 percent selected two or
more races. If we remove these two categories,
the Hispanic racial makeup equaled 92.9 per-
cent white, 3.9 percent black or African Amer-
icans, 2.2 percent American Indian and Alaska
Native, 0.7 percent Asian, and 0.2 percent Na-
tive Hawaiian and Other Pacic Islander. Our
analysis of within-Hispanic racial segregation
focused on white Hispanics, black Hispanics,
and Native American (American Indians and
Alaska Native) Hispanics, which constitute the
largest census-dened racial population groups
for Hispanics in each of the three cities. Exclud-
ing some other race alone or two or more
races in these cities, white Hispanics consti-
tute over 95 percent of the Hispanic popu-
lation, with black Hispanics being second in
Chicago (2.7 percent) and Miami (2.6 percent)
and Native American Hispanics being the sec-
ond largest group in Phoenix (3.3 percent).
We found low to very low evenness segre-
gation among all Hispanic racial groups ex-
cept in Chicago, where there is a midrange
of evenness segregation among black Hispanics
and other Hispanic groups (Table 5). Exposure
scores are inated by the large majority group
size, except in the case of whites in Chicago
(0.485) where values exceeded the U.S. Cen-
sus median isolation score between Hispanics
and non-Hispanics (0.432). In other words, in
Chicago there is a 49 percent chance of a white
Hispanic sharing a census tract with another
white Hispanic.
Racial segregation was evident in Chicago
for black Hispanics as well as in the isolation
of white Hispanics. Research has shown that
Black Hispanics are economically disadvan-
taged and more segregated from Anglos than
are White or other race Hispanics (Iceland
and Nelson 2008, 741). Furthermore, Iceland
and Nelson (2008) found that white Hispanics
are less segregated from Anglos than African
Americans, and Black Hispanics are consider-
ably less segregated from African Americans
than from Anglos (761).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

118
Volume 64, Number 1, February 2012
Within-Group Analysis by Year of
Arrival
National origin and race are not the only axes
of diversity among Hispanics. Immigration is
such an important dimension of the Hispanic
experience in the United States that year of ar-
rival (for those Hispanics who are foreign born)
can give rise to signicant within-category dif-
ferences, particularly if earlier dates of arrival
are taken as proxies for higher degrees of accul-
turation (although see Jim enez and Fitzgerald
2007; Jones 2008). Analysis by year of arrival
was conducted for all foreign-born Hispanics
who arrived prior to 1980 (hereafter 1980), be-
tween 1980 and 1990 (hereafter 1990), and be-
tween 1990 and 2000 (hereafter 2000). Fur-
ther, we examined year of arrival by region of
origin (SF3, PCT20). For foreign-born His-
panics in Chicago and Phoenix, the largest
population group came from Mexico. In Mi-
ami, foreign-born Hispanics came primarily
from the Caribbean, South America, and Cen-
tral America (including Mexico).
5
Low to very low levels of evenness segre-
gation were recorded in all cities for foreign-
born Hispanics based on year of arrival
(Table 6). Similarly, low to very low levels of
evenness segregation were recorded for Mexi-
cans in Chicago and Phoenix based on year of
arrival. In Miami very low levels of evenness
segregation were recorded for Central Ameri-
cans, South Americans, and Caribbeans based
on year of arrival. In all cases except Caribbeans
in Miami, the highest levels of Dwere recorded
between 1980 and 2000 groups. In general,
new arrivals were more segregated than those
who have been in the United States for sev-
eral decades regardless of whether the group
in question was all foreign-born Hispanics or
foreign-born Hispanics from a particular re-
gion of Latin America.
Exposure related to year of arrival in
all cities presents a more nuanced story of
within-Hispanic segregation. In Chicago and
Phoenix, interaction among foreign-born His-
panics based on year of arrival was lower than
the interaction between Hispanics and non-
Hispanics in the same cities. In Miami, in-
teraction among foreign-born Hispanic groups
based on year of arrival was only slightly bet-
ter (average xPy =0.384) than the interaction
between Hispanics and non-Hispanics (xPy =
0.29). In Phoenix and Chicago, isolation and in-
teraction indexes tend to reect the trend that
newer arrivals are more segregated than those
who have been in the United States for several
decades. Inthese cities, isolationwas highest for
the most recent arrivals (2000) and interaction
was lowest between recent arrivals (2000) and
earlier arrivals (1990 or 1980). Isolation for re-
cent arrivals (2000) was highinall categories ex-
cept one (Chicago 2000), where it still exceeded
the U.S. Census median (0.569) of isolation be-
tween non-Hispanics and Hispanics (Table 6).
But, even in Phoenix and Chicago, there is not
a direct linear trend over time; in other words,
isolation values did not decrease steadily over
time. Also, in these cities newarrivals constitute
the majority group among foreign-born His-
panics. This is reective of the United States as
a whole, where the majority foreign-born His-
panic group was the most recent group (2000 at
45 percent) and earlier arrivals decreased in size
proportionally with time (1990 at 30 percent,
and 1980 at 25 percent). Interaction was low to
very lowin Chicago among all arrivals, whereas
in Phoenix interaction was either very low or in
the midrange. Whether year of arrival was de-
ned as the larger group of foreign-born His-
panics or by smaller subunit groups dened by a
Latin American region like Mexico, in Phoenix
and Chicago very low amounts of interaction
occurred between 1980 and 1990 groups.
Like Chicago and Phoenix, Miami is re-
ective of the United States in that recent
arrivals (2000) constitute the largest portion
of foreign-born Hispanics at 36 percent.
However, Miamis second largest foreign-born
Hispanic population arrived prior to 1980 (35
percent). This is due to Caribbeans (primarily
Cubans) arriving prior to 1980, who constitute
the majority of Caribbean foreign-born His-
panics at 44 percent (1990 at 25 percent, 2000
at 31 percent). Exposure results in Miami show
that although relatively low interaction exists
between all foreign-born Hispanics by year
of arrival (including the various subgroups by
region), the degree to which each arrival group
(and subgroup) is isolated varies greatly. For all
foreign-born Hispanics in Miami only the 1990
group experienced a low degree of isolation
(0.304). In contrast, a foreign-born Hispanic
whose arrival was in the 1980 or 2000 group
had a 40 percent likelihood of sharing a tract
with his or her arrival group. For Caribbeans in
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential Segregation
119
Table 6 Index scores based on year of arrival
H D xPx xPy H D xPx xPy
Chicago Chicago
1980, 1990, 2000
a
0.079 Mexico 1980, 1990,
2000
a
0.081
1980 vs. 2000 0.308 0.402 Mexico 1980 vs. 2000 0.312 0.417
1980 vs. 1990 0.243 0.253 Mexico 1980 vs. 1990 0.243 0.255
1990 vs. 2000 0.204 0.452 Mexico 1990 vs. 2000 0.207 0.467
1980 0.345 Mexico 1980 0.328
1990 0.295 Mexico 1990 0.296
2000 0.521 Mexico 2000 0.539
Phoenix Phoenix
1980, 1990, 2000
a
0.093 Mexico 1980, 1990,
2000
a
0.090
1980 vs. 2000 0.372 0.490 Mexico 1980 vs. 2000 0.365 0.511
1980 vs. 1990 0.276 0.254 Mexico 1980 vs. 1990 0.276 0.251
1990 vs. 2000 0.248 0.551 Mexico 1990 vs. 2000 0.248 0.562
1980 0.256 Mexico 1980 0.238
1990 0.290 Mexico 1990 0.290
2000 0.641 Mexico 2000 0.650
Miami Miami
1980, 1990, 2000
a, d
0.047 Caribbean 1980, 1990,
2000
b
0.054
1980 vs. 2000 0.236 0.334 Caribbean 2000 vs.
1980
0.231 0.396
1990 vs. 1980 0.207 0.333 Caribbean 1990 vs.
1980
0.240 0.409
1990 vs. 2000 0.144 0.362 Caribbean 1990 vs.
2000
0.240 0.321
1980 0.391 Caribbean 1980 0.494
1990 0.304 Caribbean 1990 0.271
2000 0.389 Caribbean 2000 0.347
Central America
1980, 1990, 2000
c, e
0.078 South America 1980,
1990, 2000
a
0.053
Central America
2000 vs. 1990
0.239 0.437 South America 1990
vs. 2000
0.228 0.484
Central America
1980 vs. 1990
0.304 0.449 South America 1980
vs. 2000
0.257 0.470
Central America
1980 vs. 2000
0.356 0.346 South America 1980
vs. 1990
0.191 0.266
Central America
1980
0.205 South America 1980 0.264
Central America
1990
0.508 South America 1990 0.292
Central America
2000
0.447 South America 2000 0.552
a
2000 is the largest group.
b
1980 is the largest group.
c
1990 is the largest group.
d
1980 is the second largest group.
e
2000 is the second largest group.
the 1980 group and Central Americans in the
1990 group, the likelihood of sharing the same
tract with their arrival group was 50 percent.
South Americans in the 2000 group recorded
the highest degree of isolation (0.552) for any
Hispanic foreign-born group based on year of
arrival.
Foreign-born Hispanics had high levels of
exposure segregation. In Chicago and Phoenix,
interaction levels based on year of arrival were
lower than the interaction between Hispanics
and non-Hispanics in the same city. In Mi-
ami, year of arrival interaction scores (average
xPy = 0.384) were only slightly better than
the interaction between Hispanics and non-
Hispanics (xPy = 0.29). The highest isolation
scores were recorded for the most recent ar-
rivals (2000) and the lowest interaction levels
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

120
Volume 64, Number 1, February 2012
Table 7 Index scores based on Hispanic household income
H D xPx xPy
Chicago
Low, low middle, upper middle, high 0.203
Low vs. low middle 0.280 0.636
Low vs. upper middle 0.393 0.633
High vs. low 0.512 0.396
High vs. low middle 0.420 0.623
High vs. upper middle 0.331 0.735
Low middle vs. upper middle 0.245 0.507
Low 0.215
Low middle 0.387
Upper middle 0.492
High 0.180
Miami
Low, low middle, upper middle, high 0.159
Low vs. low middle 0.219 0.584
Low vs. upper middle 0.377 0.508
High vs. low 0.557 0.446
High vs. low middle 0.480 0.596
High vs. upper middle 0.333 0.700
Low middle vs. upper middle 0.245 0.457
Low 0.285
Low middle 0.382
Upper middle 0.407
High 0.199
Phoenix
Low, low middle, upper middle, high 0.207
Low vs. low middle 0.227 0.642
Low vs. upper middle 0.373 0.546
High vs. low 0.547 0.472
High vs. low middle 0.475 0.666
High vs. upper middle 0.370 0.761
Upper middle vs. low middle 0.261 0.468
Low 0.244
Low middle 0.447
Upper middle 0.428
High 0.154
were between recent arrivals (2000) and earlier
arrivals (1990 or 1980). There was no linear
temporal trend in exposure scores, however:
They do not decrease sequentially over time.
Furthermore, year of arrival groups by Latin
American regions had higher levels of isolation
than all foreign-born Hispanic year of arrival
groups. Regional analysis of Hispanic arrivals
in Miami shows that rates of exposure are tied
to the relative group size under analysis rather
than some linear temporal trend.
Within-Group Analysis by Income
Income has emerged as a vital statistic of schol-
arly analysis of diversity, assimilation, spatial
stratication and social integration, with some
contending that class inequalities rooted in in-
come disparity within groups are more im-
portant than between-group differences rooted
in racism (see De Oliver and Dawson-Mu noz
1996; Clark and Blue, 2004). For our within-
group analysis by income, we rst calculated
the Hispanic median household income for
each city (Chicago, $31,307; Miami, $24,790;
Phoenix, $24,061) and created a standard-
ized classication for income groups: low (be-
low $15,000), low middle ($15,000$39,999),
upper middle ($40,000$99,999), and high
($100,000+).
Evenness analysis of Hispanic household in-
come data shows that in all cities the highest de-
gree of segregation is between the high-income
group and the low- or low middle-income
groups (Table 7). In Miami and Phoenix, D in-
dex scores for high-income versus low-income
groups were greater than Hispanic versus non-
Hispanic D scores. Further, in all three cities
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential Segregation
121
high-income versus low-income segregation
exceeded the national median of D scores
(0.509) for Hispanics versus non-Hispanics.
Exposure analysis of Hispanic income data
shows very low to midrange levels of isola-
tion. In Phoenix and Chicago, interaction falls
in the midrange except for low interaction be-
tween upper middle and lower middle groups in
Phoenix and high versus lowgroups in Chicago
(Table 7). In all cities high-income and up-
per middle-income groups have a high degree
of interaction. The lowest interaction index
scores in all cities are between high- versus low-
income followed by low middle- versus upper
middle-income groups. This is where the in-
ternal Tortilla-Mercedes Divide is most pro-
nounced, between those Hispanics with higher
incomes and those with lower incomes.
Conclusion
In summary, the highest levels of intra-
Hispanic segregation were recorded by income
groups: High- versus low-income groups ex-
perienced the most marked degree of segrega-
tion among Hispanics. Although the Tortilla-
Mercedes Divide is present within Hispanics,
the second highest level of interaction in all
three cities is between high-income and low
middle-income groups. This might be a sign
of gentrication or clustering of these groups
within these cities (especially in Chicago).
There were signicant levels of exposure seg-
regation by year of arrival in all three cities.
Racial segregationbetweenblack Hispanics and
white Hispanics in Chicago was also evident,
as well as a signicant level of segregation be-
tween Cubans and other Hispanic national ori-
gin groups in Miami.
Perhaps the most striking nding across the
three study cities was that within-Hispanic
segregation by income is just as prominent
as segregation between Hispanics and non-
Hispanics, especially when comparing the
highest and lowest income groups. If our nd-
ing were true for the general U.S. urban His-
panic population, this would prompt a dramatic
rethinking by scholars and policymakers alike
on what factors are most inuential for segre-
gation patterns in U.S. cities and which dimen-
sions of disadvantage should be prioritized to
ameliorate segregation. So, for instance, poli-
cymakers might do better to focus on providing
enhanced job and educational opportunities to
urban Hispanics in lower income categories,
rather than prioritizing structural reforms in-
tended to redress racially based injustices in
the housing market (see also Clark and Blue
2004). The fact that immigrant status and year
of arrival and national origin are also important
factors in intra-Hispanic segregation patterns
points to the more general notion that under-
standings of segregation based solely on race
are not adequate to conceptualize how segre-
gation works in U.S. cities today, particularly
those cities that serve as gateways for Hispanic
immigrants.
An important question arising fromthis anal-
ysis concerns what exactly is meant by the term
diversity. Although our analysis is insufcient to
address sweeping questions regarding the im-
pact of diversity on democratic society, it does
reveal diversity itself to be far more complex
than typically conceptualized. Theories of so-
cial interaction and social solidarity, such as
the contact, conict, and constrict approaches
to social capital formation and social solidar-
ity discussed earlier, view diversity as existing
across groups but fail to conduct diversity-
focused analysis within groups. Thus, we can
conclude that speculations about whether di-
versity is productive or hampers the democratic
process are insufciently scaled with respect to
diversitys full range of lived experience.
Clearly, our analysis shows that the Di-
vide exists not just between Hispanics and
non-Hispanics but also among Hispanics as a
group. Thus, Allens (2002, 708) optimistic sug-
gestion that closer personal contact between
Mexicans and whites may diminish the Di-
vide may be too broad-brush a prescription.
To treat Hispanics, or any other ethno-racial
group, for that matter, as occupying a ho-
mogenous socio-spatial position elides the var-
ious ways in which different social and cultural
groups interactor notbetween, but partic-
ularly within, categories. For segregation is not
only a remarkably durable feature of urban life
inthe UnitedStates it is alsomore nuancedthan
previous conceptualizations and analyses have
led us to believe. Rather than getting beyond
race, we might well be confronting a future
wherein race is only one thread in the com-
plex and ever-changing tapestry of socio-spatial
inequity.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

122
Volume 64, Number 1, February 2012
Notes
1
The authors are acutely aware of the political and
regional distinctions between the terms Hispanic
and Latino/a. We use Hispanic in this article to
avoid confusion, as it is the term utilized by our
data source, the U.S. Census Bureau.
2
Hispanos trace their lineage to sixteenth-century
Spanish conquerors; thus their presence in what is
today U.S. territory infact predates the nationitself.
3
The term Anglo is colloquially used to distinguish
non-Hispanic whites (Anglos) from Hispanics,
many of whom also identify as racially white.
4
Although the ethnic enclave thesis, based on the
economic success of Miamis concentrated Cuban
population, questions this claim (K. Wilson and
Portes 1980; but see also Portes and Schaefer
2006).
5
It should be noted that Ellis and Wright (1998) have
shown that arrival might have occurred earlier than
that recorded by the census. Therefore, analysis and
results of this variable should be cautious of absolute
temporal claims.
Literature Cited
Allen, J. P. 2002. The Tortilla-Mercedes Divide in
Los Angeles. Political Geography 21:70109.
Allport, G. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barnes, T. 2009. Not only . . . but also: Quantitative
and critical geography. The Professional Geographer
61:292300.
Benton-Short, L., and M. Price. 2008. Migrants to
the metropolis: The rise of immigrant gateway
cities, an introduction. In Migrants to the metropo-
lis: The rise of immigrant gateway cities, ed. M. Price
and L. Benton-Short, 122. Syracuse, NY: Syra-
cuse University Press.
Blalock, H. M., Jr. 1967. Toward a theory of minority-
group relations. New York: Wiley.
Blumer, H. 1958. Race prejudice as a sense of group
position. Pacic Sociological Review 1:37.
Bobo, L. D., and M. Tuan. 2006. Prejudice in politics:
Group position, public opinion and the Wisconsin treaty
rights dispute. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Brewer, M. B., and R. J. Brown. 1998. Intergroup
relations. In Handbook of social psychology. 4th ed.,
ed. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey,
55494. New York: Oxford University Press.
Camarillo, A. 1984. Blacks and Hispanics in urban
America: Some comparative historical perspec-
tives. Working Paper Series number 3. Stanford
Center for Chicano Research, Stanford, CA.
Carter, P. 2009. Geography, race, and quantication.
The Professional Geographer 61:46580.
Clark, W. A. V., and S. Blue. 2004. Race, class,
and segregation patterns in U.S. immigrant gate-
way cities. Urban Affairs Review 39 (6): 667
88.
Conroy, S., and D. Heer. 2003. Hidden Hispanic
homelessness in Los Angeles: The Latino para-
dox revisited. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
25 (4): 53038.
Cortese, C., R. Falk, and J. Cohen. 1976. Further
considerations on the methodological analysis of
segregation indexes. American Sociological Review14
(4): 63037.
De Oliver, M., and T. Dawson-Mu noz. 1996. Place-
not-race? The inadequacy of geography to address
racial disparities. The Review of Black Political Econ-
omy 25 (2): 3758.
Ellis, M. 2001. What future for whites? Popula-
tion projections and racialised imaginaries in the
U.S. International Journal of Population Geography
7:21329.
. 2009. Vital statistics. The Professional Geogra-
pher 61:30109.
Ellis, M., and R. Wright. 1998. When immigrants
are not migrants: Counting arrivals of the foreign
born using the U.S. Census. International Migration
Review 32 (1): 12744.
Ellis, M., R. Wright, and V. Parks. 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):
62037.
Falk, W., L. Hunt, and M. Hunt. 2004. Return mi-
grations of African-Americans to the South: Re-
claiming a land of promise, going home, or both?
Rural Sociology 69 (4): 490509.
Garca, M. 2007. Refugees or economic immigrants?
Immigration from Latin America and the politics
of US refugee policy. In A companion to Latina/o
studies, ed. J. Flores and R. Rosaldo, 48091.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Giles, M., and A. Evans. 1986. The power approach
to intergroup hostility. Journal of Conict Resolution
30:46985.
Grieco, E., and R. Cassidy. 2001. Overview of
race and Hispanic origin: Census 2000 brief.
U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov
/prod/2001pubs/cenbr011.pdf (last accessed 26
May 2010).
Haney-L opez, I. 2006. Colorblind to the reality of
race in America. The Chronicle of Higher Education
3 November:B6B9.
Hardwick, S. 2008. Toward a suburban immigrant
nation. In Twenty-rst century gateways: Immigrant
incorporation in suburban America, ed. A. Singer, S.
Hardwick, and C. Brettell, 3150. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
Hise, G. 2004. Border city: Race and social distance
in Los Angeles. American Quarterly 56 (3): 54558.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Rethinking Diversity Through Analyzing Residential Segregation
123
Hollinger, D. 1995. Postethnic America: Beyond multi-
culturalism. New York: Basic Books.
Huntington, S. 2004a. The Hispanic challenge. For-
eign Policy 141:3045.
. 2004b. Who are we? The challenges to Amer-
icas national identity. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Iceland, J., and K. Nelson. 2008. Hispanic segrega-
tion in metropolitan America: Exploring the mul-
tiple forms of spatial assimilation. American Socio-
logical Review 73 (5): 74165.
Iceland, J., D. Weinberg, and E. Steinmetz. 2002.
Racial and ethnic residential segregation in the
United States: 19802000. U.S. Census Bureau, Se-
ries CENSR-3. U.S. Government Printing Of-
ce, Census Bureau Housing Patterns, Wash-
ington, DC. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/
housing/housing patterns/pdf/paa paper.pdf (last
accessed 26 May 2010).
Jim enez, T. A., and D. Fitzgerald. 2007. Mexican
assimilation: A temporal and spatial reorientation.
Du Bois Review 4 (2): 33754.
Jones, R. C. 2008. Cultural retrenchment and eco-
nomic marginality: Mexican immigrants in San
Antonio. In Immigrants outside megalopolis: Ethnic
transformation in the heartland, ed. R. C. Jones,
13560. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Kwan, M., and T. Schwanen. 2009. Quantitative rev-
olution 2: The critical (re)turn. The Professional Ge-
ographer 61:28391.
Lukinbeal, C., D. D. Arreola, and D. D. Lucio. 2010.
Mexican urban Colonias in the Salt River Valley.
Geographical Review 100 (1): 1234.
Massey, D., and N. Denton. 1988. The dimensions
of racial segregation. Social Forces 67:281315.
. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and the
making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Mohan, G., and J. Mohan. 2002. Placing social
capital. Progress in Human Geography 26:191
210.
Nagel, C. 2009. Rethinking geographies of assimila-
tion. The Professional Geographer 61:40007.
Oberle, A., and D. Arreola. 2008. Resurgent Mexican
Phoenix. Geographical Review 98:17196.
Odem, M. 2008. Unsettled in the suburbs: Latino
immigration and ethnic diversity in metro Atlanta.
In Twenty-rst century gateways: Immigrant incorpo-
ration in suburban America, ed. A. Singer, S. Hard-
wick, and C. Brettell, 10536. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Park, R., E. Burgess, and R. McKenzie. 1925. The
city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Passel, J., and D. Cohn. 2008. Immigration to play a
lead role in future U.S. growth. Washington, DC:
Pew Research Center. http://pewresearch.org/
pubs / 729/ united- states - population- projections
(last accessed 26 May 2010).
Pettigrew, T. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. An-
nual Review of Psychology 49:6885.
Pettigrew, T., and L. Tropp. 2000. Does intergroup
contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic
ndings. In Reducing prejudice and discrimination,
ed. S. Oskamp, 93114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
. 2006. Ameta-analytic test of intergroup con-
tact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 90:75183.
Portes, A. 2007a. The Latin nation: Immigration
and the Hispanic population of the United States.
Du Bois Review: Social Science and Research on Race
4:271301.
. 2007b. The new Latin nation: Immigration
and the Hispanic population of the United States.
In A companion to Latina/o studies, ed. J. Flores and
R. Rosaldo, 1524. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Portes, A., and S. Schaefer. 2006. Revisiting the
ethnic hypothesis: Miami twenty-ve years later.
CMD Working Paper #0610. Princeton Uni-
versity, Princeton, NJ. http://cmd.princeton.edu/
papers/wp0610.pdf (last accessed 26 May 2010).
Price, P. 2010. At the crossroads: Critical race theory
and critical geographies of race. Progress in Human
Geography 34 (2): 14774.
Putnam, R. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and
community in the twenty-rst century. The 2006
Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political
Studies 30:13774.
Quillian, L. 1995. Prejudice as a response to per-
ceived group threat: Population composition and
anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe.
American Sociological Review 60:586611.
. 1996. Group threat and regional change
in attitudes towards African Americans. American
Journal of Sociology 102:81660.
Ramrez, R., and G. de la Cruz. 2003. The Hispanic
population in the United States: March 2002. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Shoer Roth, D. 2008. Cubans share of MiamiDade
County population up again. The Miami Herald 23
September:A1.
Sigelman, L., and S. Welch. 1993. The con-
tact yypothesis revisited: Blackwhite interaction
and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces 71:781
95.
Singer, A. 2008. Twenty-rst-century gateways: An
introduction. In Twenty-rst-century gateways: Im-
migrant incorporation in suburban America, ed. A.
Singer, S. W. Hardwick, and C. B. Brettell, 330.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Skop, E. 2006. Mapping race and ethnicity: The in-
uence of James Allen. Yearbook of the Association of
Pacic Coast Geographers 68:94104.
Skop, E., and W. Li. 2005. Asians in Americas sub-
urbs: Pattern and consequences of settlement. Ge-
ographical Review 95:16788.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

124
Volume 64, Number 1, February 2012
Stein, R., S. Post, and A. Rinden. 2000. Reconcil-
ing context and contact effects on racial attitudes.
Political Research Quarterly 53:285303.
Tropp, L., and T. Pettigrew. 2005a. Differential rela-
tionships between intergroup contact and affective
and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 31:114558.
. 2005b. Relationships between intergroup
contact and prejudice among minority and ma-
jority status groups. Psychological Science 16:951
57.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Facts for features: His-
panic Heritage Month 2005: September 15October
15, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/
cb05-ff143.pdf (last accessed 19 May 2010).
White, M. 1986. Segregation and diversity: Mea-
sures in population distribution. Population Index
52:198221.
Wilson, D., D. Beck, and A. Bailey. 2009.
Neoliberal-parasitic economies and space-
building: Chicagos Southwest side. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 99 (3): 604
26.
Wilson, K., and A. Portes. 1980. Immigrant en-
claves: An analysis of the labor market experience
of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology
86:295319.
Wright, R., M. Ellis, and V. Parks. 2005. Re-placing
whiteness in spatial assimilation research. City &
Community 4:11135.
Wyly, E. 2009. Strategic positivism. The Professional
Geographer 61:31022.
Zentella, A. C. 2002. Latin@languages and identities.
In Latinos: Remaking America, ed. M. M. Su arez-
Orozco and M. M. P aez, 32138. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
CHRISTOPHERLUKINBEALis an Assistant Pro-
fessor in the School of Geography and Development
at The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.
E-mail: chris.lukinbeal@arizona.edu. His research
interests include media geography, cultural and ur-
ban geography, and critical geographic information
systems.
PATRICIA L. PRICE is an Associate Professor in
the Department of Global and Sociocultural Stud-
ies at Florida International University, Miami, FL
33199. E-mail: pricep@u.edu. Her research inter-
ests include cultural and urban geography. She is cur-
rently researching the critical geographies of race and
ethnicity in the United States from Latino/a studies-
informed perspective.
CAYLABUELLis anindependent scholar whograd-
uated from Arizona State University with a masters
in geography. E-mail: cayla.samms@gmail.com. Her
research has focused on segregation indexes and GI-
Science and she works as a geographic information
systems analyst.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
.
5
5
.
7
4
.
2
4
4
]

a
t

0
1
:
5
9

2
6

M
a
y

2
0
1
4