Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America, : Resurgent Ethnicity in the Ethnoburbs?

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America, 1990 2000: Resurgent Ethnicity in the Ethnoburbs? Ming Wen Diane S. Lauderdale Namratha R. Kandula Social Forces, Volume 88, Number 1, September 2009, pp. 425-460 (Article) Published by The University of North Carolina Press DOI: 10.1353/sof.0.0244 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sof/summary/v088/88.1.wen.html Access Provided by University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign at 11/19/10 2:29PM GMT

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America, 1990-2000: Resurgent Ethnicity in the Ethnoburbs? Ming Wen, University of Utah Diane S. Lauderdale, University of Chicago Namratha R. Kandula, Northwestern University Using tract-level data from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, this study addresses four questions: (1. Has the proportion of neighborhoods with high ethnic concentration changed in from 1990 to 2000? (2. What are the socio-demographic profiles of ethnic neighborhoods? (3. Are new ethnic neighborhoods forming in America s suburbs? (4. How common are ethnoburbs that is, affluent, suburban, ethnic neighborhoods? For most racial/ethnic groups, the number and share of ethnic neighborhoods grew from 1990 to 2000 and the suburbanization trend was remarkable. Asian neighborhoods as a whole experienced the fastest growth. Ethnoburbs have formed across the country. Although ethnoburbs are more an Asian phenomenon, Hispanic and black ethnoburbs have also developed. These patterns support the segmented assimilation model and the resurgence of ethnicity perspectives. Recent decades have witnessed a rapid increase in America s racial/ethnic diversity (Iceland 2004). Due to the current U.S. fertility and immigration patterns, the relative proportion of ethnic minorities in the United States has been rapidly growing such that it is projected that by 2060 the number of ethnic minorities will surpass that of non-hispanic whites (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Consequently, many neighborhoods are experiencing radical compositional transformations brought about by the shifting racial/ethnic distribution in urban and suburban areas (Alba et al. 1995; Denton and Massey 1991; Ellen 2000; Fasenfest et al. 2004). As an important dimension of our immediate social environment, the neighborhood has been considered a key facet of American life (Kearns and Parkinson 2001; Sampson et al. 2002) and traditionally emphasized in studies of minorities and immigrants (Logan et al. 2002). Indeed, ethnic settlement patterns and their relationships with ethnic identity, acculturation and the social and structural integration of minorities and immigrants have long been important issues for ethnic studies in the United States (Li 1998; Zhou 1997). Most scholars of residential settlement by race/ethnicity focus on mapping the status and changes of spatial distribution of ethnic minorities within large metropolitan areas, exploring the underlying processes and consequences of these spatial This research was supported by a Research Scholars Grant CPHPS 107922 from the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. An earlier version of this article was presented at the ASA Annual Conference in Montreal, Canada in 2006. We thank Lawrence A. Brown for his helpful comments. Direct correspondence to Ming Wen, Department of Sociology, University of Utah, 380 S 1530 E RM 301, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. Phone: 801-581-8041 Fax: 801-585-3784. E-mail: ming.wen@soc.utah.edu. The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces 88(1):425 460, September 2009

426 Social Forces 88(1) patterns, primarily drawing on the vast literature regarding urban racial/ethnic segregation and neighborhood transition (Alba et al. 1995; Brown and Chung 2006; Charles 2003; Denton and Massey 1991; Lee and Wood 1991; Logan et al. 2002; Massey 1985; Massey and Denton 1993; Skop and Li 2005; Wood and Lee 1991; Wright et al. 2005). Often implicated in inter-group relations and processes of social mobility, residential segregation by race/ethnicity is considered important in that it is viewed by many writers as the principal structural feature of American society responsible for the persisting urban poverty and racial inequality in the United States (Denton 1996; Du Bois 1990[1903); Massey and Denton 1993; Myrdal 1972[1944]); Taeuber and Taeuber 1965). In recent years, a small but increasing literature has started addressing the trend in racial/ethnic residential integration and documented that at least in large metropolitan areas in the United States spatial racial/ethnic intermixing has become increasingly visible and remained stable over time (Ellen 2000; Fasenfest et al. 2004; Maly 2000). Studying the patterns, trends and processes of spatial distribution of ethnic minorities is important to advance our overall understanding of race relations, life chances of minorities and social inequalities by race/ethnicity in America. Nonetheless, while the extent of racial/ethnic separation or mixing is an important feature of ethnic residential settlement, it should be kept in mind that racial or ethnic composition is but one aspect of neighborhood contexts that matter for community and human development. Other socio-demographic characteristics of ethnic neighborhoods deserve more scholarly attention because they directly signal residents access to desirable resources, such as quality of public school and neighborhood amenities, and exposure to deleterious hazards, such as crime and discrimination. These environmental forces potentially exert far-reaching influence on residents life chances and trajectories. With few exceptions (Alba et al. 1995; Brown and Chung 2006; Clark and Blue 2004; Logan et al. 2002), most studies in ethnic spatial settlement have overlooked group-specific neighborhood changes at the local level, and little work to date has examined additional sociodemographic features, such as socioeconomic status, ethnic heterogeneity and immigrant concentration of ethnic neighborhoods over time. Therefore, using neighborhood as the unit of the analysis, this study addresses four questions: (1. What is the temporal trend in the number and share of ethnic neighborhoods from 1990 to 2000? (2. What are socio-demographic profiles of ethnic neighborhoods in America? (3. Are new ethnic neighborhoods forming in America s suburbs? (4. How common are ethnoburbs that is, affluent, suburban, ethnic neighborhoods? In addition, we provide a correlation matrix of key neighborhood variables among ethnic neighborhoods in 1990 and 2000 as an indirect, ecological test of the traditional spatial assimilation model for spatial patterning and locational attainment of minorities (Alba et al. 2000; Logan et al. 1996). We define neighborhoods using U.S. Census tracts. A typical U.S. Census tract comprises approximately 4,000 to 8,000 residents living in a contiguous area. The

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 427 census tract is generally considered a reasonable administrative approximation of the neighborhood (Ross and Mirowsky 2001; South and Crowder 1997; Tienda 1991). Background The predominantly post-1965 wave of accelerating immigration to the United States, unprecedented in its range of social and cultural origins (Skop and Li 2005), has led to distinctive settlement areas in American urban space. Metropolitan residential segregation is a persistent feature of the urban mosaic of multi-ethnic America. Blacks are the most segregated group, followed by Hispanics, with Asians the least segregated from whites; meanwhile, both black and white segregation has been declining whereas Asian and Hispanic segregation has been increasing partly due to the recent rapid increase in these populations (Charles 2003). With Asian and Hispanic populations becoming more geographically concentrated, more Asian and Hispanic enclaves 1 are likely emerging (Logan 2004a). A large body of research attempts to illuminate the mechanism of persistent racial/ethnic segregation in the United States, with heated debate revolving around the relative importance of class/ constraint, preference/choice and racism/discrimination (Clark 2007; Denton 1996; Logan et al. 2002; Massey and Denton 1993). 2 Spatial Assimilation and Immigrant Enclaves Emphasizing group differences in social class status and varying housing costs across neighborhoods, the classical spatial assimilation model asserts that individuals convert socioeconomic gains into locational attainment by leaving ethnic neighborhoods for whiter, higher-quality, often suburban neighborhoods; and for immigrants, this process often involves acculturation (Logan et al. 2002; Massey 1985). For immigrants, the story goes something like this. In the beginning, constrained by labor market, housing, language and other cultural barriers, new arrivals tend to cluster in established old urban co-ethnic or mixed immigrant enclaves seeking affordable housing, social networks, helpful information on labor market or financial capital, and a familiar culture. As immigrants establish inter-ethnic friendships and gain better access to the non-ethnic labor market and different housing, they tend to move away from the ethnic neighborhood toward home ownership in neighborhoods that are whiter and offer better amenities; this upward residential mobility, or locational achievement, is considered a milestone of successful spatial assimilation and an important marker of structural assimilation into American mainstream society. The residential assimilation, in turn, facilitates cultural assimilation because of the greater opportunities of interacting with the majority residents that whiter neighborhoods naturally provide. According to this framework, ethnic enclaves in inner cities are inevitably unstable and deprived because they are concentrated with recent immigrants who do not speak English well, are unfamiliar with the American culture and society systems, and have

428 Social Forces 88(1) meager socioeconomic resources. For non-immigrant minorities, the key premise of this theory is that locational inequalities by race are primarily because of the group differences in class and status in that once minorities acquire human and financial capital they will leave minority ghettos in search of areas with desirable amenities, often whiter and more affluent areas in suburbia (Charles 2003). In the past two decades, numerous studies have tested these ideas, and findings generally show that the model works reasonably well for Asians and Hispanics for whom SES and markers of acculturation (e.g., language skills, length of stay in the United States and immigrant generational status) co-occur with residential integration with whites, whereas the power of socioeconomic resources in residential attainment for blacks is relatively weaker (Alba and Logan 1993; Logan et al. 1996; Massey and Denton 1999). In this model, a particularly significant stage of spatial assimilation is the departure from central cities and entry into suburbs because of the greater racial integration with whites and better amenities often found in suburbia (Massey and Denton 1988). However, recent trend in the wide-spread suburbanization of ethnic minorities, the emergence of suburban ethnic concentrations, and greater within-neighborhood diversity for some ethnic neighborhoods (Alba et al. 1995; Iceland 2004; Li 2006a; Logan 2004b) suggest that the relevance of the classical spatial assimilation model needs to be reevaluated under current immigration forces and other social realities. Empirical results are mixed regarding the applicability of the spatial assimilation model in the contemporary context of mass immigration. For example, based on the locational attainment model, using multilevel data, Alba and colleagues (2000) found cross-sectional support for the spatial assimilation model, in that individual SES, acculturation and suburban residence were all strongly associated with residence in more affluent neighborhoods with more non-hispanic whites the two key indicators of spatial assimilation for immigrants. Nevertheless, they also reported that, viewing the matter longitudinally, it seemed that the racial/ ethnic diversity within affluent neighborhoods, especially in suburbs, had been increasing; and the pattern was particularly true for both Asians and Hispanics. In other words, while some minorities are indeed settled in affluent and suburban neighborhoods, they are not necessarily more proximate to whites. Meanwhile, these data also showed the establishment and expansion of poor immigrant areas, particularly for poor and recently arrived Hispanics. These different patterns of ethnic settlements by race generally support the segmented assimilation concept which posits divergent destinies of different immigrant segments in terms of socioeconomic achievement and locational attainment (Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1997). Brown and Chung also revisited the issues of ethnic settlement in Columbus, Ohio, a middle-sized metropolitan area, and found weak support for the spatial assimilation model (Brown and Chung 2006; Chung and Brown 2007). On the other hand, although multi-ethnicity currently characterizes the majority of large urban areas in the United States, and the new ethnic settlement

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 429 patterns have thus become complex and heterogeneous (Iceland 2004), class seems to remain a key predictor of residential segregation. For example, analyzing the 2000 U.S. Census data for metropolitan areas with large numbers of immigrants, Clark and Blue (2004) found that spatial separation did decline with increases in education and income, and suburbs were still more integrated with whites than inner cities. Fisher (2003) also found that 25 percent of separation was related to income in the Midwest and 39 percent in the West. These empirical findings indicate that although some part of the spatial assimilation model needs to be modified, some central features of this model remain relevant in the contemporary ethnic spatial distribution of the United States. Resurgent Ethnicity, Ethnic Community and Ethnoburb In fact, a growing body of literature has been devoted to describing the changes in the spatial patterns of ethnic minorities, documenting the emergence and establishment of affluent ethnic neighborhoods in suburbia, and emphasizing the role of intra-group attraction and preferences in contributing to residential segregation and ethnic concentration (Alba et al. 1999; Frey 2001; Horton 1995; Li 1999; Logan 2004b). The emergence of the new ethnic neighborhoods in America s suburbia has drawn remarkable attention from scholars and the media (Alba et al. 1999; Charles 2003; Frey 2001; Logan 2004b; Logan et al. 1996; Logan et al. 2002; Wright et al. 2005). It has been noted that some middle-class immigrants bypass traditional inner-city enclaves and instead settle directly into affluent suburbs with strip malls of ethnic businesses and schools filled with children from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds (Li 1998; Wright et al. 2005). The rise of suburban ethnic neighborhoods has been largely attributed to a different social process that primarily involves in-group attraction and purposive efforts in sustaining ethnic identity and is not a result of ethnic behavior stemming from structural and cultural constraint (Logan et al. 2002). The in-group hypothesis, also labeled as resurgent ethnicity, 3 argues that all groups have a natural tendency to live close to co-ethnics and spatial behavior of ethnic minorities to cluster is not necessarily an outcome of constraint but reflecting a simple, natural ethnocentrism rather than out-group hostility or an effort to preserve relative status advantages. (Charles 2003:182) It thus follows that the recent ethnic neighborhoods formed in American suburbia reflect both the natural ethnocentrism and the fact that a large number of more recent immigrants, especially those from Asia, are equipped with socioeconomic resources that allow them to choose where to live. Corresponding to this new development, Logan, Alba and Zhang (2002) put forward a term ethnic community to describe ethnic areas that are in desirable locations, often in affluent suburbia, and selected by those who are equipped with human and financial capital and could afford living in white neighborhoods, but still choose to live in these ethnic communities out of motives associated with taste and preference. The significance of this phenomenon is that acculturation,

430 Social Forces 88(1) market position and spatial assimilation are not necessarily bundled together and some well-heeled immigrants who are fluent in English and hold professional jobs purposively maintain many ethnic cultural traits and choose to live in high-status areas with a strong presence of their co-ethnics (Logan et al. 2002). Evidence from Logan et al. s work showed that at least in some areas of New York and Los Angeles living in ethnic neighborhoods was unrelated to economic constraints, a violation of a key premise of the spatial assimilation model. Brown and Chung s work also provided evidence pointing to the establishment of ethnic communities or the resurgent ethnicity phenomena (Brown and Chung 2006; Chung 2005; Chung and Brown 2007). Similarly, the catchy term ethnoburb has been proposed to refer to ethnic suburb as a hybrid of a traditional ethnic enclave and a typical suburb (Li 1998, 1999, 2006b; Li and Park 2006). One good example of this spatial shift is Los Angeles Chinese population. Historically the Chinese population was centered in downtown Chinatown; however in the 1960s the Chinese population began to suburbanize. While downtown Chinatown remained, suburban areas in San Gabriel Valley emerged with high concentrations of Chinese. Unlike the traditional concept of the inner city ethnic enclave, typically perceived as socioeconomically deprived urban neighborhoods concentrated with immigrants with little advanced skills and poor English proficiency, these ethnoburbs are characterized by high levels of education and affluence, a strong presence of residents with professional or managerial jobs, Chinese-owned business districts, high levels of Chinese participation in local politics, and a clear within-community social stratification. By extension, ethnoburbia can be conceptualized as suburban areas that are both insular and affluent, with a high concentration of ethnic residents as well as ethnic business districts and networks. Although they are multiethnic communities, there is typically a significant concentration of one ethnic group, which may not comprise a majority. One additional feature that is particularly distinctive in Chinese ethnoburbs in Los Angeles is their internally stratified socioeconomic structure. According to Li (1998), ethnoburban workers are concentrating on both the high and the low ends of the skill and wage distributions with strong presence of both well-educated residents working as professionals in the mainstream economy and low-skilled, unassimilated immigrant workers supported by local ethnic businesses often involved in the global economy. The ethnoburb notion echoes the kernels of the resurgent ethnicity or ethnic community concepts but provides richer accounts of detailed ground-level realities and processes of community transformations under the influence of dynamic multi-level and multi-scale socioeconomic and political contexts in recent decades. It represents a new form of ethnic spatial settlement and suggests the needs to modify the concept of assimilation traditionally defined as a one-directional separationintegration dichotomy (Li 2006a). As Li (2006a:78) argued, while assimilation and ethnic solidarity coexist as complementary processes, the rise of an ethnoburb may ultimately fundamentally challenge the conventional assimilation theory.

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 431 But, is Li s case study of Chinese ethnoburbs in Los Angeles just a unique, unreplicated occurrence? Or, is it representative of a more widespread phenomenon across space and ethnicities in the United States? Li (1998) suggested that the situation may vary by ethnic group, depending on population size, economic capacity, local response/resistance from the majority, and promotion or restriction by government policies. While the ethnoburb model is primarily based on the study of the Chinese community in Los Angeles, it has also been confirmed elsewhere, specifically among the Chinese in the San Francisco Bay Area, Silicon Valley, Houston, Toronto and Vancouver; the Koreans in suburban New York; and the Vietnamese in Northern Virginia (see discussions in Li 2006a). However, the ethnoburb phenomena have not been evaluated in other areas or in non-asian groups. Place Stratification The place stratification model is another well-attended theory explaining residential segregation particularly for phenotypical blacks including African Americans and black Hispanics (e.g., Puerto Ricans). The argument in essence is that race is a central factor in the separation of blacks and whites. According to this theory, the key reason for blacks persistent segregation is that racial prejudice of whites leads to their purposive avoidance of black neighbors regardless of their SES, and that institutional and private discrimination constrains blacks locational attainment despite their socioeconomic gains, thereby perpetuating the social and spatial stratification that disadvantages blacks. This theory is at the center of the contested debate on the relative importance of race vs. class in determining residential outcomes of ethnic minorities (Alba and Logan 1993; Clark 2007; Denton 1996; Farley 1995; Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson 1978; Wilson 1987). If there is a substantial presence and growth of affluent suburban black neighborhoods, then the central argument that race effects are insurmountable would be weakened. Limitations in the Literature Indeed, as Maly (2000) noted, most studies of residential settlement use the metropolitan area as the unit of analysis with tract-level data often serving as building blocks to construct measures of segregation or integration for the entire metropolitan area. While this choice permits cross-sectional and temporal comparisons providing a general picture of what happens in our largest metropolitan areas in terms of racial segregation or integration, it cannot capture intraregional differences. Evidence from research on the metropolitan level is not always transferable to characterize smaller locales. For example, whereas studies of segregation generally find stability in index values of metropolises across time, residential patterns of racial/ethnic groups at the neighborhood level are far from static (Alba et al. 1995). Aggregate patterns may mask a strong trend only manifested at a lower scale. Only a handful of studies of residential settlement by race have used

432 Social Forces 88(1) the tract as the level of measurement, and few have directly addressed neighborhood change in key socio-demographic features at local levels (Alba et al. 1995; Brown and Chung 2006; Chung and Brown 2007; Clark and Blue 2004). A local approach is considered to be preferable in studies of racial segregation and integration because the neighborhood is an analytical unit more consistent with cultural and psychological definitions of urban space (Maly 2000:39), and also because richness in spatial variation is lost in research of global patterns in metropolitan areas as an aggregate phenomenon and can only be captured by research focusing on local areas (Brown and Chung 2006). A strong focus on large metropolitan areas has also led to our available evidentiary base of residential settlement by race largely confined to a limited number of urban settings. While more work has emerged to examine ethnic settlement in suburbia in recent years, attention is still heavily tilted towards large metropolises that are traditional immigrant gateways (e.g., New York, Los Angeles and Chicago) and more recent immigrant magnets (e.g., Phoenix and Houston). Smaller-sized metropolitan areas are less studied (Brown and Chung 2006), and rural areas are largely excluded from the picture. Given the rapid trend in ethnic expansion into non-urban and non-traditional areas (Alba et al. 1999; Brown et al. 2007; Logan 2004b; Skop forthcoming), an exclusive focus on urban or even suburban space is no longer sufficient; research that looks into residential settlement patterns beyond large metropolises and their peripheral space is warranted. Moreover, many studies on residential settlement by race have focused on the black-white contrast, with less attention to Hispanics and even less to Asian groups. Although there is a growing recognition that the black-white dichotomy is too limiting in today s multiethnic and multiracial urban America and researchers have increasingly incorporated these two newer and rapidly growing groups in analyses (Iceland 2004), most work that includes Asians and Hispanics does not disaggregate the Asian or Hispanic subgroups. A limited but solid body of literature highlights important variation in residential outcomes among national-origin groups within the same broad racial/ethnic category (Alba et al. 1999; Logan and Alba 1993; Massey and Bitterman 1985; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Waldinger and Bozorgmehr 1996), suggesting the importance of analyses that are sensitive to these differences (also see discussions in Charles 2003). Another deficit in the literature is how ethnic neighborhoods fare in terms of socio-demographic features that have proven prominent environmental factors influencing residents various life chances across the life course (Cagney et al. 2005; Kawachi and Berkman 2003; Sampson et al. 2002; Wen et al. 2003; Wen et al. 2007; Wen and Christakis 2006). While economic standing has been included in several studies at the tract level (Clark and Blue 2004; Clark and Ware 1997; Logan et al. 2002), a systematic account of other important features of ethnic neighborhoods is lacking.

The Current Research Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 433 The main purpose of this research is to provide a dynamic view of ethnic neighborhoods in America. First, we describe the change in the number and share of ethnic minority concentrated tracts among all ethnic tracts and all tracts for specific ethnic groups, listing combined metropolitan statistical areas that had the top three highest percentages of ethnic tracts from 1990 to 2000. Second, we compare differences in neighborhood socio-demographic profiles over time across groups. We then provide correlations among key census variables at the tract level for ethnic tracts. Next, we investigate trend in the suburbanization of ethnic neighborhoods from 1990 to 2000. Finally, we examine the socio-demographic characteristics of ethnoburbs, namely affluent suburban ethnic neighborhoods, for different racial/ethnic groups in 1990 and 2000. This analysis is unique in several ways. First, neighborhood, rather than metropolitan area, is the unit of analysis. Second, this is a nationwide study, including urban, suburban and exurban or rural areas across America that covers two time points 1990 and 2000. Third, rather than using aggregate homogenizing racial/ ethnic groups, we examine several of the largest subgroups within general categories of Asian race and Hispanic ethnicity. Fourth, in addition to information on minority composition, we provide a large set of additional variables to capture important socio-demographic features and trends of ethnic neighborhoods. The goal is to document the structural, demographic and cultural contexts of ethnic neighborhoods as places to live in order to gain a richer and more complete understanding of the varied residential patterns of racial/ethnic minorities and the processes of spatial assimilation/separation by race/ethnicity. Method Data We use the U.S. Census data STF3 in 1990 and SF3 in 2000 to analyze trend in characteristics of ethnic neighborhoods and their suburbanization. Because we are not conducting statistical testing in a longitudinal design, and thus have no need to link the 1990 data with the 2000 data, we did not reconcile the 1990 U.S. Census tract boundaries with the 2000 boundaries. 4 Racial/Ethnic Groups This analysis focuses on blacks, seven Asian subgroups Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Asians Indians, Vietnamese, Filipinos and Cambodians, and four Hispanic subgroups Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics. With more than 50 languages and dialects, Asians are the most diverse race category used in the U.S. Census. Subgroup-specific analysis is presumably more revealing because of variations among Asian groups in settlement patterns, a result of significant varia-

434 Social Forces 88(1) tion in timing of arrival and the amount of human, social and economic capital upon arrival (Zhou and Logan 1991). We also break down the Hispanic group because of previously reported intra-group variations in SES and segregation patterns among Hispanics (Massey and Bitterman 1985). Definition of Ethnic Neighborhood We define an ethnic neighborhood as a census tract with 25 percent or more of its residents belonging to a single ethnic minority group (i.e., seven Asian subgroups, four Hispanic subgroups and blacks). Certainly, this is but one of many possible criteria for defining an area as an ethnic neighborhood. 5 There is no conventional standard for defining ethnic neighborhoods, so choice is a heuristic one. Definition of Suburbs Suburb is not a standard census category. Because census tract boundaries are not neatly contiguous to city or metropolis boundaries, individual census data were used to calculate percentage of residents living in urban, suburban and exurban or rural areas. Individuals who lived within a city boundary are counted as urban, and those who lived inside metropolitan areas but outside central cities are categorized as suburban. Exurban and rural residents are grouped together. Through a special tabulation contract, the U.S. Census Bureau provided us with the percent suburban population in each census tract using the 100 percent individual census data (not publicly accessible). Although this measure is not without noise, mainly because metropolitan areas do include some rural spaces outside the central city, there is no alternative approach available (Alba et al. 1999). We define an area as suburban if 90 percent or more of its residents are considered suburban. The same criterion is also used to categorize urban and exurban or rural neighborhoods. Definition of Ethnoburbs Following Li s work (1998, 1999, 2006a, b), 6 we define ethnoburbs as ethnic neighborhoods where more than 90 percent of residents live in suburbs and where median household income is at the 75th percentile or higher among all census tracts nationwide. In other words, by this definition, ethnoburbs are affluent, suburban neighborhoods with a sizable presence of at least one racial/ethnic minority group (25 percent). Socio-demographic Measures We present the socio-demographic variables that are considered important markers of neighborhood SES and population characteristics relevant to immigrants and acculturation. Our tract measures include median household income, percent of affluent households with annual income of $50,000 or more in 1990 and

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 435 $75,000 or more in 2000, 7 percent of household living below the Federal Poverty Line (normalized by family size), percent of residents with at least some college education, percent of unemployed among people in the civilian labor force age 16 or older, percent of single-parent households, percent of foreign-born residents, percent of recent immigrants (immigrants who have lived in the United States for no more than 10 years), percent of renters and owners who lived in the same house five years ago, percent of linguistically isolated households, and percent of other racial/ethnic groups. The data presented in the tables describe the entire tract population rather than only the members of the specific group. We constructed an additional variable, ethnic heterogeneity (Sampson and Groves 1989) to tap the question whether there is increasing racial/ethnic complexity in ethnic neighborhoods throughout the country. The index of racial/ ethnic heterogeneity is: where p i is the fraction of the tract population in a given group. The index takes into account both the relative size and number of groups in the populations, with a score approaching one reflecting maximum heterogeneity, and a score of zero reflecting the presence of only one racial/ethnic group in the census tract. 8 The calculation of the index was based on non-hispanic whites, blacks, Asians/Pacific Islander, Hispanics, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and others. Because a wide income distribution was noted by Li (1998) as one of the characteristics of the Los Angeles Chinese ethnoburb, we also calculated the Gini coefficient for each census tract to capture economic heterogeneity within the neighborhood. Findings The Ethnic Neighborhood in the United States Table 1 shows the trend in the number and share of ethnic tracts and population counts for each racial/ethnic group. In 1990, there were 59,525 total tracts, of which 14,875 were ethnic tracts (24.99 percent of all tracts). In 2000, there were 64,956 tracts, of which 19,934 were ethnic tracts (30.69 percent of all tracts). The proportion of ethnic tracts increased 22.81 percent from 1990 to 2000. Group variations were remarkable. Some groups, including Chinese, Korean, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Mexican, Cuban and Other Hispanics, increased considerably in terms of spatial clustering relative to the increase in their share of the U.S. population, whereas Cambodians and Puerto Ricans substantially decreased in spatial clustering relative to their change in population share (see the last two columns of Table 1). For example, while the share of Chinese population in the United States only increased 34.85 percent, the share of Chinese tracts in all tracts increased 104.55 percent from 1990 to 2000. The case of Cubans was even more dramatic with a

436 Social Forces 88(1) Table 1: Number and Share of Ethnic Tracts and Counts of Ethnic Populations Ethnic Group Year Number of Ethnic Tracts Share in All Ethnic Tracts % Share in All Tracts % Population Counts Share in Total Population % % Change in Share in All Tracts % Change in Share in Total Population Japanese 1990 109.73.18 866,160.35 2000 99.50.15 796,700.29-16.67-17.14 Chinese 1990 131.88.22 1,648,696.66 2000 295 1.48.45 2,432,585.89 104.55 34.85 Korean 1990 10.07.02 797,304.32 2000 32.16.05 1,076,872.39 150.00 21.88 Asian Indian 1990 6.04.01 786,694.32 2000 19.10.03 1,678,765.61 200.00 96.3 Vietnamese 1990 10.07.02 593,213.24 2000 46.23.07 1,122,528.41 250.00 78.3 Filipino 1990 93.63.16 1,419,711.57 2000 116.58.18 1,850,314.67 12.50 17.54 Cambodian 1990 9.06.02 149,047.06 2000 7.04.01 171,937.06-50.00.00 Mexican 1990 3,191 21.45 5.36 13,393,208 5.39 2000 5,277 26.47 8.12 20,640,711 7.52 51.55 39.52 Cuban 1990 131.88.22 1,053,197.42 2000 557 2.79.86 1,241,685.45 291 7.14 Puerto Rican 1990 625 4.20 1.05 2,651,815 1.07 2000 165.83.25 3,406,178 1.24-76.19 15.89 Other Hispanic 1990 504 3.39.85 4,801,869 1.93 2000 1,246 6.25 1.92 10,017,244 3.65 125.88 89.12 Asian 1990 876 5.89 1.47 7,226,986 2.91 2000 1,537 7.71 2.37 10,641,833 3.88 61.22 33.33 Hispanic 1990 5,411 36.38 9.09 21,900,089 8.81 2000 9,117 45.74 14.04 35,305,818 12.86 54.46 45.97 Black 1990 9,634 64.77 16.18 29,930,524 12.03

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 437 Black 1990 9,634 64.77 16.18 29,930,524 12.03 2000 10,971 55.04 16.89 34,658,190 12.62 4.39 4.82 Notes: The U.S. population in 1990 was 248,709,973. In 2000, population counts for ethnic groups presented here were based on one race designation. The total population count of the United States in 2000 was 274,595,678. 291 percent increase in the share of Cuban tracts compared to a 7.14 percent increase in the share of Cuban Americans in the total population. Changes in the share of Japanese, Filipino and black tracts, -16.67 percent, 12.50 percent and 4.39 percent respectively, were more or less comparable to the changes in their population share, -17.14 percent, 17.54 percent and 4.82 percent respectively. Ethnic tracts were dominated by blacks (64.77 percent in 1990 and 55.04 percent in 2000) followed by Hispanics (36.38 percent in 1990 and 45.74 percent in 2000), with Asians constituting the smallest proportion among the three (5.89 percent in 1990 and 7.71 percent in 2000). The smaller share of black tracts in all ethnic tracts in 2000 compared to that in 1990 suggests that while black tracts decreased in share of all ethnic tracts and stagnated in share of all tracts, Asian and Hispanic tracts increased in both share in all ethnic tracts and share in all tracts. For example, although Asian tracts are still underrepresented in all tracts (1.47 percent in 1990 and 2.37 percent in 2000) given Asian population size (2.91 percent in 1990 and 3.88 percent in 2000), 9 Asian tracts as a whole experienced the fastest growth, with a 61.22 percent increase in their share in all tracts compared to a 33.33 percent increase in share of Asian population in the total U.S. population. Table 2 shows information about the geographic locations of ethnic tracts by listing the combined metropolitan statistical areas (as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget) with the top three highest percentages of ethnic tracts for each group. Ethnic tracts were clearly concentrated in traditional immigrant gateways around San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago. In addition, Honolulu was particularly concentrated with Japanese tracts in both years, and Miami and Tampa were particularly concentrated with Cubans. Vietnamese seemed to exhibit a national expansion. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Ethnic Neighborhoods Table 3 presents status of and trend in socio-demographic characteristics of ethnic neighborhoods from 1990 to 2000. In separate analysis, we performed principal component factor analysis of a wide range of socio-demographic variables aggregated to the tract level. We found in both census years median household income, percent of affluent households, percent of household living in poverty, percent of college educated residents, unemployment rate, percent of households on public assistance, and percent

438 Social Forces 88(1) Table 2: Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas with the Top Three Highest Percentages of Ethnic Tracts Japanese % 1990 3320 76.15 Honolulu, HI MSA*** 4472 6.42 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 5602 1.83 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 2000 3320 82.83 Honolulu, HI MSA 4472 7.07 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA Chinese 1990 7362 32.06 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 4472 26.72 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 5602 18.32 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 2000 7362 33.22 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 4472 29.83 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 5602 24.75 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA Korean 1990 4472 70.00 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 5602 30.00 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 2000 4472 68.75 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 5602 31.25 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA Asian Indian 1990 5602 50.00 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 1122 16.67 Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH CMSA 1602 16.67 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA 8840 16.67 Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA 2000 5602 63.16 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 7362 15.79 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 1602 10.53 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA Filipino 1990 3320 32.26 Honolulu, HI MSA 7362 27.96 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 4472 10.75 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 2000 3320 32.76 Honolulu, HI MSA 7362 29.31 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 7320 12.93 "San Diego, CA MSA" Vietnamese

Table 2 continued Vietnamese 1990 2000 Cambodian 1990 2000 Mexican 1990 Cuban 2000 Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 439 7362 40.00 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 4472 30.00 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 920 10.00 Biloxi-Gulfport, MS MSA 3362 10.00 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA 5560 10.00 New Orleans, LA MSA 4472 60.87 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 7362 23.91 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 920 2.17 Biloxi-Gulfport, MS MSA 1122 2.17 Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH CMSA 3362 2.17 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA 3760 2.17 Kansas City, MO-KS MSA 5560 2.17 New Orleans, LA MSA 7320 2.17 San Diego, CA MSA 7602 2.17 Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA CMSA 8120 33.33 Stockton, CA MSA 1122 22.22 Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH CMSA 4472 22.22 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 4472 28.57 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 1122 22.22 Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH CMSA 7602 14.29 Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA CMSA 4472 21.11 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 1602 5.83 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA 7240 4.83 San Antonio, TX MSA 4472 29.56 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 1602 6.44 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA 1922 4.43 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA 1990 4992 80.92 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA 5602 14.50 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 8280 2.29 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 2000 4992 95.15 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA 8280 2.42 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 5602 1.21 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ Puerto Rican

440 Social Forces 88(1) Table 2 continued Puerto Rican 1990 5602 68.96 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 1602 8.00 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA 6162 5.28 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA 2000 5602 59.78 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 6162 7.00 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA 1602 5.57 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA Other Hispanic 1990 5602 49.40 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 4472 14.09 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 200 4.56 Albuquerque, NM MSA 2000 5602 49.40 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 4472 14.09 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 200 4.56 Albuquerque, NM MSA Asian 1990 7362 22.03 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 4472 20.78 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 3320 19.06 Honolulu, HI MSA 2000 7362 24.66 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 4472 24.01 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 5602 19.13 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ Hispanic 1990 4472 21.01 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 5602 17.65 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 1602 5.47 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA 2000 4472 21.56 Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA 5602 13.48 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 1602 4.68 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA Black 1990 5602 11.64 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 1602 5.43 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA 2162 3.62 Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI CMSA 2000 5602 11.72 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA 8872 5.61 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA 1602 5.27 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA Notes: When CMSAs were tied in terms of the percentage of ethnic tracts and the percentage was one of the top three, all of them are listed.

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 441 of single-parent households constituted a strong factor with the absolute value of factor loadings ranging from.65 to.89. Therefore, we chose to present median household income as a representative marker of neighborhood SES. Percent of foreign born, percent of recent 10-year immigrants, and percent of linguistically isolated households constituted another distinct factor with factor loadings ranging from.86 to.98 in both years. We presented all three variables because they are immigrant- and minority-related census-based variables that are particularly revealing of key relevant demographic features of ethnic neighborhoods in America. Generally, Asian neighborhoods had the highest levels of SES measured by median household income, followed by Hispanic neighborhoods, and then by black neighborhoods. Due to their immigrant background, Asian and Hispanic neighborhoods had much higher percentages of foreign-born, recent immigrants, and linguistically isolated households than did black neighborhoods. Asian neighborhoods also had higher levels of ethnic heterogeneity (.57 in 1990 and.61 in 2000) than did Hispanic neighborhoods (.50 in 1990 and.51 in 2000) and black neighborhoods (.39 in 1990 and.43 in 2000). Meanwhile, Asian, Hispanic and black neighborhoods included similar proportions of whites. This suggests that although Asian and Hispanic neighborhoods were more diverse in general than black neighborhoods, as indicated by their higher values in the ethnic heterogeneity index, they were not much more integrated with whites. Note this pattern is not necessarily at odds with the general observation that Asians and Hispanics as individuals are more integrated with whites than blacks (Frey and Farley 1996). What we report here is a specific feature of ethnic neighborhoods the presence of whites and the results suggest that Asian- and Hispanic-concentrated neighborhoods have a comparable presence of whites than black-concentrated neighborhoods. However, variations within Asian or Hispanic subgroups were marked, pointing to the value of studying ethnic neighborhoods by specific Asian ethnicity and Hispanic nationality. For example, in 2000, Japanese neighborhoods had the highest median household income of all ethnic neighborhoods, whereas the second lowest level was found in Cambodian neighborhoods another Asian subgroup. Although Asian neighborhoods enjoyed relatively higher SES compared to other ethnic neighborhoods, they tended to be less stable, with slightly lower proportions of residents who lived in the same house for the past five years than national averages. This may partly reflect higher levels of immigrant concentration in the majority of Asian neighborhoods. Among the four Hispanic subgroups, Puerto Rican neighborhoods had the lowest median household income, which was also lower than that of black neighborhoods. Cuban neighborhoods had the highest median household income among Hispanic neighborhoods, but their income was still lower than that of most Asian neighborhoods except Korean and Cambodian neighborhoods. Cuban neighborhoods also had the highest level of immigrant concentration and linguistic isolation among Hispanic neighborhoods. Another distinctive feature of

442 Social Forces 88(1) Table 3a: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Ethnic Tracts Census Variables Year Japanese Chinese Korean Asian Indian Vietnamese Filipino Cambodian Mexican Median HH income ($) 1990 46,613 29,661 21,601 38,142 50,641 40,715 17,649 23,442 2000 60,104 51,025 37,636 55,980 49,622 57,458 28,807 34,001 Foreign born (%) 1990 14 50 65 46 37 35 40 25 2000 16 50 63 53 50 39 41 30 Recent 10-year immigrants (%) 1990 5 28 45 25 18 15 34 13 2000 5 20 28 32 23 13 15 13 Linguistically isolated (%) 1990 8 28 36 8 15 11 22 17 2000 7 26 37 12 25 11 25 17 1990 61 53 40 40 42 52 39 50 Percent of residents who lived in the same house 5 years ago 2000 65 58 46 42 51 60 48 50 Percent of Asians Percent of Hispanics Percent of blacks Percent of whites Ethnic heterogeneity Economic heterogeneity 1990 70 52 41 50 43 57 39 4 2000 61 52 49 45 47 54 43 5 1990 5 15 29 12 12 17 18 56 2000 6 16 29 12 25 16 24 60 1990 1 4 8 12 7 5 7 7 2000 1 4 5 9 5 6 9 8 1990 23 28 21 24 38 20 34 31 2000 17 27 17 25 22 13 22 26 1990.42.53.62.51.58.52.62.47 2000.48.57.60.66.63.55.65.48 1990.37.42.4.28.32.36.39.39 2000.37.41.42.36.38.36.38.39 1990 109 131 10 6 10 93 9 3,191 Total number of ethnic census tracts 2000 99 295 32 19 46 116 7 5,277 Notes: This scale was based on percentages of six racial/ethnic groups in the census tract. The higher the score, the higher level of ethnic diversity in the census tract. Economic heterogeneity, namely, income inequality, was measured by the Gini Coefficients. The higher the value, the more unequal the distribution of the household income in the tract.

Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi-Ethnic America 443 Table 3b: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Ethnic Tracts Census Variables Year Cuban Puerto Rican Other Hispanic Pan-Asian Pan-Hispanic Black National Median HH income ($) Foreign born (%) Recent 10-year immigrants (%) Linguistically isolated (%) 1990 27,169 18,442 22,301 36,549 24,151 21,124 30,821 2000 39,011 24,291 31,166 53,593 34,951 30,561 44,249 1990 62 19 40 35 26 6 7 2000 63 21 39 41 29 9 10 1990 25 11 24 19 13 3 3 2000 21 10 18 17 13 4 4 1990 35 21 27 16 17 3 3 2000 34 20 24 17 16 4 4 1990 50 55 51 49 50 56 55 Percent of residents who lived in the same house 5 years ago 2000 53 54 53 53 51 55 55 Percent of Asians Percent of Hispanics Percent of blacks Percent of whites Ethnic heterogeneity Economic heterogeneity 1990.7 3 6 45 5 1 2 2000 1 3 5 42 5 2 3 1990 76 57 62 16 51 7 8 2000 79 58 65 17 52 9 11 1990 3 22 10 6 11 62 13 2000 4 24 11 6 11 60 14 1990 20 17 21 32 33 30 76 2000 16 16 18 30 30 28 69 1990.33.51.47.57.50.39.23 2000.31.52.46.61.51.43.30 1990.41.42.40.38.39.41.39 2000.40.42.41.39.39.41.38 1990 131 625 504 876 5,411 9,634 59,525 Total number of ethnic census tracts 2000 165 557 1,246 1,537 9,117 10,971 64,956 Notes: Pan Asian refers to neighborhoods that had 25% or more Asian residents regardless of their specific Asian ethnicities. Pan Hispanic refers to neighborhoods that had 25% or more Hispanic residents regardless of their specific Hispanic ethnicities. This scale was based on percentages of six racial/ethnic groups in the census tract. The higher the score, the higher level of ethnic diversity in the census tract. Economic heterogeneity, namely, income inequality, was measured by the Gini Coefficients. The higher the value, the more unequal the distribution of the household income in the tract.